Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Donald Trump planned and directed the whole damn thing — why is anybody still defending him?

The Jan. 6 committee’s final public hearing before the midterm election ended with a bang, not a whimper. At the conclusion of the hearing the committee’s nine members voted unanimously to subpoena former President Donald Trump to testify. After their two-and-a-half hour presentation, it’s hard to imagine how they ever could have contemplated doing otherwise. They presented a meticulously documented case which showed that Trump had a premeditated plan of many months to deny losing the election, plotted a coup to overturn the results if he did, incited a violent insurrection when that was thwarted, and then refused for hours to respond to the violence as he watched it unfold on television. Whether he will respond to the subpoena remains to be seen, but either way it’s another black mark on his uniquely corrupt and dishonest political career.

For most of us who closely followed events in real time, both on Jan. 6 and through the subsequent investigations and revelations, much of this was not news. But it’s been a while since we focused on some of these details, and to see it presented in narrative form, with so much video and documentary evidence, is still powerful. For instance, the fact that Trump had planned to contest the election if he lost was no secret. Indeed, he had signaled back in 2016 that he would never concede defeat, famously declaring in the days before that election, “I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win.” For years after that victory he insisted that he’d actually won the popular vote but had been victimized by millions of immigrants illegally voting in California. He even convened something called the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to try to prove that case. Even his hand-picked hacks couldn’t turn up any evidence, and the “commission” was quietly disbanded without even issuing a report.

As 2020 approached with Trump down in the polls and the pandemic wreaking havoc around world, he began to lay the groundwork for denying his loss once again. For months he railed against mail-in ballots — which were being instituted in many states in response to the pandemic — setting up a narrative that they were inherently fraudulent. He threatened to withhold federal funds from states that used mail-in voting and accused California of setting up massive fraud by sending out ballots to all registered voters. Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Bill Stepien, told the committee that he couldn’t be talked out of his irrational opposition to voting by mail, even though there were numerous states where it would likely benefit him and Republicans in general.

Outside advisers and surrogates like Steve Bannon and Roger Stone publicly discussed the plan to claim victory regardless of the actual vote count. Most strikingly, the committee dug up a draft speech sent to Trump by right-wing activist Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch — now among his most influential advisers in the Mar-a-Lago documents case — proposing that Trump should declare victory on election night and declare that all votes not yet counted were illegitimate. Which is almost exactly what he did.

So he clearly planned to say the election was rigged long before the first votes were cast, and the coup plot in which Trump and his legal lackeys contested the results in numerous states was also planned well in advance. But those cases got thrown out of courts across the country, by Republican and Democratic judges alike, and as Thursday’s hearing revealed, this made Trump furious. Former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson testified that after the Supreme Court refused to hear the crackpot lawsuit meant to overturn the results in several battleground states (which of course Trump saw as a personal betrayal), she ran into the president in a hallway where he was “raging” about the decision. Trump told chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to Hutchinson, that he didn’t want people to know they had lost the case, tasking Meadows with making sure they didn’t find out. That’s nuts, of course, but it’s also highly revealing.

Hutchinson also testified that during Trump’s diatribe to Meadows, he asked, “Why didn’t we make more calls?” That’s a curious thing to say, and raises the unanswered question of exactly who they were calling as the Supreme Court was considering the case. Is that how things work with the court’s conservative majority?


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


Since the committee finally got its hands on a considerable number of emails and other Jan. 6-related documents from the Secret Service — although not the missing and apparently erased text messages — there was some disturbing new information about what the agency knew ahead of time about the threats of violence. Something is deeply wrong with the Secret Service, it seems, and it doesn’t stop with them. Law enforcement in general appears to have ignored a mountain of incoming intelligence telegraphing the fact that pro-Trump extremists were highly agitated and violence was possible or even likely.

Something is deeply wrong with the Secret Service, and it doesn’t stop there. Law enforcement ignored a mountain of incoming intelligence indicating that pro-Trump extremists were highly agitated and violence was likely.

Trump knew that too. Jason Miller, the Trump campaign’s senior communications adviser, forwarded to Mark Meadows a link to a startling social media page that included such comments as “Gallows don’t require electricity” and “our lawmakers in Congress can leave one of two ways; one, in a body bag, two, after rightfully certifying Trump the winner.” Miller didn’t express alarm or concern; he boasted: “I got the base fired up.” (Miller claimed after the fact that he didn’t know about the more extreme comments.) 

