Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Can Tim Ryan save Democrats? The working-class-jobs candidate in the era of resentment

Tim Ryan is a “crazy, lying fraud.” That’s how J.D. Vance, the bestselling memoirist turned Republican Senate candidate from Ohio, opened his remarks at a September rally alongside Donald Trump in the middle of the congressional district Ryan has represented for two decades.

Ryan seems like an unlikely object of such caustic rhetoric. A 49-year-old former college-football quarterback, he is the paragon of affability, a genial Everyman whose introductory campaign video is so innocuous that it might easily be mistaken for an insurance commercial. His great passion, outside of politics, is yoga and mindfulness practice.

“We have to love each other, we have to care about each other, we have to see the best in each other, we have to forgive each other,” he declared when he won the Democratic Senate primary in May.

He isn’t just preaching kindness and forgiveness. For years, he has warned his fellow Democrats that their embrace of free trade and globalization would cost them districts like the one he represents in the Mahoning River Valley — and lobbied them to prioritize domestic manufacturing, which, he argued, could repair some of the damage.

His efforts went nowhere. Ryan failed in his bid to replace Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader in 2016. His presidential run in 2020 ended with barely a trace. And his opponent, Vance, was expected to coast to victory this year in a state that Trump carried twice by 8 points.

But things haven’t gone as predicted. Ryan is running close enough in the polls that a political action committee aligned with Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, has had to commit $28 million to keep the seat (now held by Rob Portman, who is retiring), and Vance has had to ratchet up his rhetorical attacks against this “weak, fake congressman.”

After years of being overlooked, Tim Ryan is pointing his party toward a path to recovery in the Midwest. On the campaign trail, he has embraced a unifying tone that stands out from the crassness and divisiveness that Trump and his imitators have wrought. A significant number of what he calls the “exhausted majority” of voters have responded gratefully.

And his core message — a demand for more aggressive government intervention to arrest regional decline — is not only resonating with voters but, crucially, breaking through with the Democratic leaders who presided over that decline for years. The Democrats have passed a burst of legislation that will pave the way for two new Intel chip plants in the Columbus exurbs, spur investment in new electric vehicle ventures in Ryan’s district and benefit solar-panel factories around Toledo, giving him, at long last, concrete examples to cite of his party rebuilding the manufacturing base in which the region took such pride.

In short, the party is doing much more of what Ryan has long said would save its political fortunes in the Midwest. The problem for him — and also for them — is that it may have come too late.

Tim Ryan was not always so alone in Congress. Manufacturing regions of the Northeast and Midwest used to produce many other Democrats like him, often with white-ethnic Catholic, working-class backgrounds and strong ties to organized labor. (Ryan’s family is Irish and Italian, and both his grandfather and great-grandfather worked in the steel mills.) One particularly notorious example of the type was James Traficant, who represented the Mahoning Valley in highly eccentric fashion and‌ served seven years in prison after a 2002 conviction on charges that included soliciting bribes and racketeering‌‌. That le‌‌ft his young former staff member — Tim Ryan — to win the seat at age 29.

A few stalwarts remain: Marcy Kaptur, whose mother was a union organizer at a spark plug plant, will likely hold her Toledo-area House seat after her MAGA opponent lied about his military record. And Sherrod Brown, whose upbringing in hard-hit Mansfield and generally disheveled affect has lent authenticity to his own progressive populism (never mind the fact that he’s a doctor’s son and has a Yale degree), has survived two Senate reelections thanks to his personal appeal and weak opponents.

But nearly all the rest have vanished. Many of them fell victim to the Democratic wipeout in 2010. Others succumbed to the extreme Republican gerrymandering that followed. But central to their disappearance was the economic decline of the communities they represented, which was on a scale that remains hard for many in more prosperous pockets of the country to grasp.

In the first decade of this century, after Bill Clinton signed NAFTA in 1993 and ushered China into the World Trade Organization in 2000, so many manufacturing businesses closed in Ohio — about 3,500, nearly a fifth of the total — that its industrial electricity consumption fell by more than a quarter. Ryan’s district was among the most ravaged. By 2010, the population of Youngstown had fallen 60% from its 1930 peak, and it ranked among the poorest cities in the country.

For the Democrats representing these devastated areas, the fallout was enormous. “We were always supposed to be the party of working people, and so those rank-and-file union members kept getting crushed, and jobs kept leaving, and their unions and the Democrats weren’t able to do anything for them,” said Ryan, when I met with him in August, after an event he held at a substance abuse treatment program in Zanesville. Democratic candidates were also putting their attention elsewhere, on social issues, and voters noticed.

Ryan is determined not to make the same mistake. “You want culture wars?” he asks in one TV ad, while throwing darts in a bar. “I’m not your guy. You want a fighter for Ohio? I’m all in.”

In the 2000s, as Ryan saw his band of like-minded Democrats dwindle, he started looking for answers, and he found some of them at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, a small advocacy group founded in 2007 to promote American manufacturing and agriculture.

The group’s theory is fairly straightforward: The “free trade” that has been so ruinous to manufacturing regions like the Mahoning Valley has been anything but free, given all the various forms of support that other nations provide their own industries. The group has been lobbying members of both parties to consider explicit support for U.S. producers, whether in the form of tariffs or subsidies, even if it means brushing up against World Trade Organization rules.

For years, the Coalition for a Prosperous America and its allies in Congress ran up against free-trade orthodoxy. But growing alarm over climate change, the breakdown of global supply chains during the pandemic and Russia’s war against Ukraine have brought a stunning turnaround. The Inflation Reduction Act includes many of the kinds of policies that Ryan and CPA have championed, including refundable tax credits for solar-panel production, a 15% alternative minimum tax for corporations and requirements that electric vehicles have North American-made parts to qualify for consumer tax credits. This month, the Biden administration announced major new tech-export controls aimed at China, with the U.S. trade representative, Katherine Tai, declaring that free trade “cannot come at the cost of further weakening our supply chains.”

It’s a vindication for Ryan and his former House allies, such as Tom Perriello, who represented south-central Virginia between 2009 and 2011.

“The elite echo chamber assumed away all the human costs” of globalization, said Perriello, instead of realizing industries needed to be helped to save middle-class jobs.

Still, the shift has come only after tremendous economic losses for places like the Mahoning Valley and political losses for the Democrats. In the 2020 presidential election, Democrats lost white voters without college degrees by 26 percentage points nationwide, and their margins among working-class Black and Hispanic voters shrank, too. They lost Mahoning County, once a Democratic stronghold, for the first time since 1972.

“For the most part, people lost jobs here and Washington wasn’t doing anything for them,” said David Betras, the former chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party. “And then Trump came along and he said, ‘Hey, they screwed you.’ People thought: ‘At least he sees me. He’s giving me water.'” It might be contaminated water, as Betras noted, “but at least it’s water.”

Ryan’s attempt to point his party in a different direction in the Midwest is still running up against resistance, even as he has drawn close to Vance in the polls. The first ad released by Ryan’s campaign, in April, is Exhibit A.

Wearing an untucked shirt, he delivers a barrage against the threat presented by China: “It is us versus China and instead of taking them on, Washington’s wasting our time on stupid fights. … China is out-manufacturing us left and right. … America can never be dependent on Communist China. … It is time for us to fight back. … We need to build things in Ohio by Ohio workers.”

By the standards of the Ohio Senate race of 2022, it was pretty mild stuff. At an April rally with Trump, after completing his extreme pivot from Trump critic to acolyte, Vance lashed out at “corrupt scumbags who take their marching orders from the Communist Chinese.” But the Ryan ad nonetheless got opprobrium from Asian Americans, who said it risked fueling anti-Asian sentiment.

Irene Lin, a Democratic strategist based in Ohio, found that remarkable. “It’s so weird that he runs an ad attacking China, and people say, ‘You sound like Trump.’ Tim’s been attacking China for decades! Trump co-opted it from us and we need to take it back, because Trump is a complete fraud on this.”

Still, the episode underscored Ryan’s conundrum: how to match Trump and Vance when it comes to the decline of Ohio manufacturing without offending allies within the liberal Democratic coalition.

When I asked Ryan in Zanesville how he would distinguish his own views from those of Vance, he insisted it would not be difficult. For one thing, he noted, Vance has attacked a core element of the industrial policy that Ryan sees as key to reviving Ohio: electric vehicle subsidies. At the Mahoning rallies, Vance ridiculed them as giveaways for the elites, which, as Ryan sees it, overlooks the hundreds of workers who now have jobs at the old Lordstown General Motors plant in the Mahoning Valley, building electric cars, trucks and tractors as part of a new venture led by the Taiwanese company Foxconn, and at a large battery plant across the street.

“He’s worried about losing the internal-combustion auto jobs — dude, where’ve you been?” Ryan asked. “Those jobs are going. That factory was empty.”

Less than two months after Ryan’s anti-culture war ad, the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling on abortion, bolstering Democrats’ prospects with moderate voters of the sort who help decide elections in places like suburban Columbus — and making it harder for Ryan to avoid hot-button social issues. He calls the ruling “the largest governmental overreach into personal lives in my lifetime,” but his continued focus on economic issues shows that he believes that’s not enough to win an election. Recent polls suggest he may be right.

Ryan was in the Columbus suburbs on the evening after we spoke in Zanesville, but he was there to discuss the China ad, not abortion. At an event hosted by local Asian American associations, a few women told Ryan how hurtful they had found the ad. He answered in a conciliatory tone but did not apologize.

The ad, he said, was directed at the Chinese government, not Asian or Asian American people, and the things in it needed saying. “I got nothing but love in my heart. I have no hate in my heart,” he said, but the United States needed to rise to meet China’s aggressive trade policies. In Youngstown, Chinese steel would “land on our shore so subsidized, that it was the same price as the raw material cost for an American company before they even turn the lights on. That is what they have been doing.”

“That is not in your ad,” said one of the women. “You need to put those things in your ad.”

“I just want to make a point,” Ryan said. “One is, I love you. Two is, I will always defend you and never let anyone try to hurt you, never. Not on my watch. But we have got to absolutely and decisively defeat China economically. And if we don’t do that, you’re going to have these countries dictating the rules of the road for the entire world and continuing to try to displace and weaken the United States.”

Watching Ryan, I was struck by what a delicate balancing act he was trying to pull off. He was, on the one hand, the last of a breed, a son of steel country with two public college degrees (Bowling Green State University and the University of New Hampshire) in a party increasingly dominated by professionals with elite degrees.

But he was trying to adapt to today’s liberal coalition, too, with his soft-edged rhetoric and, yes, the mindfulness stuff, which Vance has lampooned. (“You know Tim Ryan has not one but two books on yoga and meditation?” he said at the September rally with Trump.)

There were other models on the ballot this fall for how Democrats might seek to win in the Midwest: Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan running for reelection on abortion rights, John Fetterman running for Senate in Pennsylvania on his unique brand of postindustrial authenticity, Mandela Barnes running for Senate in Wisconsin as an avatar of youthful diversity.

But Ryan’s bid may have the most riding on it, because it is based on substantive disagreements within the party about how to rebuild the middle class and the middle of the country. For years, too many leading Democrats stood by as the wrenching transformation of the economy devastated communities, while accruing benefits to a small set of highly prosperous cities, mostly on the coasts, that became the party’s gravitational center. It was so easy to disregard far-off desolation — or to take only passing note of it, counting the dollar stores as one happened to traverse areas of decline — until Trump’s victory brought it to the fore.

With its belated embrace of the industrial policy advocated by Ryan, the Democratic Party seems finally to be reckoning with this failure. It means grappling with regional decline, because not everyone can relocate to prosperous hubs, and even if they did, it wouldn’t necessarily help the Democrats in a political system that favors the geographic dispersal of party voters.

It means recognizing the emotional power of made-in-America patriotism, which can serve to neuter the uglier aspects of the opposition’s anti-immigrant appeals. And it means transcending the culture-war incitements offered up by the likes of Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.

The approach may well fall short this time in Ohio, because Ryan’s party has let so much terrain slip out of its hands. But even so, it showed what might have been, all along, and might yet be again, if a region can begin to recover, and the resentment can begin to recede.

Do transgender men and nonbinary people need to stop testosterone therapy during pregnancy?

When I talk about our research team’s work on pregnancy in transgender people, people often recall Thomas Beatie, a pregnant man who appeared on “Oprah” and in People magazine in 2008. The media focus on Beatie and his pregnancy provoked public fascination that tended to overshadow the everyday lived realities of being pregnant as a trans person.

Transgender people, as opposed to cisgender people, have a gender identity that is different from the gender they were assigned at birth. Some may go on hormone therapy to help align their body with their gender identity. Like most trans men, Beatie went off testosterone during his pregnancy because it was medically advised as standard practice. But testosterone therapy is often essential to the mental and physical health of many trans men as well as some nonbinary people whose genders don’t fit within the categories of man or woman. What is the experience of pausing treatment like for them? Why do medical guidelines recommend going off testosterone?

As a sociologist who studies sex, gender and sexuality, and trans experiences of family, health and well-being, these questions piqued my interest. I work with an international team of researchers on a project about trans men and nonbinary people’s experiences of pregnancy. We interviewed 70 trans and nonbinary people who were either currently or intending to become pregnant, as well as 22 health care providers specializing in working with these communities, across seven countries.

Testosterone therapy

While testosterone is widely considered a “male hormone,” all people produce testosterone. Physicians consider a wide range of testosterone levels to be “normal.”

Many transgender and nonbinary people take testosterone as part of their mental and physical health care. Testosterone therapy often results in a more masculine appearance through facial hair and muscle growth, fat redistribution and lowered vocal pitch.

In addition to physical changes, many of our study participants spoke of positive mental health improvements while on testosterone therapy, including feeling calmer, balanced and more fully themselves – sometimes for the first times in their lives. This is a common finding across research on hormone therapy and trans and nonbinary people.

While there’s no universal dosing protocol for trans or nonbinary people undergoing testosterone therapy, the Endocrine Society’s treatment guidelines recommend supplementing testosterone until blood ranges fall within those for cisgender men. By basing clinical standards on cisgender men, these guidelines can reproduce sex and gender binaries that may not fit with actual desires of many trans and nonbinary people. Some resist this prescriptive medical model by microdosing testosterone, with or without health care provider support.

Testosterone and pregnancy

When my team and I analyzed our research interviews, we learned that the health care providers in our study typically told their trans patients to stop testosterone therapy either six months before trying to get pregnant or immediately upon becoming aware of pregnancy. They also advised continuing to withhold testosterone therapy until either after birth or stopping chestfeeding (nursing their babies). This could mean a pause in testosterone therapy for up to two years.

Why do doctors tell trans and nonbinary patients to stop testosterone therapy during pregnancy?

Is It Worth It? from Chella Man on Vimeo.

Trans artist Chella Man weighed the decision of stopping testosterone therapy during pregnancy in a 2022 performance piece.

The health care providers we interviewed expressed concerns about patients continuing testosterone while pregnant or chestfeeding. When we asked them what risks they were most concerned about, they often noted that there is either not enough or inconclusive research on using supplemental testosterone during pregnancy. Despite this, nearly all of the providers we interviewed routinely advised patients to pause testosterone therapy without reservation.