As a result of law enforcement’s failure to prepare for Jan. 6, Congress was left vulnerable after Trump gave his big speech on the Ellipse, urging his rabid followers to march to the Capitol. (Some of them, in fact, were already there.) He wanted to go there too but his Secret Service detail refused to take him, leading to the purported fight between Trump and his agents in the presidential SUV. What he planned to do there we can only imagine — but now we know what the leaders of the House and Senate were doing during that time: responding to the crisis, which Trump refused to do.

While the president was sitting in the Oval Office dining room reveling in the images of his mob storming the Capitol and threatening to kill Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence, congressional leaders had been taken to a secure location where they were working hard to get police and National Guard troops to the Capitol to put down the insurrection. As it happens, a documentary crew was on hand that day to record the historic vote and they captured Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer (then the minority leader) taking charge, calmly reaching out to various government officials and trying to get Cabinet members, including the acting attorney general and acting defense secretary, to persuade Trump to call off the mob. It’s an impressive display of leadership, considering they knew they were being hunted like animals as it was happening.

The cumulative effect of all the Jan. 6 hearings, culminating in Thursday’s wrap-up of the central narrative, has made clear that Donald Trump set up the coup before the election, was personally involved in the various attempts to execute it, understood that violence was possible on Jan. 6, and incited the crowd to storm the Capitol and refused to take any action to stop them. Everything that happened came at his direction and was done in his name. 

Beyond that, Trump has turned the country upside down for two years and built an anti-democratic movement dedicated to destroying the right to vote and sabotaging elections, entirely in service to his injured ego and his refusal to admit that he could ever possibly lose. He is a damaged, destructive narcissist, beyond all help. But the really disturbing question now is why so many people are eager to believe his dangerous fantasies.

Trump started “Trump Organization II” on same day as fraud lawsuit to dodge accountability: NY AG

New York Attorney General Letitia James accused former President Donald Trump of forming a new company called “Trump Organization II” in a possible bid to dodge accountability in a lawsuit she brought against him, his company and his family.

James last month filed a lawsuit accusing Trump, three of his adult children and the Trump Organization of a decade-long fraud scheme. The lawsuit alleges more than 200 instances of fraud intended to gain favorable loan terms or reduce tax liabilities and seeks $250 million in penalties and a ban on Trump and his adult children from running any company in the state, among other penalties.

James in a court filing on Thursday revealed that the Trump Organization registered a new company called “Trump Organization II LLC” in Delaware on the same day that she filed the lawsuit.

“Beyond just the continuation of its prior fraud, the Trump Organization now appears to be taking steps to restructure its business to avoid existing responsibilities under New York law,” the filing said.

The filing said that Trump’s lawyers initially “offered no assurances” that assets would not be transferred to the new company to avoid potential liability in New York. Ahead of the filing, the AG’s office said, “counsel did offer to provide assurances and advance notice to address what were described as ‘purported concerns,’ but again offered no concrete mechanism to either effectuate or enforce that offer.”

James asked the court to bar the Trump Organization from transferring any assets and appoint a special monitor to ensure compliance. The filing also asks that the special monitor review “any new financial disclosures made to banks and insurers to ensure they are not fraudulent,” James said on Twitter.

The filing requested to serve notice to Trump and his son Eric Trump electronically because “both defendants and their counsels have refused to accept service of the complaints for almost a month.”

“Since we filed this sweeping lawsuit last month, Donald Trump and the Trump Organization have continued those same fraudulent practices and taken measures to evade responsibility,” James said in a news release. “Today, we are seeking an immediate stop to these actions because Mr. Trump should not get to play by different rules.”


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


Trump has denied any wrongdoing and accused James of political motives and “racism.” Trump attorney Alina Habba on Thursday called James’ filing “simply another stunt.”

“We have repeatedly provided assurance, in writing, that the Trump Organization has no intention of doing anything improper,” Habba said in a statement to CNN.

Habba claimed that the filing was a “thinly-veiled attempt” to keep the case before state Justice Arthur Engoron, who has overseen matters related to James’ probe and previously fined Trump $110,000 for refusing to sit for a deposition. Habba filed a pending request that the case be overseen by another judge.

James in her lawsuit accused Trump of lying to lending firms and insurers by overstating the value of his assets by billions while deflating the value of those same assets to lower his tax liability. James said she referred her findings to federal prosecutors and the IRS to review for potential federal crimes.

Thursday’s filing said that James’ three-year investigation has amassed enough evidence to succeed in the lawsuit.

“The evidence of the Trump Organization’s fraud in deriving and presenting the asset valuations reflected in the Statements over the course of a decade-plus,” the filing said, “is overwhelming.”

Inside the industry push to label your yogurt cup ‘recyclable’

Plastic recycling labels are everywhere: The ubiquitous “chasing arrows” symbol adorns everything from plastic bags and water bottles to kids’ toys. 