Some providers compared continuing testosterone therapy during pregnancy to illicit drug use during pregnancy, perceiving it as a future risk to the child. Others suggested that testosterone use during pregnancy is selfish because it prioritizes the parent’s own health and well-being in the present over the potential health and well-being of their child in the future. Some providers even suggested that trans and nonbinary patients shouldn’t have children if they are unwilling or unable to pause testosterone therapy during pregnancy.

In contrast, the trans men and nonbinary people we interviewed described grappling with difficult and weighty decisions around pausing testosterone during pregnancy. These decisions often involved choosing between their own mental health and well-being against the potential health and well-being of their child. As one participant described their experience going off testosterone during pregnancy:

“My lows were miserable, depressed, to the point of suicidal. … I knew that going back on testosterone would help. I didn’t really know whether [my doctor] would be happy to re-prescribe me testosterone … and there was a fear there that it would be withheld from me … that they were going to say, ‘Well, sorry, you came off it, you’re not getting it back.'”

PCOS and producing ‘normal’ children

Despite it being fairly standard medical advice, there remains relatively scant empirical evidence guiding the practice of pausing testosterone therapy for trans men and nonbinary people during pregnancy and chestfeeding. There is also currently no published work on microdosing testosterone during pregnancy.

Instead, much of the medical literature on the potential developmental effects of “excess androgen” exposure in the womb focuses on pregnant people with polycystic ovary syndrome who have testosterone levels that generally fall between those for cisgender women and men. These studies center on the likelihood of the baby later developing intersex conditions, or having biological traits that do not fit binary definitions of male or female characteristics; later self-identification as lesbian or trans; metabolic and cardiovascular dysfunction, such as obesity; and neuropsychiatric disorders, such as autism and attention-deficit disorder. Most of these concerns have involved children categorized as female at birth.

People with polycystic ovary syndrome, however, are not routinely placed on testosterone blockers during pregnancy or discouraged from feeding their infants milk they produce.

Pursuing parenthood as a trans person in an anti-LGBTQ environment comes with many challenges.

In my review of our interviews and the medical literature, I became increasingly concerned that this focus on producing “normal” children fails to attend to both natural human diversity in cognitive processing, bodies and identities, and the mental health of trans and nonbinary parents. It may also echo eugenicist policies that attempt to eliminate human characteristics and communities that society deems inferior or bad. But people from these communities have done a great deal of work over the past several decades to ensure they are granted equal rights and protections.

Paradoxically, the desire to protect offspring from testosterone exposure during pregnancy and chestfeeding may become a method to prevent the reproduction of some of the very same characteristics held by trans and nonbinary parents themselves. As one participant noted:

“There’s a bunch of research around androgen exposure in utero and intersex conditions. … I did have complex feelings around working hard to not have an intersex child. … As someone who is a gender ‘other,’ to work hard to not create a different body that is a gender ‘other’ feels weird. It feels hypocritical.”

Moving beyond one-size-fits-all

While concerns about “androgen excess” during pregnancy for trans men and nonbinary people parallel those for people with polycystic ovary syndrome, doctors treat these cases differently. This discrepancy in clinical approach indicates that there may be other pathways forward that don’t require stopping testosterone therapy completely.

I believe that careful attention to the physical and mental health and well-being of trans and nonbinary people before, during and after pregnancy is long overdue in medicine. Instead of approaching testosterone therapy during pregnancy as a binary yes/no question or a one-size-fits-all standard, investigating how various dosages of testosterone may affect all stages of pregnancy and chestfeeding could lead to better outcomes for both trans parents and their children.


Carla A. Pfeffer, Associate Professor of Social Work, Affiliate Faculty in Sociology and the Center for Gender in Global Context, and Director of the Consortium for Sexual and Gender Minority Health, Michigan State University

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

Mapping ancient humans’ DNA is showing us how we evolved — and how their DNA affects us today

When the first modern humans arose in East Africa sometime between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago, the world was very different compared to today. Perhaps the biggest difference was that we — meaning people of our species, Homo sapiens — were only one of several types of humans (or hominins) that simultaneously existed on Earth.

From the well-known Neanderthals and more enigmatic Denisovans in Eurasia, to the diminutive “hobbit” Homo floresiensis on the island of Flores in Indonesia, to Homo naledi that lived in South Africa, multiple hominins abounded.

Then, between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago, all but one type of these hominins disappeared, and for the first time we were alone.

Until recently, one of the mysteries about human history was whether our ancestors interacted and mated with these other types of humans before they went extinct. This fascinating question was the subject of great and often contentious debates among scientists for decades, because the data needed to answer this question simply didn’t exist. In fact, it seemed to many that the data would never exist.

Svante Pääbo, however, paid little attention to what people thought was or was not possible. His persistence in developing tools to extract, sequence and interpret ancient DNA enabled sequencing the genomes of Neanderthals, Denisovans and early modern humans who lived over 45,000 years ago.

For developing this new field of paleogenomics, Pääbo was awarded the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. This honor is not only well-deserved recognition for Pääbo’s triumphs, but also for evolutionary genomics and the insights it can contribute toward a more comprehensive understanding of human health and disease.

Mixing and mating, revealed by DNA

Genetic studies of living people over the past several decades revealed the general contours of human history. Our species arose in Africa, dispersing out from that continent around 60,000 years ago, ultimately spreading to nearly all habitable places on Earth. Other types of humans existed as modern humans migrated throughout the world, but the genetic data showed little evidence that modern humans mated with other hominins.

Over the past decade, however, the study of ancient DNA, recovered from fossils up to around 400,000 years old, has revealed startling new twists and turns in the story of human history.

For example, the Neanderthal genome provided the data necessary to definitively show that humans and Neanderthals mated. Non-African people alive today inherited about 2% of their genomes from Neanderthal ancestors, thanks to this kind of interbreeding.

In one of the biggest surprises, when Pääbo and his colleagues sequenced ancient DNA obtained from a small finger bone fragment that was assumed to be Neanderthal, it turned out to be an entirely unknown type of human, now called Denisovans. Humans and Denisovans also mated, with the highest levels of Denisovan ancestry present today — between 4% and 6% — in individuals of Oceanic ancestry.

Strikingly, ancient DNA from a 90,000-year-old female revealed that she had a Neanderthal mother and a Denisovan father. Although there are still many unanswered questions, the picture emerging from analyses of ancient and modern DNA is that not only did multiple hominins overlap in time and space, but that matings were relatively common.

Archaic genes you carry today

Estimating the proportion of ancestry that modern individuals have from Neanderthals or Denisovans is certainly interesting. But ancestry proportions provide limited information about the consequences of these ancient matings.

For instance, does DNA inherited from Neanderthals and Denisovans influence biological functions that occur within our cells? Does this DNA influence traits like eye color or susceptibility to disease? Were DNA sequences from our evolutionary cousins ever beneficial, helping humans adapt to new environments?

To answer these questions, we need to identify the bits of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA scattered throughout the genomes of modern individuals.

In 2014, my group and David Reich’s group independently published the first maps of Neanderthal sequences that survive in the DNA of modern humans. Today, roughly 40% of the Neanderthal genome has been recovered not by sequencing ancient DNA recovered from a fossil, but indirectly by piecing together the Neanderthal sequences that persist in the genomes of contemporary individuals.

Similarly, in 2016 my group and David Reich’s group published the first comprehensive catalogs of DNA sequences in modern individuals inherited from Denisovan ancestors. Surprisingly, when we analyzed the Denisovan sequences that persist in people today, we discovered they came from two distinct Denisovan populations, and therefore at least two separate waves of matings occurred between Denisovans and modern humans.

The analysis of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in modern humans reveals that some of their sequence was harmful and rapidly got purged from human genomes. In fact, the initial fraction of Neanderthal ancestry in humans who lived approximately 45,000 years ago was around 10%. That amount rapidly declined over a small number of generations to the 2% observed in contemporary individuals.

The removal of deleterious archaic sequences also created large regions of the human genome that are significantly depleted of both Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry. These deserts of archaic hominin sequences are interesting because they may help identify genetic changes that contribute to uniquely modern human traits, such as our capacity for language, symbolic thought and culture, although there is debate about just how unique these traits are to modern humans.

In contrast, there are also sequences inherited from Neanderthals and Denisovans that were advantageous, and helped modern humans adapt to new environments as they dispersed out of Africa. Neanderthal versions of several immune-related genes have risen to high frequency in several non-African populations, which likely helped humans fend off exposure to new pathogens. Similarly, a version of the EPAS1 gene, which contributes to high-altitude adaptation in Tibetan populations, was inherited from Denisovans.

It is also becoming clear that DNA sequences inherited from Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors contribute to the burden of disease in present day individuals. Neanderthal sequences have been shown to influence both susceptibility to and protection against severe COVID-19. Archaic hominin sequences have also been shown to influence susceptibility to depression, Type 2 diabetes and celiac disease among others. Ongoing studies will undoubtedly reveal more about how Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry contributes to human disease.

I was a graduate student when the Human Genome Project was nearing completion a little over two decades ago. I was drawn to genetics because I found it fascinating that, by analyzing the DNA of present-day individuals, you could learn aspects about a population’s history that occurred tens of thousands of years ago.

Today, I am just as fascinated by the stories contained in our DNA, and the work of Svante Pääbo and his colleagues has enabled these stories to be told in a way that simply was not possible before.


Joshua Akey, Professor at the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University

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

Is the GOP still a legitimate political party? The answer should be self-evident

The Associated Press published a story last week about how the fringe has become the mainstream in the Republican Party. The headline says it all: “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Rises From GOP Fringe to Front.”

The backstory here is fascinating and grim.

The GOP is no longer a normal political party with a single governing philosophy: instead, it’s become a coalition of interest groups, each seeking its own ends. 

How did we get here, and where will this crisis of political governance lead America?

It all started with the billionaires. Of course, back then they were merely worth hundreds of millions, but in today’s dollars they were billionaires even in the 1950s.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote about them in a letter to his right-wing brother Edgar in 1954, the middle of his presidency. 

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

What Eisenhower never anticipated, however, was that five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court would rule that billionaires buying off politicians was mere “free speech” rather than political corruption and bribery. Had he lived to see it happen (he died in 1969), he would have been shocked to his core.

Today those right-wing extremist billionaires have an outsized influence in the GOP. They’re pouring hundreds of millions into this fall’s elections, and every Republican politician must bow to them and their low-tax, no-regulation desires to gain or hold political office. Cross them and you’re toast in GOP politics.

But billionaires aren’t enough to make a political party and win elections so, when the GOP put itself up for sale in 1978 after Lewis Powell wrote the decision in the Bellotti Supreme Court case allowing that, the Republicans around Reagan pulled together a coalition of voters large enough to win elections. They are:

  • 1. Southern white racists. This was, for the GOP, low-hanging fruit. A group identified in the 1960s by the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns, Kevin Phillips told the New York Times in 1970 how it would work:

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that… The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

  • 2. Homophobes and misogynists. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s this group was actively courted by right-wing hate radio hosts like Limbaugh with his “Hillary Clinton Testicle Lockbox” and “Feminazi” slurs. There are enough men insecure about their own sexuality that hating on women and queer folk became a popular sport, particularly as the women’s and gay rights movements gained steam during that era.
  • 3. Lower-middle-class working white people. This was the result of genius branding largely promoted by Lee Atwater back in the day. Exploit the brands of NASCAR, the NFL and country music, which were reliably Democratic until the 1980s, causing working-class white people to think the GOP was their home.
  • 4. Upper-middle-class white people. Ironically, this is the group that’s been most badly screwed by Republican tax policies, but they vote reliably Republican in any case. While billionaires pay only around 3% income taxes these days because of loopholes they paid Republicans to drill into law, people like surgeons making a few hundred thousand a year often pay 50% or more in taxes. Which, of course, makes them all the more vulnerable to the GOP’s tax-cut mantra, even if this group typically only gets a small slice of the cuts.
  • 5. Authoritarian followers. This group has blossomed since the Trump campaign of 2016. These are people openly skeptical of democracy, instead wanting a strong father figure to lead them and tell them how to think, act, and vote. They make up the majority of the Jan. 6 traitors (although there’s a lot of overlap with the racists), and are ready to follow the next authoritarian leader who replaces Trump (a position for which Ron DeSantis, Josh Hawley, Rick Scott, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz are competing).

Because the GOP has no unifying philosophy other than hate, fear, and kowtowing to billionaires and their giant corporations, the politicians who make up its governing class are similarly fractured.

Neoliberalism was their uniting philosophy in 1980 and Reagan cemented that system into place with his presidency: It still controls most of the American political and economic system and dictates most modern Supreme Court decisions as well.

But while most people don’t generally recognize the word “neoliberalism,” that system which includes offshoring jobs, massive tax cuts for the rich (“trickle-down”), privatization of government functions and gutting the social safety net has fallen out of favor among most voters. (See “The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America.“)


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


This has left the GOP rudderless. Their persistent shout-outs to racists and homophobes — including efforts to ban books and the teaching of American history — have helped Republican politicians win primary elections, but have hurt Republicans electorally with their better-educated and higher income voters.

Similarly, their embrace of Catholic anti-abortion doctrine has pushed away many formerly Republican female voters while failing to further energize or increase the numbers of the fringe that holds this issue with fanatic zeal.

As a result, other than Sen. Rick Scott’s proposals for ending Social Security and Medicare within five years and more calls for tax cuts, Republican politicians in state and federal office have been reduced to simply opposing everything Democrats do or want to do.

Republicans are now so devoted to reflexively opposing anything Democrats embrace that they literally led hundreds of thousands of their own followers to their deaths by ridiculing masks and vaccines during the worst pandemic in more than a century.

This lack of a clear ideological foundation across the GOP has opened the door to:

  • Predatory grifters (Mehmet Oz, Matt Gaetz, Rick Scott),
  • Wannabe stars and fame-seekers (Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Ted Cruz) and
  • Putin-style autocrats (Blake Masters, Doug Mastriano, Ron DeSantis).

Donald Trump, filling all three categories simultaneously, predictably became the “King of the Thieves” in the GOP. Those who aspire to replace him are discovering it’s a damn hard act to follow, making Republican voters even more vulnerable to each of those three GOP factions.

With Trump in crisis and not on the ballot this year, the democracy-hating autocrats in the group are offering everybody else a simple formula for holding onto their wealth, fame and power: Rig elections. 

While the idea would have been blasphemous just a few decades ago even in GOP circles (which accounts for the Lincoln Project-type Republican defectors), it’s now embraced across what’s left of the party.

When the Supreme Court legalized voter roll purges in 2018, every Republican-controlled state jumped on the bandwagon. 

Estimates for the number of Democratic voters who’ll discover themselves purged from the rolls this fall range from a low of 3 million to a high of 15 million (10 million is probably a reasonable guess). Democratic voters in Texas, Georgia, Ohio and Arizona will be hit particularly hard.

Republicans are now so rudderless, and so devoted to reflexively opposing anything Democrats embrace, that they literally led hundreds of thousands of their own followers to their deaths by ridiculing masks and vaccines.

While Democrats have devoted themselves to registering people to vote for decades, Republicans have been persistently removing voters from the rolls with no consequence whatsoever. Having discarded democracy from your governing philosophy makes rationalizing such behavior not only easy but attractive.

So where will this lead the GOP and America?

Some argue that America today is much like Italy in 1929 or Germany in 1934, but both Mussolini and Hitler had clear governing philosophies. Both countries were united by their leaders around a genuine (if toxic) sort of nationalism.

But it’s a highly imperfect analogy. 

Both autocrats expanded the social safety net in both countries (including free university and free health care), and began massive public works projects like Germany’s autobahn and Italy’s infamous on-time train system.

By 1938 Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine for a second time and was arguably the most popular politician in the history of Germany. Mussolini engendered a similarly fanatical following.

Neither leader would have countenanced party members embracing foreign leaders, like the 57 House and 11 Senate Republicans who openly rejected aid to Ukraine and instead embraced Vladimir Putin.

The simple reality is that today’s GOP, having abandoned Eisenhower’s “moderation” and depending on hate and fear to animate its base, is in crisis. 

Being this close to having the power to destroy American democracy may appear to belie that fact, but it’s true.

If Democrats beat Republicans in a blowout next month, will the GOP reform itself? 

Will it devolve into a rump party? 

Or, like the Nazis in the early 1930s when they suffered electoral setbacks at the hands of the socialists and communists, will the bigots and authoritarian followers among the GOP base be double-energized, leading to a resurgent and even more fascist-leaning Republican Party?

At this moment it’s impossible to know. But having a clear vision of where we are and how we got here will surely help us navigate this uncertain future.

MSNBC host: Trump should be worried about what “pathological liar” Kash Patel told grand jury

Donald Trump will be unable to trust what his advisor Kash Patel tells him about his testimony before a Washington, D.C. grand jury investigating the documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago by the FBI, according to an analysis aired on MSNBC on Thursday evening.

“The Last Word” anchor Lawrence O’Donnell offered his analysis after CNN reported Patel had been in with the grand jury for hours.

“Procedurally, Donald Trump and his lawyers know that the special master process, while it might create some delay, it’s not going to stop the Justice Department’s criminal investigation, which now appears to include the under-oath testimony to a grand jury in Washington by the trump staffer Kash Patel, who was chosen by Donald Trump to replace former White House counsel Pat Cipollone as Donald Trump’s official intermediary with the National Archives about the documents Donald Trump was keeping in Florida,” O’Donnell said.

“Kash Patel was quoted in the FBI affidavit which was used to obtain the search warrant of Trump’s residence, saying in May that Donald Trump had declassified documents that he kept at his residence in Florida,” O’Donnell noted. “What did he say about that when he was asked about it in the grand jury in Washington last week? Kash Patel might have taken the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer any questions under oath to that grand jury or Kash Patel may have decided it was time to save himself and stop lying for Donald Trump.”

“Donald Trump and his lawyers have no idea what Kash Patel told that grand jury,” he explained. “Nothing prevents Kash Patel from telling them what he told the grand jury, but Donald Trump’s problem is he is a pathological liar who has attracted into his employ other pathetic, pathological liars, like Kash Patel. So, when one of his pathological liars is now telling him what he said to a grand jury, how can Donald Trump believe that? How can Donald Trump’s lawyers rely on that?”

‘Such as the agonizing legal pressure that is building on Donald Trump every day with every new revelation about a new Trump player testifying to a grand jury,” O’Donnell said.

Watch:

What is actually the difference between pumpkin pie spice and apple pie spice?

For as long as I can recall, fall has been my favorite season. I cherish and savor every smell, every taste, every sight: crisp leaves that run the gamut of colorful colors, Halloween-y decorations, cornucopias and gourds, fall harvest welcomes, pumpkin carving, apple picking, spooky TV and movies (I’ve always been especially partial to the enduring nostalgic appeal of 90s Nickelodeon gem Are You Afraid of the Dark), songs and movie soundtracks, maple syrup, Thanksgiving, fall candles, sweater weather, “spooky szn,” the brisk chill in the air, soups and stews galore, the slight shift in aroma that inevitably comes as summer morphs and shifts into autumn, the introduction of hearty, warming comfort foods, my birthday, and — as it should go without saying — all things pumpkin and pumpkin spice

The undisputed harbinger and face of the season, pumpkin spice began as a simple pie flavoring before blossoming into a stalwart autumnal icon, elevated far beyond merely a seasoning blend and into a societal and cultural emblem. While the espresso beverage is what initially launched the flavor to the stratosphere, it’s now crept into everything from SPAM (yes, you read that right) and pasta to breakfast items and baked goods

There’s also a real movement that is unnervingly anti-PSL, which has lots of unfortunate misogynistic undertones (or, in some cases, pretty overt overtones). That’s a conversation for another day, though. 

The history of pumpkin spice

At Food & Wine, Nina Friend writes that McCormick has been marketing pumpkin pie spice since the 1930s, and Friend notes that the original “spice blend” may have originated as early as the late 1700s, noting that Amelia Simmons’s cookbook contains two recipes for “pompkin pie” — one with nutmeg and ginger, and the other with allspice and ginger. 

Kevan Vetter — the executive chef at McCormick — tells Morgan Hines at USA Today  that the flavor seemingly didn’t “take off” until 2010, when it became a real trend. I’d venture to disagree, though — at least anecdotally — because I became a massive pumpkin/pumpkin spice adherent when I was in high school in the mid-2000s. This also coincides with when Starbucks first released the original PSL (which contained no actual pumpkin until the recipe changed in 2015) back in ’03.

I’d actually venture to say that Dunkin’ pumpkin offerings are actually stronger, but I digress.

According to USA Today, Peter Dukes, the product manager on Starbucks’ espresso team back in 2002, notes that the “team brainstormed drinks that might resonate with customers in the fall with hazelnut, apple, cinnamon, chocolate and caramel bases — pumpkin was a flavor on the list of more than 100 ideas.” At that time, he argues, the only real pumpkin-adjacent food during the autumnal season was the ubiquitous pumpkin pie, but there were really no other options beyond that. They opted to move forward with the now-beloved (and often maligned) PSL and the rest is history. 

Side note: Starbucks has had other tremendous fall flavors — smoked butterscotch, various maple drinks, a chestnut latte, etcetera — but for some reason, most of these fell off almost immediately. 

All about apple pie spice — the underdog?

Conversely, apple pie spice seems downright quaint in comparison. Interestingly enough, though, the apple itself seems to have much more of an iconic, emblematic status than a pumpkin. On their own volition, pumpkins are known for Jack-o-Lanterns and pumpkin picking … and not much else. 

From the notion of “as American as apple pie” or the shimmering apple perched on a teacher’s desk, the apple has deep, thorough ties into our culture and society. There’s also the infamous “bad apple” ideology, which Helen Rosner poetically writes about with incisive, stunning wit in The Atlantic

As Lizzy McAlpine’s beautiful song “Apple Pie” notes, “apple pie baked just right — home is wherever you are tonight.” There is also a hominess, a comfort and a familiarity associated with apple pie that is simply not often correlated with pumpkin pie.

While the practice of whipping up an apple pie is baked (pun intended) into our cultural consciousnesses, that seemingly hasn’t extended to the spice itself. 

So what is the actual difference between the two blends? 

While cinnamon reigns as the supreme spice, there is a revolving door of spices that appear otherwise, from cloves and nutmeg to cardamom and ginger. Apple pie, generally, has a slightly less robust mix of spices, often leaning mainly on cinnamon and brown sugar to supply the foundational flavor profiles.

Pumpkin pie spice, on the other hand, encompasses more of a breadth of flavor, offering warmth and a bit of spice in addition to the reassuring familiarity of cinnamon. Of course, it’s arguable that “pumpkin pie spice” is now more associated with coffee and espresso beverages than it is the pie itself, but apple pie and its related spice blend still seems more pie-based than drink-based.

Old Town Spices posits that apple pie spice is characterized by the presence of nutmeg, while pumpkin pie spice is characterize by the presence of cloves, in addition to cinnamon, allspice, ginger, and cardamom. 

Wide Open Eats concurs, stating that “the big difference between apple pie spice vs. pumpkin spice is that a pumpkin pie spice recipe includes cloves.” Wide Open Eat’s pumpkin spice recipe consists of cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, allspice, cloves and optional cardamom, while apple pie spice contains cinnamon, nutmeg, allspic  and optional ginger and cardamom.

The Spruce Eats, however, claims that pumpkin pie spice “uses ginger rather than cardamom.” The Kitchn also mentions mace, which is a spice that has fallen out of popularity, but most certainly retains a special place in pumpkin pie spice. Conversely, the McCormick iteration — which was originally developed in 1934 — consists of cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, allspice, and “sulfiting agents.”  Clearly, there’s no generally agreed upon ingredient or mixture here. 

Generally, making these spice blends at home is generally better than buying them pre-mixed. Not a fan of the sharp bite of ginger? Omit it, or use an infinitesimal amount. Do you stan cinnamon? Up the ante so your PPS is 75% cinnamon, with other warming notes and spices filing in the blanks. This way, you are able to master the mix yourself. 

The battle rages on

So while PPS has had a heck of a decade, perhaps APS will have the same status a decade from now? Currently, companies like Starbucks and Gregory’s seem to be doing their due diligence to promote the apple pie flavor scheme, with drinks like Apple Crisp Macchiato, Salted Caramel Apple Latte, Apple Jack (cold brew with an apple cider cold foam) now being offered. We shall see and it’ll be interested to see how the APS vs. PPS competition continues.

At the end of the day, though, I advocate the infamous advice incurred in the iconic Old El Paso commercial: Why can’t we have both?

The West’s biggest source of renewable energy depends on water. Will it survive the drought?

Reports of low water levels at a few big hydropower plants in the West over the last few years have made it seem like hydropower is becoming less reliable. Last summer, officials in California were forced to shut down the Edward Hyatt Powerplant when water levels in Lake Oroville, the reservoir that feeds the plant, dropped below the intake pipes that send water into its turbines. In March, water levels dropped to historic lows in Lake Powell, the reservoir that supplies the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, bringing warnings of a potential plant shutdown in the near future.  

These reports are alarming, because hydropower is a major source of carbon-free energy for the West — during a wet year, it can meet 30 percent of the region’s annual electricity demand in the West. 

But a recent study by scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory challenges the idea that hydropower’s role as a backbone for the electric grid is fading. The authors looked back at the historical record to see how the western hydropower fleet has been affected by periods of drought over the 20th and 21st centuries. What they found shows that the reality is more complex, and that even during a serious drought, hydropower is more reliable than people might think.

“I think the misconception about hydro is driven by these marquee cases like Glen Canyon and the Hoover Dam on the Colorado River,” said Sean Turner, a hydrologist and water resources engineer and one of the authors of the study. “Those are really big and significant plants, but they’re a very, very small part of the overall Western hydropower fleet, which consists of hundreds of plants across the entire western region, contributing to an interconnected power grid. You need to study the whole system.”

I spoke with Turner about his findings, and about whether hydropower’s past performance is a good predictor of how reliable it will be in the future.

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.

Q. What was the driving question behind your recent study on hydropower and drought?

A. The question was, what does drought actually mean for hydropower in the West? How does it affect different regions? We’re talking about 11 states, an enormous area, and diverse climates throughout the West. We’ve got the data to answer that question really rigorously.

Q. What did you find?

A. Even during the most severe droughts of the last 20 years, the Western hydropower fleet still maintained 80 percent of its average annual output — equal to the total output from all other renewables combined in the West. The reason you get this reliability is that despite the West’s notoriously volatile climate, there’s climate diversity. Drought in one region may be associated with wet conditions in another region, and so you’re unlikely to see the entire hydropower fleet affected by drought at the same time.

Q. Is the past a good predictor of the future in this case, because of climate change?

A. It depends. The reservoirs in the Southwest are totally unique. They store such huge volumes of water equal to multiple years of flow in the river. On balance, it looks like the impact of climate change in this area is going to be to slightly reduce the availability of water. And you have a system that’s already on a knife’s edge, where the amount of water allocated for cities, for agriculture, is already pretty much equal to the mean flow of the basin. So over a long period of time, if you don’t change how much water’s being taken out of the system, reservoirs are going to draw down. And you can kind of say that the past is no longer a reliable predictor of the future. 

There are other systems, most other systems in the West, where your reservoirs fill up and draw down over much shorter periods of time. And that can be on the order of days in some of the major plants in the Columbia River Basin. In those cases, the past is a much more reliable predictor of the future. Even minor changes to the flow regime in the Columbia River are not going to greatly impact how much power can be generated from those plants. 

Q. Even though the Southwest is a small part of the overall hydropower picture in the West, will states there need to compensate for that lost electricity in other ways, looking ahead?

A. At the moment, those dams are still producing power. If drought conditions continue and there are no extreme management actions to alleviate them, then those plants may have to shut down for a period of time until the reservoir levels recover. If that occurs, certainly other resources would need to be brought online. They’re part of an interconnected grid, so electricity can be imported from elsewhere. The impact is less likely to be power cuts and lights out, it’s more likely to be increased electricity costs and potentially increased carbon emissions, because there’s likely to be more reliance on gas and other resources.

Q. Is this something those states should be more proactively worried about in terms of achieving their clean energy goals?

A. It depends on how long the impact is. If drought conditions in the Southwest become a permanent feature, then those reservoir levels aren’t going to recover. And so you’ve got permanent loss of a significant source of carbon-free electricity. If that’s not replaced by some other carbon-free source, then there’s gonna be a long-term impact on the emissions of the electricity sector. 

That’s a huge if. A lot of people are confidently making projections about the demise of Western water resources, particularly in the Southwest, due to the recent conditions, due to the threat of climate change. But hydrology is notoriously difficult to predict. It wouldn’t surprise me if in five years’ time, those reservoir levels were raised back up after a significant wet period. You just don’t know. And if that occurs, then you’ve got another lengthy period of time where you can continue to rely on those resources to produce carbon-free electricity.

Q. The study warns about a repeat of the drought that occurred in 1976 and 1977. What happened then?

A. This was a really severe historical drought. Most of the hydropower fleet was built by this period, and unlike more recent droughts, it affected most of the West. The two powerhouses of hydro generation in the West are the Northwest and California. California is really sensitive to two-year droughts. 1976 was a dry year in California. Then you had ’77 which was a really dry year throughout the West. We don’t have data for all plants that were operating during that time, but from the plants that we do have, that appears to be the year with the largest number of shutdowns. 

Q. Is the idea that that’s sort of a worst-case scenario for the future?

A. It could be. The climate can produce things that you haven’t seen in 50 years. There’s potential for even worse cases. It may be 100 years before you see something like that again, or maybe it’ll be next year. But even in that case, the overall impact on hydro was still 25 percent or something below average total Western generation. So even in the most extreme drought, when we look back 100 years, there’s nothing that cripples hydro in a serious way. Hydro still supplies a lot of electricity during those periods.

Q. What are you looking at next?

A. Another study, which I think will be done relatively soon, will be on trying to understand more about the impacts of climate change on drought and whether or not that increases the risk of what we call Dead Pool events, so those cases where you get reservoir levels dropping below intakes. The historical record that we’ve got — 100 years — is a short period, and in hydrological terms, you don’t get a full view of variability of what the climate could possibly produce. What happens if you have some megadrought, multi-year, and it starts causing lots of plant shutdowns at the same time? How does that then affect the power grid? 

Q. So does this recent study not actually tell us much about the future for hydro under climate change? What should people take away from it? 

A. It’s not necessarily the case that the West is gonna be more and more dry. The hydropower powerhouse is the Northwest, and most general climate models predict wetter conditions in the Northwest. Even in the Southwest, there’s still a debate to be had about what’s likely to happen over the next 100 years as a result of climate change, because the system is extremely complex. Warming temperatures are likely to be associated with more precipitation. It’s really the balance between the impact on precipitation and the impact on evapotranspiration. So the climate change impacts remain very uncertain. 

We are really focusing on a retrospective analysis of the impact of drought. It does reveal a lot about the present and future because the hydrological system will continue to produce droughts, many of those droughts will be similar in nature to the droughts that have been experienced in the past. And those general conclusions about the importance of climate diversity throughout the West, and the resiliency of the hydropower fleet — those are going to apply for future droughts as well. I can understand why people care so much about Glen Canyon and Hoover because those are such iconic systems. It’s not the whole story. That would be the main thing I want people to grasp.

Steve Bannon sentenced to 4 months in prison — and this time Trump can’t pardon him

Former Trump aide Steve Bannon was sentenced Friday to four months in federal prison and ordered to pay a $6,500 fine for contempt of Congress charges stemming from his defiance of a subpoena issued by the House January 6 committee.

The sentence amounts to less than the six-month prison term and $200,000 fine that the U.S. Department of Justice recommended.

Carl Nichols, the U.S. district court judge presiding over the case, said he would suspend the sentence if Bannon appeals, a move that could allow him to avoid prison for months.

“No American is above the law, including former presidents and their advisers,” Aaron Scherb, senior director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, said in a statement. “Steve Bannon learned that today through a jail sentence and a fine for defying a subpoena from the January 6th Committee.”

“It is imperative that Congress have subpoena power with teeth in order to fulfill its oversight and investigatory responsibilities,” Scherb added. “If individuals could defy congressional subpoenas with impunity, our system of checks and balances would break down.”

The House January 6 panel subpoenaed Bannon and other former Trump advisers in September 2021 as part of its pursuit of documents and testimony related to the Capitol insurrection.

After Bannon refused to comply with the subpoena, the House approved a criminal contempt report in October 2021. A month later, Bannon was indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts of contempt of Congress.

“Steve Bannon would rather go to jail than tell the truth,” said Madeline Peltz, deputy director of rapid response at Media Matters for America. “After being given ample opportunities to share the truth about his role in the insurrection with the American people, he refused to do so.”

“Though Bannon was held responsible for his contempt today,” Peltz added, “the threat of Bannon’s burn-it-all-down approach continues to drive the Republican Party’s descent into full-blown fascism.”

In “Raymond & Ray,” adult sons must bury their well-liked dad who was “inarguably a monster” to them

Writer/Director Rodrigo García’s moving new film, “Raymond & Ray,” has its title characters (Ewan McGregor and Ethan Hawke, respectively) attending the funeral of their father, Harris (Tom Bower). Harris was not a good father to either son — he was often abusive to them — but Raymond feels an obligation, and Ray grudgingly goes along. What they discover about their father, and themselves, forms the basis of this melancholic comedy. 

García’s film is about fathers and sons, and it certainly tackles the thorniness that can estrange children and their parents. Raymond exhibits a more forgiving nature, which is counterbalanced by Ray’s bitterness. (McGregor’s performance is tightly wound, while Hawke is playful and soulful.) As these adult men accede to their father’s last wishes — which includes digging his grave — they come to know who their dad was through other people, including Lucia (Maribel Verdú of “Y Tu Mama Tambien“), his last lover, and Kiera (Sophie Okonedo) his nurse. 

Interestingly, the film is shaggy, not somber, full of diverting moments and interesting scenes that reveal much about male pain, regret, fear, and failure. There is also attention paid to objects and rituals in life as well as the people and things that provide everyday pleasure. García infuses his warm film with messages about risk, the power of music, forgiveness and letting go. 

García, whose father was the Nobel Prize-winning writer Gabriel García Márquez — and recently published a book about his relationship with his parents, “A Farewell to Gabo and Mercedes” — spoke with Salon about fathers and sons, and his new film, “Raymond & Ray.”

I appreciated that you showed Harris to his sons mostly through the eyes of others, rather than through flashbacks. What informed your approach to the storytelling? Your film is almost like a memoir by someone Raymond and Ray (as well as viewers) don’t know.  

I think Ray and Raymond do know their father well, but from their perspective and according to their own experience. The father was different with every person the way we are different with every person at work, or with friends, or with old friends, even with your spouse or your children. They knew him like they knew him. Raymond and Ray received a version of him that was very tough on them and traumatic, and now they are discovering what he was like out in the world, it makes for conflicted feelings.

Your film is about male pain and fear. These are “grown-ass men whose lives didn’t pan out,” and the film raises this idea of boys and men not being the same thing. Can you talk about the issues of masculinity presented in “Raymond & Ray”?

We often say, in patriarchal terms, that women are so emotional.  No, women are not emotional. They are as emotional as men. Everyone is emotional. Women are often — and I am trying not to generalize — more apt to express emotion, just as many men in our culture, probably for the wrong reasons, are inclined to suppress emotions. To fool themselves about the emotions or not to express them. I think that is poisonous, and the fuel of the story is these men not having fully embraced how they feel. Ray seems to be above it all; it’s all about irony. “Screw our dad, I’m over him. He was a jerk.” Raymond is more, “Let’s forgive; he is a victim himself.” But the fact is, they are suppressing feeling. I saw the movie as a journey to letting those feelings flow, and in the case of one of them, they flow with feeling and art and emotion, and in the case of the other, they explode. It is a story of men and their relationship to their own feelings about their dad.

There is a wistful moment — one of many in your film — where Lucia recounts Harris’ life in a short but poignant speech. How do you sum up a life, even a fictional one, in such a small moment, speech, or statement? 

It is a challenge that always tempts me: How do you sum up a huge thing in a small idea? When Lucia delivers her thoughts on Harris’ life, we have so much info on Harris that she can do it in a new light, very briefly. Maribel played Lucia who was very human and very understanding, but also droll and eccentric. She is just so centered and clairvoyant in the way she sees Harris and reduces him to the human that he was — part of something great and at the same time almost nothing at all. I’m very happy with that moment, particularly the humanity and wisdom that Maribel delivers it via Lucia. 

Raymond & RayMaribel Verdú and Sophie Okonedo in “Raymond & Ray” (Apple TV+)

I like that Harris exercised his power over Raymond and Ray for as long as possible. What are your thoughts about holding on and letting go? 

I think you go back and forth on it. You want to forgive, because it is better for you, and as you get older you become more accepting of your parents’ humanity; you understand them more. I’ve been a parent and I know there are days when I have exerted [dis]proportionate anger with my children. We do it, and it’s done to us. But I think you have to find a balance. You have to forgive and sometimes you have waves of disappointment or anger at a bad memory, and you should embrace that moment and move on. When there are happy moments, you enjoy them. I don’t think you should reduce people to one thing. Even Raymond and Ray, whose father was inarguably a monster to them, was a person well-liked by others. Perhaps he was a monster because he hated himself so much and Ray in particular, touched a nerve because he was a very talented and smart boy. Raymond was a good boy and a pleaser, and that is the kind of thing that can make an angry father angry. Harris’ bad behavior probably comes from his own dissatisfaction with himself. 

The camerawork in many scenes drew me into the action, but also there was a freewheeling feeling at the gravesite where characters walked in and out of the action. Can you talk about creating emotion through the film’s tone and camerawork?

We shot it like a film, so we wanted to have the right balance of close-ups and very wide shots that gave us the idea of people playing these very passionate, painful, personal moments in big spaces and in areas where people are sleeping who have already been through this and they don’t care and there you are still fighting it out. I was important to see faces, emotions, and actions played out in everyone’s final backyard.

“Raymond & Ray” considers themes of risk, ritual, regret and pleasure. What are your risks, rituals, regrets, and pleasures?

Risks, I don’t know if I’m a big risk taker. Creative work is always risky because of the fear of failure. But everything is a risk — marrying someone, having children. You either take the risk or never leave your room, and a house fire could put an end to that plan! Regret, professionally, I wish I started writing and directing sooner. I didn’t start until my late 30s. Regrets, I have some in personal area, but I’ll leave them out of this conversation. Rituals. Hmm. Pleasures: my daughters’ faces, food, nature, my wife, my brother, my parents, my memory of my parents, the usual stuff. And music. 

What kind of music? 

It depends on the week of the month of the year of the decade. Everything from Miles Davis to corny Latin American love ballads. I’m omnivorous. 


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


I was pleased to see some Latinx supporting characters in “Raymond & Ray,” but I find it interesting that you have not made a specifically Latinx film. I could easily see this film as having Latinx leads. Do you have intentions of creating a Latinx project? 

I have a long history trying to make one! I did direct a pilot that was Latino-themed, a reboot of “Party of Five.” I did produce two series in Latin America last year, “Santa Evita,” which tells the story of the corpse of Evita Peron, for Hulu, and “News of a Kidnapping,” a series in Colombia, for Amazon, based on my father’s nonfiction book. But I have projects I wanted to make in the U.S. with Latinx characters and I have not able to. It has been very hard to find funding and distribution. I do have a plan for a movie that I hope to make in Mexico next year, and I hope that will be my first movie in Spanish. 

“Raymond & Ray” is available for streaming on Apple TV+ starting Oct. 21. Watch a trailer via YouTube.

Trump blows up on Truth Social after judge busts him for fraudulent election lawsuit

Former President Donald Trump is not pleased with the recent ruling handed down by a California judge who insists he filed a lawsuit riddled with voter fraud allegations he knew were unfounded. In fact, the former president went so far as to describe the judge as a “partisan hack.”

On Wednesday, October 19, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter named the former president as part of his ruling stating that John Eastman’s emails “were not protected attorney-client communication because they may be evidence of a crime,” according to HuffPost.

Per Carter’s 18-page ruling, Eastman’s emails are “sufficiently related to and in furtherance of a conspiracy to defraud the United States.”

The judge also ruled in favor of the House Select Committee as he ordered for documents to be released to the committee investigating the U.S. Capitol insurrection.

In his ruling, Carter said the emails “demonstrate an effort by President Trump and his attorneys to press false claims in federal court for the purpose of delaying the January 6 vote.” The judge also noted that the former president filed “certain lawsuits not to obtain legal relief, but to disrupt or delay the January 6 congressional proceedings through the courts.”

Carter’s ruling could open the door for Trump to face grave consequences if there is enough evidence to support the notion that he “engaged in a conspiracy to overturn an election he knew was legitimate,” the news outlet notes.

On Thursday, October 20, Trump took to Truth Social to sound off about the ruling.

“Who’s this Clinton appointed ‘Judge,’ David Carter, who keeps saying, and sending to all, very nasty, wrong, and ill-informed statements about me on rulings, or a case (whatever!), currently going on in California, that I know nothing about — nor am I represented,” Trump ranted.

He added, “With that being said, please explain to this partisan hack that the Presidential Election of 2020 was Rigged and Stolen. Also, he shouldn’t be making statements about me until he understands the facts, which he doesn’t!”

The latest ruling follows a lengthy timeline of Trump’s conspiracy theories about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

In December 2020, when Trump submitted verification for an initial state court filing, he was “made aware that some of the allegations (and evidence proffered by the experts) has been inaccurate,” Eastman said in one of his emails referenced in the court ruling. “For him to sign a new verification with that knowledge (and incorporation by reference) would not be accurate.”

The former president and his legal team went on to complete a new filing “with the same inaccurate numbers without rectifying, clarifying, or otherwise changing them,” Carter wrote. “The emails show that President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public.”

The airport security shakedown: Air travel always costs me extra, one way or another

My wife and I work extremely hard, easily clocking 80-plus hours a week — no idyllic American 40-hour work week for us. We don’t ignore each other or our two-year-old daughter, rather we sacrifice typical pleasantries and pastimes — like happy hours and sleep — in our efforts to earn at the level of salaries gifted to white people who have the luxury of only working one job. So when we click our workaholic heads together and say we are going to take a vacation­­ — an international trip, where we eat and drink and sleep in multiple cities — to give ourselves a piece of that American dream of relaxation in exchange for the thousands of hours of labor we deposit a year, the last thing I want to have to worry about is airport security. But here we are. 

The Transportation Security Administration’s history and mission, “Protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce” sounds, in theory, solid. Travelers deserve to be safe and to feel safe. Of course nobody wants weapons on board or planes to be hijacked. But we also deserve efficient — enjoyable, even — airport experiences. We spend our hard-earned money to be in these places. That enjoyable experience is not happening. It hasn’t even been efficient for me, let alone pleasant, for the last 20 years. How does a third-generation American citizen have such a long history of not getting a fair shake at the airport? It starts with my physical appearance. 

I have a big forehead. I am proud of it because I don’t have any other choice. I’m stuck with it. As a kid, they would call me Block Head and Apple Head. My favorite was when the guys and girls used to say, “D, your forehead is so big you basically have a five-head.” I took their wisecracks. I made fun of other people, too, mastered the art of clapping back, and even learned to poke fun at myself — the way my head looks like a brown watermelon, the fact that I wear a size 7 5/8s fitted cap.

I promise I’m not traumatized by childhood jokes — we had fun. And it remained fun all the way up to when the digital age of the late ’90s fell upon us, giving us the ability to search for any and everything, 24 hours a day. If you wanted to know how many points Magic Johnson averaged in the ’87-’88 season, how old Dolly Parton was in 1975, the square footage of the earth, Shaq’s shoe size or any other thing else you could imagine, the answers were just a click away. So was a lot of other stuff, like photos of people suspected of or accused of terrorism.

The airport used to be kind of enjoyable. TSA has made it to an anxiety factory. 

When they began to circulate on the Internet, people around me started to say that they looked, well, like me: a skinny brown-complected guy with a big head. And jokes about my “brown watermelon head” quickly turned into jokes about how “D looks like a terrorist.” Dumb but harmless to me, until the aftermath of September 11, 2001, which changed how we fly. The 9/11 attacks led to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, passed by Congress and signed on November 19, 2001, which birthed the TSA. 

I didn’t fly much before 2001 because I was a broke kid. My world mostly existed in Baltimore. But basketball did allow me to travel at times, and I do remember the good ol’ days when you could get to the airport roughly an hour or so before your flight was scheduled to take off and wait at the gate for your friends to board, and even be greeted by family as soon as you exited a flight. The airport used to be kind of enjoyable. TSA has made it to an anxiety factory. 

In some cities, you have to arrive three or four hours in advance. Only ticketed customers can enter, so sometimes you see kids sitting at the gate and boarding alone. Security lines are long and slow because TSA forces you to take off your shoes and unpack your laptop before branding you as the person holding up the line if you don’t repack your items and throw your shoes on fast enough. And then there’s the racism. 

Remember the friends who made jokes about me looking like a terrorist? I guess TSA agents were in on the joke. I’ve been treated like a threat at the airport for the last two decades. I have no record of flight disruption or sketchy behavior. And yet, “Sir, can you step to the side please?” is a phrase I heard consistently in the years since the new security protocols were put in place. It didn’t matter if I was flying domestic or international, if I’m in a rush or have time to spare. A TSA guard would always spot me, give me a look over, and then pull me out of line for the “random” search of my body and my bags, unfolding my clothes, violating my privacy, while asking me stupid questions like, “So where are you traveling?” 

It happened to me so often I used budget time for random security checks into my traveling schedule. (Using that time to squeeze in a little more work at the airport would be nice, but that hasn’t been an option.) And when it happens on a rare vacation, it’s a buzzkill. When most of your life is spent working, and you rarely get to set aside time for fun, every one of those extra minutes lands extra hard. 

“Why do we have to get to the airport so early?” my wife would say back when we were dating and we first started traveling together.

“You’ll see,” I’d say.

They always select me for the extra pat-down, the same way cops always pull me over and clerks follow me in stores. That’s the system at work, and in the system, racism will prevail. 

“Baby, meet me at the gate,” I’ve had to say on more than one occasion. 

I’m working ten times as hard as others just to afford travel. Time is precious. 

Book tours used to be a thing back in 2015 when I published my first essay collection, “The Beast Side.” Schools, nonprofits and other organizations would fly me to their cities so I could give talks on education, politics, racism, the modern Civil Rights movement and other subjects I wrote about in the book. I was hitting the airport at least twice a month back then, and I hated it every time because of the random swabs and searches. During that time I reconnected with RC, a friend from high school who worked for TSA, who’d see me being yanked out of line every for the “random check” and laugh every time. But he also started telling his coworkers, “I know him, let him go, that’s my bro.” I used to be elated on mornings I had to fly out and found myself at his security gate because I knew I would be treated like everyone else.

I should acknowledge there hasn’t been an attack against America since the creation of TSA, but that doesn’t mean the agency, with its commitment to profiling, is fully effective. In 2015 — the same year I endured all those extra searches — Homeland Security sent “Red Teams” with undercover investigators to some of our nation’s busiest airports, where they were able to “smuggle weapons, fake explosives and other contraband through numerous checkpoints.” That same year, ABC News reported that TSA failed 67 out of 70 experiments designed to test how well agents could actually detect security threats. My carry-on was probably being swabbed because of racial profiling while the Red Team’s armed investigators sailed right past me through security.

“D, you need PreCheck,” RC told me one day. “It’s cheap as hell and worth it because they gonna keep bothering you.” 

RC never said why they were going to keep bothering me, but he was right. Once I bought myself TSA PreCheck ($85 for five years) and CLEAR ($189 per year) my domestic trips instantly became easier. My bag has been searched a few times since, but the 100 percent chance of me being “randomly” searched stopped. But RC didn’t tell me to buy Global Entry ($100 for five years), another pay-to-play airport service that offers expedited re-entry from international travel. And that kicked me right in the neck with a four-hour wakeup call when my wife and I tried to reenter the United States after our recent overseas vacation.


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


Maybe it’s the worker shortage. Maybe it’s poor management. But we walked into a line that looked like a thousand American passport holders trying to reenter the U.S., and there were only two windows staffed among dozens of empties, at a major international U.S. airport. People were exhausted, frustrated, falling out, and fighting to control rowdy kids. This time I wasn’t discriminated against at the customs window when we finally reached a person. There were simply too many people in line. No time for racism. 

During our four-hour wait, I could not help but remember how quickly I moved through the customs line at Frankfurt’s airport — how well-staffed, professional and efficient they were. Or in London, where I didn’t even have to talk to anyone asking, “So why are you here?” I just scanned my passport on a machine or e-gate and made my way to my flight. I know there are many Americans who have been discriminated against in other countries, but that wasn’t my experience on this trip. I didn’t need any extra pay-to-play services in those countries because their airports actually work.

I’m working ten times as hard as others just to be able to afford to travel. Time is precious. So is dignity. They shouldn’t carry an extra cost. 

Mike Pence’s delusional quest: After all this, he still believes in a GOP that died long ago

Jonathan V. Last of the Bulwark asked an interesting question in his column this week. He wondered, “[C]ould Mike Pence walk through the crowd at a Kari Lake or Doug Mastriano rally without security? On the other hand, what would happen to Mike Pence if he walked through the crowd at a Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly rally? Would he need security?”

I think we know the answer, don’t we? There is only one crowd that literally tried to hang the former vice president and it isn’t the crowd who would gather for any Democrat. Pence is loathed by the MAGA base and if they happen to forget how much they hate him, Donald Trump will be sure to remind them every chance he gets.

That hasn’t stopped Pence from spending the last year laying the groundwork for a 2024 presidential run, giving speeches, laying out what he calls his “Freedom Agenda” and sounding like he’s working on his best George W. Bush impression and partying like it’s 2004. He seems to be under the strange impression that the Republican Party still likes him, and that its voters still believe in the outdated conservative movement of yesteryear. If you didn’t know better, you’d think he’d been in a coma for the last six years (which might explain the dazed look on his face visible throughout the Trump administration).

This week Pence gave a speech sponsored by the Heritage Foundation (where he is a “distinguished visiting fellow”) in which he caught the media’s attention by giving  a coy answer when asked if he’d be willing to vote for Trump in 2024. He said, “Well, there might be somebody else I’d prefer more. I’ll keep you posted.” I think that’s the first time I’ve ever heard Pence even trying to be funny. Humorless sanctimony is his brand.

It’s no secret that he intends to run so that really wasn’t the point of his speech. Pence kept referring to “our movement,” and while some might initially assume he meant Trump’s MAGA movement, that clearly wasn’t the idea. It was more like a throwback to Reaganism:

Our movement cannot forsake the foundational commitment that we have to security, to limited government, to liberty and to life. But nor can we allow our movement to be led astray by the siren song of unprincipled populism that’s unmoored from our oldest traditions and most cherished values. Let me say: This movement and the party that it animates must remain the movement of a strong national defense, limited government and traditional moral values and life.

His broadside against “unprincipled populism unmoored from our oldest traditions and most cherished values” is clearly aimed at his former boss. Maybe those old tropes will sound like a beloved ’80s soundtrack to a lot of Republicans who think that’s what they believe in, even if they’re clearly following a completely different ideology today. The conservative movement Pence speaks of in such glowing terms is dead — and he was instrumental in burying it.

When you read that passage and the rest of his speech, it’s as if Pence has forgotten that he stood stalwartly by Donald Trump’s side, gazing adoringly and endorsing every bit of incivility and “unprincipled populism” that gushed from the man’s mouth like a geyser of unbridled, self-serving, valueless malevolence. Pence sacrificed all integrity or dignity with his extravagant display of sycophancy. Take, for example, one infamous Cabinet meeting in December of 2017 when he was clocked giving no less that 14 paeans to Trump’s greatness. I’ll just pick a handful:

I’m deeply humbled, as your vice president, to be able to be here…. Because of your leadership, Mr. President, and because of the strong support of the leadership in the Congress of the United States, you’re delivering on that middle-class miracle… Mostly, Mr. President, I’ll end where I began and just tell you, I want to thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you for speaking on behalf of and fighting every day for the forgotten men and women of America…. Because of your determination, because of your leadership, the forgotten men and women of America are forgotten no more. And we are making America great again.

“The Daily Show” did a famous bit sending up Pence’s adoring gaze:

There was no more obsequious bootlicker in Donald Trump’s administration than Vice President Mike Pence, and that’s saying something.

Now, it’s fair to say that Jan. 6, 2021 and its aftermath have given Pence something of a reputation boost. He did the job every previous vice president has done, supervising the pro forma ritual of opening the envelopes of state-certified electoral votes, rather than trying to overturn the results and sparking an unprecedented constitutional crisis. Furthermore, Pence showed physical courage in refusing to leave the Capitol when it was overrun by insurrectionists. Democrats and others who still believe in democracy surely appreciate that. But let’s not kid ourselves that they’re likely to forget the four long years of submissive brown-nosing that came before it.


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


After all, Pence didn’t just do the right thing instinctively as any true patriot would have done — he didn’t just tell Trump “no way” and leave it at that. He had to consult with a bunch of people, including former Vice President Dan Quayle, to figure out whether it would be OK to stage a coup. Luckily, according to Robert Costa and Bob Woodward, Quayle said, “Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,” and Pence finally agreed. That is not exactly the profile in courage he’s now portrayed as displaying.

Pence can do church-speak with the best of them. But if right-wing Christians have to choose between him and the Dear Leader who showed them the path to ending democracy, it’s no contest.

And even though Pence is an old-fashioned Christian conservative and can communicate in church-speak as well as anyone, it’s now been clearly established that the Christian right doesn’t really care about that. They love Donald Trump, the crotch-grabbing libertine who couldn’t name a Bible verse if his life depended on it. If it came down to a choice between the Dear Leader who offered them a pathway to power and the traitorous Mike Pence, who shattered their dreams of bringing down democracy, there is no doubt who they would choose.

So who, exactly, does Pence think is his constituency? Democrats wouldn’t attack him at a rally, and might even give him a pat on the back for his actions Jan. 6, but they certainly aren’t voting for him after his years-long display of unctuous groveling. Republicans won’t vote for him because he betrayed Trump, and the Never Trumpers aren’t likely to forgive him for betraying the GOP. I guess that leaves Liz Cheney and maybe a few members of the Bush and Romney families.

Mike Pence helped turn the GOP into what it is today and now finds himself a man without a party. He gets credit for not capitulating to fascism all the way, but his fate is richly deserved. He should start looking for some of those nice lucrative board seats and retire from public life. He’s cooked. 

“DOJ heading toward indictment”: Legal experts say adviser’s testimony shows “Trump is the target”

A top adviser to former President Donald Trump testified before a federal grand jury looking into the government documents seized from Mar-a-Lago, according to CNN.

Kash Patel, who served as a top aide to former Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., during his effort to undermine the Russia probe before joining the Trump administration, has been deeply involved in the Mar-a-Lago scandal. Patel, who remains close to Trump and was named by the former president as a “representative for access to Presidential records of my administration,” has claimed that he witnessed Trump declassifying records before leaving office. Weeks before the Mar-a-Lago search, Patel “vowed to retrieve classified documents from the National Archives” about the “Russiagate” probe and “publish them on his website,” ABC News reported earlier this year.

Patel spent “several hours” before the D.C. grand jury investigating the handling of documents at Mar-a-Lago on October 13, sources told CNN, though it’s unclear whether he answered questions or invoked his Fifth Amendment rights.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti warned that Patel’s evidence-free claim that Trump declassified the documents is a “very difficult story to believe.”

“If Patel had any sense, he wouldn’t repeat it under oath to the grand jury,” he tweeted.

Patel is one of a handful of post-presidential Trump advisers who could face “legal risk” in the probe, sources told CNN, though it is not clear whether he is a target of the probe.

Patel weeks earlier received a grand jury subpoena for communications he had related to the records, though it’s unclear if he complied with the request, one of the sources told the outlet.

One of Patel’s attorneys at the courthouse was Stanley Woodward, who is also representing one of the defendants in the Oath Keepers seditious conspiracy trial, according to the report.

The report notes that the grand jury activity is “indicative of how aggressive prosecutors are being” as they “pursue a possible indictment.” Numerous other witnesses have been subpoenaed by the grand jury in recent months.

The Justice Department previously named Patel in the affidavit they submitted to secure the August search warrant on Mar-a-Lago.

“I am aware of an article published in Breitbart on May 5, 2022 … which states that Kash Patel, who is described as a former US administration official, characterized as ‘misleading’ reports in other news organizations that NARA had found classified materials among records that FPOTUS provided to NARA from Mar-a-Lago,” an FBI agent said in the affidavit, parts of which were redacted. “Patel alleged that such reports were misleading because FPOTUS had declassified the materials at issue.”

Patel responded by accusing the DOJ of putting him in danger by naming him in the affidavit.

“Brown Lives Matter. These gangsters are on notice,” Patel, who is Indian-American, wrote on Truth Social in August.


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


An analysis by New York University Law Professor Ryan Goodman at Just Security identified six interviews and statements in which Patel discussed his plan to release classified information about “Russiagate.”

Patel, who reportedly got a senior White House job after Fox News host Sean Hannity brought him to meet Trump in the Oval Office and later used his position at the Defense Department to pursue evidence of Trump’s election-rigging conspiracy theories, claimed that he was in the room when Trump declassified documents and planned to release them to show that he was innocent in the Russia probe. Multiple administration officials have rejected Trump’s claim that he declassified documents and Trump’s attorneys have presented no evidence in court.

Patel in May told Breitbart that Trump specifically declassified documents related to the FBI’s Russia probe and other matters.

“It’s information that Trump felt spoke to matters regarding everything from Russiagate to the Ukraine impeachment fiasco to major national security matters of great public importance — anything the president felt the American people had a right to know is in there and more,” he told the outlet, adding that “Trump declassified whole sets of materials in anticipation of leaving government that he thought the American public should have the right to read themselves.”

In another interview, he said that “we’re hoping to get this information out soon.”

Goodman on Twitter called Patel’s testimony a “big deal” in the DOJ probe, noting that Patel has sometimes suggested he had access to the Mar-a-Lago documents.

If Patel did have access, Goodman wrote, “it will get Trump into a huge new problem for dissemination of national defense info.”

Goodman also noted that the grand jury investigating the documents is in D.C., not Florida, which legal experts have suggested could lead to a worse outcome for Trump.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who served on special counsel Bob Mueller’s team, said the report suggests that the DOJ is “testing” Patel’s story about the documents being declassified.

“Prosecutors must have had a field day picking that story apart!” Weissmann tweeted. “Shows Trump is [the] target and DOJ is heading toward indictment.”

Former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman agreed that the report is an indication that the DOJ is “moving closer toward charging Trump.”

The “only possible relevance” of Patel’s testimony seems to be his declassification claim, Litman tweeted, “a ridiculous and legally irrelevant claim but prudent to explore it as possible defense if you’re thinking of indicting Trump.”

Please, media, stop pitting abortion against inflation — Republicans suck on both issues

Cable news in the weeks before an election is the ninth circle of hell. For proof, look no further than the way MSNBC subjected Georgia’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams to an interview by 79-year-old white guy plagiarist and organized crime apologist Mike Barnicle. Abrams, whose only crime is being a “Star Trek” nerd who wants Georgia to suck less, was subjected to this crotchety fraud demanding she stop talking about abortion rights so much, arguing that what voters supposedly care about is “the cost of gas, food, bread, milk, things like that.” Because, as all old men who have never changed a diaper know, having and raising babies is totally free, unlike a gallon of gasoline. 

Abrams handled the question as well as she could, pointing out that you “can’t divorce being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy from the economic realities of having a child.” She went on to outline her plans to help Georgians with rising housing prices and other economic problems. But as much as it’s fun to kick around Barnicle for being out of touch, the sad truth is the false premise of his question is endemic throughout the mainstream media coverage of the 2022 midterm elections. Everywhere you turn, pundits and reporters are treating this election as if it’s a choice between fighting inflation and protecting abortion rights.

This is, and it cannot be stressed enough, total hooey. When it comes to the ballot box, there is absolutely no trade-off between reproductive rights and the economy. Either way, voting Republican is bad: Bad for the economy, bad for abortion rights. Pretending otherwise is misleading to the point of outright dishonesty. 


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


To say Republicans have no plan to fight inflation if they retake Congress is really an understatement. They have nothing concrete to offer about the issue beyond using it as a stick to beat Democrats with. The second polls close on Election Day, all GOP interest in relieving Americans’ economic woes will dry up. 

Bothsiderism is cowardice that does a disservice to voters in any election cycle.

We know this because Republicans aren’t even being subtle about their future plans, which most definitely do not involve giving a fig about inflation. As Heather “Digby” Parton wrote for Salon on Wednesday, Republicans are largely plotting to gin up fake scandals to demonize President Joe Biden. And that’s the best-case scenario.

In truth, there are a lot of indications that Republicans will use congressional majorities to tank the economy in whatever way they can. They’re threatening pointless government shutdowns, which invariably wreak economic havoc across the country. Worse, they’re even scheming to tank the global economy by reneging on America’s debt unless Biden gives in and drastically cuts spending on Medicare and Social Security. If seniors think that living on a fixed income is hard now, wait until their Social Security checks and medical coverage take a massive hit. 

Contrast that with Democrats, who are trying to do something about inflation, even if the problem is a difficult one to solve. 

The reason Republicans are eager to sabotage the economy is simple: There’s only upside to this level of destruction, as far as they’re concerned. For one thing, they will simply blame Biden for the wreckage, with the understanding that swing voters tend to be low-info voters, and will therefore believe the lie. This is exactly the strategy they ran on President Barack Obama in his first term, artificially drawing out the recession in order to drag down his approval ratings. 

Second, Republicans believe — with good reason — that economic distress and general social chaos redounds to their benefit. It causes well-meaning people to grow disillusioned with politics and to give up on voting entirely. That only leaves people who vote purely on spite, a group that is overwhelmingly Republican. 

If you read mainstream media coverage or watch cable news, you learn none of this. Instead, the coverage repeatedly implies, falsely, that voting for reproductive rights means voting against a better economy. To be clear, most reporters and pundits avoid coming right out and saying that Republicans are better for the economy, a lie that would get them raked over the coals. But constantly pitting abortion rights against inflation as voting issues falsely implies voters must choose between the two, even though, in reality, Republicans are worse on both issues. 


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


The justification for this misleading coverage is that they’re simply reporting what voters “believe.” For instance, a recent New York Times poll finds that “voters most concerned with the economy favored Republicans overwhelmingly.” But this is circular logic. The reason voters hold the false belief that Republicans are better on the economy is that the media keeps telling them that. For instance, the headline of the New York Times article reads, “Republicans Gain Edge as Voters Worry About Economy.” The sub-headline reads, “independents, especially women, are swinging to the G.O.P. despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights.” It’s reasonable for an average person to see such headlines and draw the false conclusion that one can only be chosen at the expense of the other. 

The real reason the mainstream media is offering this false binary is the same reason they always do: Because the pressure to be “balanced” outweighs the desire to tell the truth. A framework that implies one party is better on the economy while the other is better on abortion rights satisfies that urge for balance. Pesky questions about being honest with readers can be set aside by hiding behind claims that they’re just reporting what voters “believe,” without asking how they came to hold this false belief. 

Bothsiderism is cowardice that does a disservice to voters in any election cycle. It’s especially despicable this year when Republicans are running a bunch of election deniers who are unsubtly promising to steal the 2024 election for Donald Trump. Republicans aren’t even hiding that they intend to hold the global economy hostage unless Biden agrees to decimate Social Security and Medicare. Those are the stakes voters need to be aware of in order to make an informed choice. Instead, they’re being misled into thinking they can either have abortion rights or a stronger economy. In truth, if Republicans win, Americans will lose both. 

Theological pandemic: Why evangelicals embraced Jan. 6 and the Big Lie

On Jan. 6, 2021, a large group of evangelical Christians attacked the U.S. Capitol on the understanding that they were fighting for God’s president. (Not all of those who stormed the Capitol were driven by religious convictions, of course, but a large proportion were.) They were ready to kill for their president, take down a democratic system that has endured nearly 250 years, and follow Donald Trump at God’s supposed direction until America became a Christian theocracy. As the House Jan. 6 committee concludes its investigation, I think the power and significance of these evangelical believers have been overlooked.  

Most people now understand that the solid foundation of support for Trump is connected to evangelical theology, and that was never more clear than on that fateful day. The Jan. 6 committee has assigned itself the task of identifying those who are guilty of planning and inspiring this coup attempt, and while the former president was obviously the central figure, I would like to shift the committee’s attention to prominent evangelical pastors. These religious leaders have enormous political and spiritual influence and in many cases have provided the moral authority that led their followers to work toward the overthrow of American democracy.  

The cross was visible everywhere on Jan. 6. The Christian faith — at least as they understood it — was aflame in the hearts of most of the people who attacked the capitol. The hard and almost incomprehensible truth is that many of these people had never committed a single act of violence in their lives, and on that winter day found themselves chanting, “Hang Mike Pence,” and actually ready to carry that out. That could not have happened without the sincere faith that God himself was supporting their actions.  

Remember that Mike Pence is as devout an evangelical Christian as any politician in America. He is committed to evangelical theology in his personal life and his political career. And yet he became enemy No. 1 to a group of purported evangelical believers who viewed him as a traitorous criminal and became committed to murdering him. That could not have happened without the profound conviction that Trump was the ordained president chosen by the creator of the universe.  


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


Faith in God can be dangerous, as both sincere believers and nonbelievers are aware. Faith is behind the oppressive nature of Iran’s morality police. When you take people whose conscience, in any normal circumstance, would prevent them from committing a heinous or violent act and tell them, “This is for God,” and their moral compass is pushed aside. Killing women for removing a garment from their heads — as has happened recently in the streets of Tehran — is literally insane. But for some people, if they become convinced they are following God’s orders, it becomes possible to do it. Attacking the Capitol and seeking to hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi is equally insane. But a person who literally believes that God told them to do it suddenly becomes capable of evil deeds well beyond their previous experience.  

I am an ordained minister and Bible-believing Christian, and I am also a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I want my faith far removed from the public school system, the Supreme Court, the White House and Congress. People in power who seek to force their religious beliefs onto the larger public are more dangerous than any group in America. Historically, combined political and religious leadership has proven to be capable of ruthless and unforgivable evil.

Of course secular laws are crucial, but if the assault on true religious freedom is to change, the response must come from within the Christian faith. Christian ministers must reject this evangelical political theology that is unswervingly loyal to Donald Trump.  A new agenda based in the actual teachings of Jesus should be the centerpiece of Christian engagement with the public square. Such an agenda would be based on loving and welcoming the foreigner, healing the sick, serving the poor, standing up for peace and speaking the truth. True Christians would commit to serve the larger society as examples of grace, mercy, forgiveness and love. With such an internal reformation, perhaps the church can survive the theological pandemic that has almost destroyed both American democracy and the true Christian faith.

It’s not a myth: Marijuana really is more potent than it used to be

This ain’t your grandpa’s weed. As cannabis becomes legal in more states in countries, it’s a claim heard again and again: Today’s marijuana is far more potent than it was in the ’60s, supposedly. This week, Patrick Kennedy, a former Congressman from Rhode Island, repeated this assertion, tweeting, “The high concentration of THC in these marijuana products is not what people grew up with.” THC is the main ingredient in cannabis responsible for the “stoned” or high feeling some people seek.

Though it might sound like one of many other drug scare tactics, there is some truth to the idea. Marijuana, the processed products of cannabis plants, is getting more potent over time. Thanks to specialized breeding techniques, cannabis can be cultivated to produce 30 percent THC or more — although there is a physical limit to how much the plant can actually spit out.

So how did this happen, and how has weed changed over the years? And does this really make it any more dangerous? 

The botany of really strong weed

Some of the stronger “weed” out there isn’t actually weed, but concentrated versions of it — akin to how pure caffeine compares to coffee, or how cocaine is a concentrated version of the psychoactive drug in the coca leaf. To increase potency, cannabis chemists have, over the years, cooked up many different forms of concentrates. Recent concentrated cannabis innovations often involve industrial processing, and include butane hash oil, rosin, shatter, wax and budder. Some of these sticky confections can contain 90 percent THC or more. In June, The New York Times warned that teens are being poisoned by such products, triggering psychotic episodes and dependency.

Some health experts are extremely concerned about this trend, claiming it increases the risk of psychosis and addiction from ingesting cannabis. A recent review in The Lancet Psychiatry found that “higher potency cannabis is associated with poorer mental health outcomes.” But the same researchers noted that these studies are prone to bias and have limitations, such as not measuring exposure levels.

Furthermore, studies on cannabis potency and mental health may not account for the fact that people more prone to psychosis may be more attracted to high potency THC products. It may not be that these highly potent products are causing these mental health problems and the authors note this, writing “participants with poorer mental health outcomes could use higher potency cannabis as a form of self-medication.”

It’s important to note that isn’t exactly new. Potent cannabis products have existed for literally centuries. Concentrated cannabis resins known as hashish, which simply means “grass” in Arabic, were part of the 9th century pharmacopeia in ancient Persia, now called Iran. Its use inspired legends of assassins who would take hashish before slaughtering their enemies, but these accounts are not supported by historical evidence.

The market for super-potent weed

Today’s issues stem from a lack of regulation and standardization across the industry, according to Peter Grinspoon, a primary care physician at Harvard Medical School who specializes in medical marijuana. Grinspoon is a board member of the advocacy group Doctors For Cannabis Regulation, which seeks to provide patients with evidence about the benefits and limitations of medical cannabis. He’s also the son of Lester Grinspoon, the late associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, who was an early proponent of medical marijuana.

“I had a front row seat at the legalization movement from day one,” Grinspoon told Salon. Back then, he says, people were warned against using cannabis because smoking a whole joint was seen as bad for the lungs. Now just a single puff of a marijuana cigarette can be enough to send someone into a tailspin. “It’s like cannabis can’t win. Which is worse? To smoke a lot or just to smoke a little bit?” he muses.

“It is a little bit of experiment with these concentrates. But then again, you don’t want to ban them, because then they just end up on the illicit market, and they’re 1000 times more dangerous.”

Taking too much super-potent cannabis won’t kill you, but you could have a pretty miserable experience, which could even require a trip to the ER. In fact, some point to an increase in poison control calls post-legalization, but these reports often neglect to note that these calls may be happening more frequently because the public is less afraid of legal consequences for consuming cannabis.

Nonetheless, weed is undeniably more dank these days, Grinspoon says. So what should be done about it, if anything? Some communities have demanded potency limits, with Florida recently enacting emergency rules restricting medical marijuana patients to no more than 24,500mg of THC per 70 days. Vermont and Connecticut are the only two other states that have imposed THC caps, with both banning concentrates above 60 percent.


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


“I think it is a little bit of experiment with these concentrates. But then again, you don’t want to ban them, because then they just end up on the illicit market, and they’re 1000 times more dangerous,” Grinspoon says. After all, people seem to want high-THC marijuana, but unregulated products have been known to cause lung injuries. “So I just don’t think criminalization is the answer, no matter what your thoughts are about the relative potency past, present or future.”

But will these limits even work? Or will it just make marijuana more expensive, encouraging users to ingest twice as much? Grinspoon notes that many medical marijuana patients just want enough to alleviate their symptoms, nothing more. Not everyone wants to be super stoned.

“Many people really titrate to their own comfort. A lot of people don’t like to smoke too much. They get anxious,” Grinspoon explains. “I think the only thing [potency limits] really accomplishes is it makes it more expensive for people and drives people to the illicit market.”

Getting used to it

One overlooked aspect to these limits is tolerance. Just because someone uses a more potent dose of THC does not mean they’ll become more intoxicated. Regular use of cannabis causes the brain to downregulate or moderate itself, so users tend to get less stoned over time.

“if you’re going to make a mistake of the dose, we’re going to make a mistake by not taking enough. We’re not going to make the mistake of taking too much and freaking out.”

A 2020 study in JAMA Psychiatry gave either low or high THC concentrates to 121 Colorado adults who regularly consumed marijuana. While memory and/or balance was impacted in the short-term, the high THC group didn’t experience more impairment than the low THC group. One reason for this, the authors suggested, is “cannabinoid receptors may become saturated with THC at higher levels, beyond which there is a diminishing effect of additional THC.”

Of course, in less regular cannabis users, the high potency may still be a problem. This can be mitigated by starting low and going slow, Grinspoon advises.

“Start with a teeny bit. I say to my patients, if you’re going to make a mistake of the dose, we’re going to make a mistake by not taking enough. We’re not going to make the mistake of taking too much and freaking out,” Grinspoon says. “And people respond to that because nobody wants to be anxious. It’s just not a good feeling to consume more cannabis than you want to consume.”

Until cannabis is legalized federally, it will be difficult to standardize a typical dose of THC, Grinspoon argues. To make matters worse, many of the labels on cannabis can be misleading, as a study published last May found.

“There’s no consumer protection,” Grinspoon says. “If you over regulate, it just pops right into the illicit market and that’s even more dangerous. So it’s really a question of getting the regulation just right. And I don’t think anybody’s quite figured that out yet. It’d be a lot easier once we have federal legalization so things can be standardized.”

Nearly 40 states have legalized medical marijuana, with adult use legal in 19 states, plus D.C., and a handful of U.S. colonies. Countries like Mexico and Germany may soon join Uruguay and Canada in legalizing adult-use cannabis. The question has largely shifted from should cannabis be legal to how best to regulate in a way that doesn’t cause unforeseen harms.

Democrats should be nervous about Kari Lake

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been widely heralded as the top rising star in the Republican Party, but a former newscaster in Arizona may bump the former congressman and Harvard Law graduate off his perch.

“Kari Lake is a dual frontrunner,” conservative Rich Lowry wrote for Politico. “She is more likely than not to win her race for governor of Arizona, and then would have to be considered the favorite to become Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick should he win the Republican nomination again in 2024.”

Lake is a prominent election denier who has attacked the media for reporting on her QAnon ties, leaving Lowry to conclude she would fail to gain traction, like election-denying state Sen. Doug Mastriano, who is running for governor in Pennsylvania.

“To the contrary, Lake has been a surprise. At the same time, she’s a reminder of the oldest of conventional political adages — candidate quality matters,” Lowry wrote. “You can peddle conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and sink beneath the waves if you are a state senator with no especially notable political skills; or you can peddle conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and achieve liftoff if you are an exceptionally poised former news anchor.”

Lake is facing Democrat Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who has refused to debate the former local Fox anchor.

“Lake is the latest in a line of female champions of a grass-roots conservative populism that runs from Phyllis Schlafly to Sarah Palin to Marjorie Taylor Greene, spanning the 1950s to today,” Lowry wrote. “What’s new about Lake and MTG is that loyalty to Donald Trump and the insistence that the 2020 election was stolen are now the litmus tests for this grassroots populism.”

Lowry thinks Lake could be a top contender to be on the GOP’s 2024 presidential ticket.

“If Lake wins, she instantly has to be at the top of Trump’s potential VP list. There won’t be many other major officeholders as enthusiastic about his 2020 fixation as Lake. She’d be a governor from a crucial swing state. She’s a woman. And she’s thoroughly absorbed the Trumpian practice of politics as combat and theater and can build a crowd,” Lowry wrote. “If nothing else, though, we now know what a desperate misjudgment it was for Democrats to subtly assist Lake in the GOP primary. They thought they were propping up a patsy, when they were really helping create a star they may have to fear and loathe for years.”

Lake was also praised in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday by former Ronald Reagan chief speechwriter Kenneth Khachigian.

“What makes Ms. Lake’s message different is its simplicity and fearlessness. It’s unapologetic and sincere, not clothed in code words,” Khachigian wrote. “Ms. Lake’s popularity is booming because she has left behind the conventions of the past and called out her opponents for what they are. Maybe it was inadvertent, but she has adopted Ronald Reagan’s 1976 call for a Republican Party ‘raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels’ and ‘standing for certain values which will not be impaired.'”

On Tuesday, Lake campaigned with former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and on Wednesday with Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA).

“I love what Liz Truss is doing,” says Trump economist Stephen Moore

Far-right economist Stephen Moore was ridiculed on MSNBC Thursday after he sang the praises of UK Prime Minister Liz Truss for her tax policies. Truss was forced to resign after just 44 days when it was discovered she couldn’t actually usher in the policies she spoke about.

“I love what Liz Truss is doing,” Moore said, singing her praises. “I think it’s exactly the right agenda of cutting taxes, reducing government spending, deregulating, moving back towards fossil fuels. It’s exactly what the United States should be doing.”

“Are you seriously saying that [Joe] Biden and the Democrats will cut taxes, lower regulation in the United States?” asked Stuart Varney.

“No, they’re not going to do that,” replied Moore.

“They’re going to do the exact opposite,” Varney agreed.

“You’re right. They’re not going to do it. As my friend, Larry Kudlow would say, the cavalry is coming,” Moore said.

The implication was that the Republicans were coming and would fix everything for Americans just as Liz Truss was doing for the U.K. The problem is that it didn’t exactly end that way for Truss.

Boris Johnson’s hawkish foreign secretary came into office with the promises of her Conservative Party. She announced the party’s plans for tax cuts and deregulation which spooked the global markets sending the British pound sinking to record lows against the dollar. The situation was so bad that the Bank of England was forced to step in to help save the bond market.

That paired with some scandals in her ministry appointees.

“Did they think we wouldn’t find that? That was less than a month ago, Stephen Moore, served as economic adviser to Donald Trump himself, heaping praise on an economic plan and set of policies that would ultimately result in the shortest term for the UK prime minister ever. Ever. Never anyone lasted less time,” said Wallace. There was one prime minister who got tuberculosis and died sooner than Truss, but that’s the only one.

“Right now, I’m sure you’ve heard the news, Liz Truss, the aforementioned British Prime Minister resigned after 44 days in office. To say her trickle-down economic plan is based largely on $48 billion in unfunded tax cuts, would be overstating things. The pound plunged. The approval rating fell to minus 70 and a tabloid newspaper set up to live stream to see if her term would outlast a head of lettuce. It did not. By the way, we sent our congratulations to a head of lettuce. As the parliament and Tory Party get ready to select another leader, remember what Stephen Moore said at the top, ‘the cavalry is coming.’ He’s talking about Republicans retaking the House in three weeks in America, which would allow the Republican Party in America to enact economic measures identical to the ones that resulted in a resounding rejection by the British people of Truss.”

See the discussion below:

Check out a stunning new picture of the Pillars of Creation from the James Webb Telescope

Since the initial images from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) were unveiled in July, it has continued to produce historic images of the universe with impressive clarity. These have included a detailed view of Jupiter’s atmospherewater vapor detected on a distant planet where it was previously not known to exist; and grains of silicate like those used to make glass in the atmosphere of brown drawf VHS 1256 b, thereby solving a longstanding mystery about why it has a red glow.

Now, a new JWST image has been presented to the public — this time an unprecedented glimpse into the Pillars of Creation.

Located in the Eagle Nebula, which is part of the constellation Serpens, the Pillars of Creation are famous due to an iconic 1995 photograph shot by one of JSWT’s predecessors, the Hubble Space Telescope. From a distance, that image resembles a three-fingered hand with the base of the thumb missing and countless small fingers protruding from between the main fingers and all over the palms. It is made of red, orange and yellow gases. The hand seems to grasp at a handful of shiny red stars against the blue-green vacuum of space. 

Pillars of CreationThe James Webb Space Telescope’s 2022 image of the Pillars of Creation (NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI)The Pillars of Creation are technically a view of a nebula, the tendrils being protostars, or stars that are in the process of forming as gas collects in their vicinity. Nebulae are sometimes called “stellar nurseries,” as they are the basins in which new solar systems slowly form. Earth’s solar system, including the sun, began life as a gaseous nebula before coalescing into the sparse yet distinct objects that make it up currently. The Eagle Nebula is situated 6500 light-years from Earth; for context, the Milky Way is believed to be about 105,700 light-years across, and the universe itself has a diameter of 93 billion light-years. 

As the Biblical-sounding name suggests, the Pillars of Creation has been regularly used to evoke a sense of wonder, and has remained one of Hubble’s most ubiquitous images.

The JWST image may supplant it, however. The tiny and shiny red specks from the 1995 image, resembling little more than a cluster of lanternflies, have been replaced with hundreds of yellow, blue and white dots of all sizes and levels of brightness. The background is dark blue and black, more similar to what one would expect to see while gazing at a night’s sky. Yet the Pillars of Creation themselves have undergone the most remarkable transformation. The puffy texture of the 1995 image has now been replaced with a grainy one, and the brighter color scheme accentuates the yellows. The reason has to do with the observational instruments on the JWST, as it can observe different wavelengths than the Hubble Space Telescope, and also see in greater resolution. This new image was taken in the near-infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum, in which the nebular gas and dust is more transparent than in the visible spectrum.

Compare the new JWST photo, above, with a old Hubble image from 2014:

Pillars of CreationThe Hubble Space Telescope’s 2014 image of the Pillars of Creation (NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI)“The pillars look like arches and spires rising out of a desert landscape, but are filled with semi-transparent gas and dust, and ever changing,” NASA explains on its website.

The JWST image of the Pillars of Creation may capture its majesty, but it perhaps does not do justice to the scale: For instance, even the tiniest mutated sub-fingers in the Pillars of Creation is larger than our entire solar system. The pillar on the far left, by contrast, is over four light-years long. This means that someone traveling at the speed of light would need four years to go from one end to the other, as the actual distance is roughly 25 trillion miles (or 40 trillion kilometers). This is why subsequent telescopic observations have repeatedly yielded new details about the celestial feature. The ESA’s Herschel Space Observatory used far-infrared wavelengths in 2010 to learn more about the structures inside each of those fingers, and future Hubble images would reveal even more details.


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


“Webb’s new view of the Pillars of Creation, which were first made famous when imaged by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope in 1995, will help researchers revamp their models of star formation by identifying far more precise counts of newly formed stars, along with the quantities of gas and dust in the region,” NASA said in a statement. “Over time, they will begin to build a clearer understanding of how stars form and burst out of these dusty clouds over millions of years.”

Trump can’t declassify documents with his mind — but the whole system is badly broken

Donald Trump has an indisputably delusional view of what it takes to declassify national security secrets, recently claiming that he, as president, could have declassified documents just “by thinking about it.” As much as Trump’s latest self-serving crazy makes for good late-night comedy fodder, it also reminds us how much absurdity the U.S. government has created in national security litigation. As attorneys for whistleblowers and media sources, our cases have been the breeding ground for abuse of the broken classification system.

Beneath the public laugh-fest over Trump’s outlandish claims of telepathic declassification powers lies the implication that somewhere, somehow, there is a clear, fair process for doing so. But in reality, the classification system is plagued by over-classification and is routinely misused and abused to control the free flow of information to the public, rather than to protect national security. For example, when the Biden administration recently wanted to promote its move to require more systemic oversight for drone strikes, a senior administration official anonymously discussed the classified policy with the New York Times.

However, our client — Afghan war veteran and drone whistleblower Daniel Hale — is serving a 45-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to sharing information with the media about inaccurate targeting and underreported civilian casualties from this lethal “precision” technology. The fact that Hale is in prison for raising the alarm about the drone program, while government officials openly discuss the program with reporters when the government is seeking to appear careful rather than criminal, thoroughly undermines any claim that secrecy is necessary in order to protect national security.  

As Chelsea Manning put it so eloquently when discussing her experience as a whistleblower: “I knew the official version of why these secrets had to be kept secret. We were protecting sources. We were protecting troop movements. We were protecting national security. Those things made sense. But it also seemed, to me, that we were protecting ourselves.”

The U.S. government’s own damage assessment report bolsters Manning’s position, finding that her disclosures did no real harm to national security.  The 2011 report, which completely excoriated the government’s frantic assertions that Manning’s whistleblowing gravely harmed the U.S., was kept secret (including from Manning’s criminal defense team) until it was wrenched into public view by journalist Jason Leopold in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit years after the case ended. (National security and intelligence officials do not look kindly on Leopold’s efforts to inform the public using FOIA, a law intended to promote government transparency. Perverting the very purpose of the law, government officials deemed him a “FOIA Terrorist.”) 

The argument against whistleblowers like Manning, and more recently Daniel Hale, is often that they should not take it upon themselves to unilaterally decide what classified information should be made public. But other whistleblower cases demonstrate that the government’s official decision-making (not just Trump telepathy) on when to declassify information is at best sloppy and at worst corrupt and used to punish whistleblowers.


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


No one knows that corruption better than our client NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, whose case Manning and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden followed closely. Classification expert J. William Leonard was so alarmed at the abuse of the classification system in Drake’s case that he filed a formal complaint after the prosecution of Drake collapsed. Leonard sought accountability for the government’s dubious claim that an email found in Drake’s house was classified. That email served as the basis of an Espionage Act charge carrying a possible decade-long prison sentence for Drake — but as it turned out, the information never should have been classified in the first place.

Routine misuse of the classification system — to silence whistleblowers, cover up government crimes or selectively leak information — undermines its legitimacy, even for legitimate government secrets.

Leonard put it bluntly when later writing about it: “Every 6-year-old knows what a secret is. But apparently our nation’s national security establishment does not.” Years later, Leonard served as an expert in NSA whistleblower Reality Winner’s case, writing that she should receive a pardon in part because less than a month after her case ended, Robert S. Mueller III released the same information contained in Winner’s disclosure when he charged 12 Russian officers with election interference. Winner has not received a pardon; instead, she served a 65-month sentence, the longest ever imposed by a federal court for disclosure of information to the media, for giving a single, one-page, entirely accurate document to the media. 

The routine misappropriation of the classification system — as a blunt instrument to silence whistleblowers, a blanket to cover up government crimes or a tool to selectively leak information favorable to the current presidential administration — undermines the legitimacy of all classified information, even for legitimate government secrets. Secrecy expert Steven Aftergood aptly dubbed the current classification system as suffering a “credibility crisis.” Congress did attempt to reform the declassification process in 2021, but there’s not much to say about that here because some of the proposed declassification rules were, ironically enough, kept classified. We can hope that “Presidential Extrasensory Powers” are not included. But in all seriousness, Trump’s latest claim of overly broad presidential power to declassify documents should raise sobering questions about the government’s byzantine classification system and how it is used. 

In “American Horror Story: NYC” Ryan Murphy is out here murdering gay men again

After watching the first two episodes of Ryan Murphy’s “American Horror Story: NYC,” it’s easy to see why “AHS” alum Evan Peters skipped out this year. The show’s 11th season, set in 1981, centers on a community of gay men being stalked and killed and is the only season to not feature Peters aside from Season 9, “1984.” So either Peters has a thing against the ’80s (although, he did appear in the first season of “Pose”), or Murphy couldn’t find a way to write him in. Think about it. After topping Netflix charts for weeks in Murphy’s “Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story,” what would he have played here? Another white guy stalking and killing gays? 

As with every other season of “AHS,” Murphy strategically concealed details for his latest up until the very last minute. When the title and core cast were revealed in late September, it didn’t take difficult mental math to add up ’80s Manhattan, Patti LuPone, Sandra Bernhard and Denis O’Hare to arrive at a general presumed theme that lands somewhere between “‘Queer as Folk’ if it was set in Hell” and “gays can literally never catch a break.”

“New Season. New City. New Fears.” This was the only description provided for “AHS: NYC” back in September, but there’s nothing new about using a person’s sexual identity as the basis for horror. “You’re gay and you’re about to be killed,” is about as old hat as “You’re a woman and/or a person of color and you’re about to be killed.” At this point, you have to stop and wonder why shows and movies about that population so often revolve around torture and murder, but the biggest scares in horror centering on straight white men and their families are either ghosts, home invasions or having your wife find out that you’re a cheater.

“AHS: NYC” even manages to make the season’s only three lesbians in a sea of gay men into a punchline. As I tweeted and deleted last night after watching both of the premiere episodes, Sandra Bernhard deserves better. Alternate tweet that stayed in my head until now: If Amazon Prime doesn’t renew “A League of Their Own,” I’m gonna throw a chair through the window of my office.


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


Episode 1 of “AHS: NYC,” titled “Something’s Coming,” opens on an airline captain named Ross (Lee Aaron Rosen) and his crew checking into an NYC hotel on a layover. After being immediately propositioned for sex by one of his female flight attendants while standing in the interior hallway of the hotel, the captain flashes his wedding ring, politely refusing, and then goes into his room to put on full leatherman regalia and strut his way to a gay sex club. Naturally, he washes up in the Hudson the next morning as a headless stump.

When police officer Patrick Read (Russell Tovey) arrives at the scene, he stands over the captain’s corpse and asks the officer next to him if there was any ID on the body.

“Just this,” he says, handing over a matchbook from The Brownstone, which he refers to as “a fruit stand.”

“Yeah, I know what it is,” Patrick says, recoiling in a way that immediately suggests he’s gay and doesn’t want anyone to know about it. 

“Neck was severed around the fourth cervical vertebra,” the coroner chimes in.

“Well, at least we know what he was doing right before he died . . . giving head,” says another nearby cop.

From here we’re shown the many different ways a gay man can be killed, and the ease with which the police, as the ignorant representatives for society as a whole, could not care less aside from using their deaths as the set-up for a joke. 

Having watched every previous season of “AHS,” I’ve developed a habit of combing through the scenes of each episode in search of some deeper meaning in a way that this series has not entirely earned. I’m not alone on this, I’m sure. Since Season 1, “Murder House,” fans of “AHS” have stretched and grabbed for clues and theories on how one character or one season will tie into the next which, we should have now learned after 11 seasons, is apropos of nothing. Don’t get me wrong, I love “American Horror Story” in a way I’ve previously described as being unconditional, but this isn’t “Twin Peaks” we’re working with here. And yet, seeing the crime scene we just went over transition to a scene in which Dr. Hannah Wells (Billie Lourd) is analyzing amoeba samples taken from a dead deer on Fire Island that show some manner of mutation, I couldn’t help but think of “Red Tide,” part one of last year’s season, “Double Feature.” 

It’s been a long year, and COVID has likely eaten away a good portion of my brain cells, but as I remember it “Red Tide” revolved around a pill that would either turn people into successful geniuses if they were already a little bit talented, or zombie-like vampiric ghouls if they swallowed it down without having the natural gift to back it up. I also vaguely remember a scene where the corpses of animals were shown discarded around Provincetown, where “Red Tide” was set. This is me wanting so badly for “AHS: NYC” to turn into a “Red Tide” origin story but, as I should have learned from doing this to myself before, it’s probably just about exactly what everyone is already thinking: AIDS. Or at least an extra-brutal metaphor for it.

Murphy, who I should mention here is, himself, a gay man, and writers Brad Falchuk and Manny Coto punch up gay panic in “AHS: NYC” by working in not just one killer, but potentially four. We have “Big Daddy,” a looming muscular man in a leather hood who kills in sex clubs, we have Mr. Whitely (Jeff Hiller), who is introduced towards the end of Episode 1 when he drugs Patrick’s boyfriend, Gino (Joe Mantello) at a gay bar where he’s investigating the murders for his paper, The Native, and hustles him into an awaiting car. And then we also have AIDS, or whatever the hell this mutating amoeba ends up being, and a pervy “dick with a checkbook” named Sam (Zachary Quinto) who cons men into anally penetrating themselves with chair legs while his photographer boyfriend Theo (Isaac Cole Powell) takes Mapplethorpe-esque photos. I mean, hell, Murphy, if you’re gonna kill within your own community, might as well make it as big of a mess as possible. You know, for the art.

By the time we get to Episode 2, “Thank You for Your Service,” we have the setup for the rest of the season. Gino comes to in Mr. Whitely’s holding location and doesn’t so much as have time to moan and groan before he gets hot needles shoved under his fingernails. Yes that’s HOT NEEDLES. 

As Mr. Whitely prepares to go to work on Gino for who knows what reason, he notices that he has a marine tattoo and that stops him in his tracks.

“A fellow brother in arms . . . you can’t serve twice,” Mr. Whitely says, drugging him again to put him under and wishing him well with “Thank you for your service.” Having the name of an episode said in the episode is a fun air punch, even if the scene it’s said in involves HOT NEEDLES.

When Gino pulls himself together the next day he reports the incident to the police, with his cop boyfriend looking on and pretending to not know him, but it’s made clear yet again that they are seemingly fine with gays been being murdered and not likely to help at all.

Enlisting the help of Fran (Sandra Bernhard) and her two lesbian friends who make up the city’s entire population of lesbians in this show, as well as Adam (Charlie Carver) another local gay whose roommate got nabbed by “Big Daddy,” they join together to get to the bottom of what’s what. Hopefully in Episodes 3 and 4 we’ll learn more about the “what” and not have to see more HOT NEEDLES in the process. But knowing this show, it’ll probably be something even worse, like a vivisection at the back of a Duane Reade or something.

“American Horror Story: NYC” airs back-to-back episodes Wednesdays at 10 p.m. on FX and next day on Hulu.

“Devastating piece of evidence”: George Conway predicts Trump “meltdown to end all meltdowns”

Conservative attorney George Conway warned that Donald Trump will act more frantically after Wednesday’s bombshell ruling by a federal judge that found the former president likely committed crimes — including while in office.

“To the other big story we mentioned involving criminal liability for the former president, a federal judge in California today ordered emails turned over to the Jan. 6 committee saying they indicate the former president knew his voter fraud claims were wrong but pushed them anyway,” CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

For analysis, the anchor interviewed Conway and Alyssa Farah Griffin, who served as director of strategic communications in Trump’s White House.

Conway said, “this is a smoking gun for the prosecutor in Georgia and the Georgia investigation is very advanced. This is going to be a very important document and exhibit in the charges that I’m sure she’s going to bring.”

Griffin noted she had heard Trump complain about the fact he had lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden.

“So the fact is most people around Trump, including Trump himself, knew he lost, but they wanted to desperately cling to power in any way they could,” she said. “I would agree with George, I do think this is the closest thing to a smoking gun in just deliberate wrongdoing.”

“It kind of reeks of desperation,” Griffin said. I think he’s in a place he feels cornered in various different investigations.”

“This man is cornered at every turn and he’s not surrounded by wise legal council, so think you will see further acts of desperation from him,” she said.

Conway said Trump would be unable to block the emails from being handed over to the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“This is going to be used against him and it is a devastating, as I said, a devastating piece of evidence,” Conway said.

“I agree with Alyssa, he’s a desperate man and he’s getting more and more desperate,” he continued. “I think we will see that over the coming months. He will run for president, in effect, for protection against these legal proceedings, but there will be too many of them and I think we’re going to see the — you know, I think he might get the nomination anyway, but I think we will see the meltdown to end all meltdowns of a public figure.”

Watch below or at this link.

Jan 6. committee can’t find a Trump lawyer that will accept service of subpoena: report

The House Jan. 6 committee voted to subpoena former President Donald Trump last week but investigators are still trying to find someone authorized to accept service of it, according to ABC News.

The subpoena was introduced by the panel’s vice chair, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who called Trump the riot’s “central player.” All nine members of the panel voted to approve the resolution.

The panel’s chair, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., acknowledged the move as a “serious and extraordinary action” but said that the committee had an “obligation” to hear from Trump.

“This is a question about accountability to the American people. He must be accountable. He is required to answer for his actions. He’s required to answer to those police officers who put their lives and bodies on the line to defend our democracy. He’s required to answer to those millions of Americans whose votes he wanted to throw out as part of his scheme to remain in power,” Thompson said.

Members of his legal team, including Evan Corcoran and John Rowley, have both told committee investigators they are not permitted to accept service of the subpoena on behalf of the former president, according to ABC News.

Corcoran has emerged as a key figure representing Trump in his federal investigation related to the Mar-a-Lago documents and Rowley has been representing the former president on executive privilege issues related to the DOJ’s ongoing probe of the Jan. 6 attack.

If the matter is sorted, the subpoena could be issued as soon as Thursday, sources told ABC News.

Trump has told aides that he would comply and testify before the committee only if it is broadcast live, according to The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman. In a 14-page letter that he wrote to the committee, Trump repeatedly brought up false claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election — the same allegations that fueled the attack on the Capitol — but did not say whether he will comply with the subpoena.

“This memo is being written to express our anger, disappointment, and complaint that with all of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on what many consider to be a Charade and Witch Hunt, and despite strong and powerful requests, you have not spent even a short moment on examining the massive Election Fraud that took place during the 2020 Presidential Election, and have targeted only those who were, as concerned American Citizens, protesting the Fraud itself,” Trump wrote. 

If for some reason Trump resists the subpoena, it could result in a constitutional showdown with the committee encountering several hurdles in asking him to comply, according to legal experts and congressional counsel, the Washington Post reported.

The former president is also busy fighting other legal battles. Trump for weeks dodged a $250 million lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump and Eric Trump for weeks avoided being served with a subpoena until a judge allowed James to serve the subpoena electronically after she complained to the court.


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


The lawsuit accuses Trump, his three eldest children and the Trump Organization of lying about the value of their assets for years. Trump “falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to further enrich himself and cheat the system” and “repeatedly and persistently manipulated the value of assets to induce banks to lend money to the Trump Organization,” James said at a news conference

In addition to pursuing penalties, James is also seeking to permanently bar the Trumps from conducting business in New York. 

The state attorney general’s office is also seeking the appointment of an independent monitor to “oversee compliance, financial reporting, valuations, and disclosures to lenders, insurers, and tax authorities at the Trump Organization” for at least five years.

As part of her 2018 campaign, James vowed to investigate and sue Trump – who she referred to as an “illegitimate president” and an “embarrassment.” 

Trump has insisted that, like other investigations, the attorney general’s office is also conducting a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Exposing the financial costs of climate change – and denial of the climate crisis

Biting the Hand

It hasn’t been the best season for the invisible hand, the 18th century principle that the market be left to its own devices free of government intervention.

In August, President Biden took his right hand and applied his signature to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — signaling that the government would be tipping scales in the economy toward renewable energy. While unanimous opposition from Republicans signaled their continuing lip service to that free market ideology, in truth they — along with some Democrats — have long manipulated the economics of energy by steering billions of dollars in public funds toward the fossil fuel industry.

Fossil fuel companies have received at least $20 billion annually in federal and state government subsidies over the past 10 years alone, and as much as $6 trillion from governments worldwide. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres declared in September that the industry was “feasting off subsidies” while our planet burns. So there’s an important frame to the story of the IRA that’s worth remembering: The $141 billion it allocates to support wind and solar industries represents what is likely the first time that subsidies and tax credits for renewable energy in the United States have exceeded subsidies to fossil fuel companies — and is just about two-thirds of what the petrochemical companies have received from the government over the past decade.

The massive government support for oil and gas interests was largely missing from the reporting on the IRA, and is certainly worthy of greater media scrutiny moving forward. In the U.S. those subsidies come in the form of loan guarantees, tax breaks and discounted rates for drilling on public lands, and in some cases direct payments to explore for oil in difficult locales — all provided to the companies that are, collectively, most responsible for the massive and expensive climate disruptions being experienced on Earth. Identifying which fossil fuel companies receive those different forms of direct and indirect government aid would be a significant contribution to the public interest — particularly since the public funds the subsidies, and the public pays for the billions of dollars in damages to the economy from the companies’ greenhouse gas emissions.

The climate economist Richard Heede has identified the primary contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, and it is a very small group. Apportioning responsibility for climate costs to any one company is, of course, difficult given the range of emitters. But when Heede reviewed CO2 emissions data from 1854 to 2010, he discovered that just 90 global companies are responsible for two-thirds of the emissions now wreaking havoc in the atmosphere. Among the top 20 global emitters from 1854 to 2010 are five U.S. companies, including the top two, Chevron and ExxonMobil.

We know their names and those of others, and the media can and should remind us of them with each new financial consequence — from the costs of fighting new diseases linked to increased heat to contending with the developmental impact on children of exposure to greenhouse gasses like nitrogen dioxide to rebuilding from extreme weather disasters, which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimates to be at least $15 billion thus far this year alone, and could be as much as $128 billion annually by mid-century, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. And that’s just one fraction of the damages which will, if current emission rates persist, only increase. NOAA recently issued a handy graph on the accelerating pace of “billion dollar” extreme climate disasters. And here are two sources on fossil fuel subsidies and the industries that bear significant responsibility for those costs: Oil Change International and the Environmental Integrity Project.

This great piece in Nature gets as close as I’ve seen to an explanation for why the helping hands given to the petrochemical companies can be difficult to report. Fundamentally, it’s because they’re so deeply woven into obscure tax codes and provisions of the national budget. Challenges notwithstanding, there are many vital stories to be written on taxpayer-supported handouts to oil and gas entities.  

The pressures of climate change are revealing how the myth of the so-called invisible hand has long concealed what is in fact a highly manipulated energy market. This became quite visible when, in the runup to the passage of the IRA, 15 states pulled back the curtain on just how much the “free market” deck is stacked. Politico detailed how West Virginia’s Republican state treasurer was about to place at least six major financial firms on a blacklist for state funds due to their attempts to, slowly but steadily, shift their investments away from fossil fuels. By the time Biden signed the IRA, in August, the state treasurers of at least five other states — Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Florida — had also established, or announced their intention to establish, their own often overlapping blacklists of financial firms retreating from fossil fuel investments.

Among the blacklisted companies are Wells Fargo, BlackRock, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. More Republican-led states are likely to follow. Most of the state funds in question are tied to employees’ pensions, which means the retirement funds of state employees will be even more directly exposed to accelerating climate risks — as the state treasurer of Oregon pointed out — than they already are. (At current emission rates those costs would likely cut global economic output by 10%-14% by 2050 — amounting to as much as $23 trillion — according to the global insurer SwissRe, which has its money on the line with such predictions.) The head of Ceres, an NGO that has been pushing climate disclosure rules for years, captures the “blatant lie” at the heart of the actions of West Virginia and the other states.

Oklahoma’s Republican governor, Kevin Stitt, declared that the blacklist bill would put an end to what he called “energy discrimination.” Which is another way of saying that the state should go back to discriminating in favor of oil. That mix of tax breaks and subsidies to the fossil fuel industries has amounted to as much as $500 million annually in recent years, according to an Oklahoma Policy Institute newsletter.

The question that would no doubt lead to an overflow of revealing stories in the 16 states where such initiatives are either complete or in motion, not to mention other fossil fuel-producing states, is this: In what ways has government favored oil and gas companies, and does that constitute “discrimination” against renewable energy companies?

Answers to that question might be the final bite to the myth of the invisible hand that’s been grifting us for more than two centuries.

Black Rock and a Hard Place

Meanwhile, tensions are rising for the financiers, caught in a climate pincer: Those very same blacklisted companies, and many more, will soon be contending with a new set of reporting requirements from the Securities and Exchange Commission, set to take effect in January. The SEC’s proposed new guidelines will require that publicly traded companies report to shareholders the “material” risks they face from climate change.

For financial firms like Goldman Sachs, Chase Manhattan, Bank of America and others that are on the evolving Republican blacklist, that will include the risks faced by the companies they loan money to or invest in. Climate change is hitting the bottom line, and the SEC wants those financial exposures no longer hidden.

The SEC’s initiative came shortly after West Virginia’s treasurer withdrew $8 billion in state funds from an investment fund at BlackRock, the publicly traded financial giant, in response to the company’s CEO recommending that investors embrace a “net zero” strategy favoring low carbon emitters.

I have no great sympathy for the financial community. But consider this: These corporations now face two converging and contradictory forces that foreshadow trouble ahead. On the one hand, they are under pressure from states controlling access to potentially multibillion dollar accounts not to pay attention to the mounting economic consequences of climate change. On the other hand, the SEC is telling them to pay attention to precisely those pressures in order to produce an accurate portrait of their financial prospects. 

These colliding imperatives will compel some of the nation’s largest financial firms to decide between defying the SEC — which would subject them to potential sanctions for nondisclosure of financial risks — or defying the rules of nearly a quarter of the states, and losing potentially billions of dollars’ worth of public fund accounts.

There will be great opportunities for high-impact media coverage as companies maneuver through those converging pressures and the vice tightens. What, if anything, does JP Morgan Chase do to regain its hold on millions of dollars it handled for West Virginia government pension funds, and the funds of other states withdrawing their assets on climate grounds?

More such questions — and storylines — are coming down the pike as even the bland rating agencies discover the climate backlash. For example, how do businesses in Utah and Idaho respond to the declaration by those states’ financial officers that they will not be bound by the creditworthiness ratings of S&P Global due to the willingness of that company, one of the stalwarts of the U.S. credit business, to incorporate environmental and social factors in its ratings of companies’ financial health? 

Follow the Money

All of which raises another question as climate disruptions to the economic order accelerate: If shareholders will now be informed about the very real risks from climate disruptions to the U.S. and global economy, what about the rest of us? What, for example, are the consequences of…

 …the rising cost of peaches and cherries and other immovable tree crops as temperatures rise, chill hours (key to ripening) fall, and fruit quality and quantity decline? …the diminishing value of a condo on the coast of Florida after the devastation of a hurricane and the likelihood of more to come as sea levels rise? …the increased cost of crop insurance for farmers and the impact on food prices? …the costs to school districts forced to install air conditioning units in their classrooms?

Climate change is causing the creation of divergent economies — those that recognize how profoundly it alters calculations of risk and economic fortune, and those that refuse to acknowledge those risks even as the costs rise. Blindness to financial risk would be a sure sign that a CEO has lost his or her business savvy. Abundant reporting opportunities lie in the split reality emerging between those who acknowledge the risks ahead and those who fail to see them.