Most commonly, these symbols appear with a number — 1 through 7 — that identifies the type of plastic resin a product is made of. A number 1, for instance, corresponds to polyethylene terephthalate, or PET — the stuff that makes up water bottles. Number 6 is for polystyrene, used in foam cups and trays. The plastics industry insists these icons were never meant to indicate a product’s recyclability, even though that is how they are often perceived by consumers.

In fact, most plastics are not recyclable, largely because there is no market for materials labeled 3 through 7. But that hasn’t stopped the widespread use of the chasing arrows. 

With no federal program to evaluate products’ recyclability and issue labels for them, third-party organizations have stepped in to play this role instead. One organization in particular, How2Recycle, has devised an elaborate hierarchy with several versions of its own recycling symbol, which it sells to hundreds of companies ranging from Lowe’s to Beyond Meat. 

The organization, whose parent nonprofit is based in Virginia, says it analyzes waste management systems nationwide to figure out whether companies’ products and packaging are recyclable and then issues a corresponding label. It’s ostensibly an attempt to clear up confusion among consumers about what should and shouldn’t go into the blue bin. The group describes its markers as “recycling labels that make sense.” 

This summer, How2Recycle declared a big victory for the companies it sells labels to: It now considers a wide set of products made from polypropylene, or PP — the resin corresponding to the number 5 — to be “widely recyclable,” meaning the organization thinks that more than 60 percent of Americans have access to a curbside or drop-off recycling program that accepts them. Polypropylene accounts for about 14 percent of the U.S.’s plastic production.

The announcement makes polypropylene tubs, bottles, and jars — things like yogurt containers and ketchup bottles — eligible for How2Recycle’s top-tier recycling label: a chasing arrows symbol with no qualifications. 

But industry experts and environmental advocates have raised their eyebrows. Based on federal recycling data, independent national waste management surveys, and firsthand accounts from material sorting facilities, polypropylene recycling isn’t nearly as widespread as How2Recycle’s labeling implies. Even if PP products were technically accepted by facilities that serve a majority of Americans — which researchers say they are not — polypropylene is much more commonly landfilled or incinerated than turned into new products. This is because it is often filled with toxic chemical additives or contaminated with food waste, both of which make it difficult to turn it into new products. It’s usually less economical to sort out polypropylene for recycling than to simply discard it and make new products from virgin material.

“Post-consumer PP packaging and products have never been recyclable or recycled … above a few percent,” said Jan Dell, an independent chemical engineer and founder of the advocacy group The Last Beach Cleanup. Through How2Recycle, she said, plastic and packaging companies are “creating their own non-verified data” and ignoring key provisions of the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, a set of requirements meant to prevent companies from making deceptive claims about the environmental benefits of their products. 

As a result, Dell said, the industry has been allowed to deepen the public’s confusion about recycling, gulling people and policymakers into thinking that it will be able to keep pace with plastic manufacturers’ plans to dramatically scale up production

* * *

How2Recycle is part of a labyrinth of organizations and industry membership programs that promote “sustainable materials management.” When it officially launched in 2012, the organization branded itself as an attempt to clear up confusion among consumers about what they could recycle. Many companies — including Yoplait, Costco, REI, and Microsoft — were quick to sign on, eager to affix How2Recycle’s labels to their products.

The program took the onus off of individual companies for claims about recyclability. How2Recycle would do all the necessary research into specific products’ recycling rates and community access to recycling programs, allowing participants to rest assured that their recycling labels were compliant with federal law. Today, more than 400 companies pay annual membership fees to place How2Recycle labels on their packages, including Amazon, Clif Bar, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, and Starbucks.

At the top of How2Recycle’s labeling hierarchy is a simple “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, which the organization gives to products that it says are accepted by curbside or drop-off recycling programs that serve at least 60 percent of the American population. This is the label that How2Recycle said in late July some polypropylene products would now be eligible for. Previously, in 2020, the organization had downgraded PP products from the unqualified chasing arrows to a “Check Locally” label that instructed consumers to verify whether their community’s recycling program would accept them.

“As rigid polypropylene access, sortation, and end markets are on an upward trend across the U.S., we are excited to upgrade this packaging format,” Caroline Cox, How2Recycle’s director, said in a press release this summer.

However, other sources paint a very different picture of the United States’ plastic recycling landscape — especially for polypropylene, which is far more difficult to turn into new products than How2Recycle’s labels make it seem. “It is not possible that 60 percent of Americans have access to established recycling systems that accept PP packaging of any type,” Dell, of The Last Beach Cleanup, said. 

First, she explained, industry data suggests that only 60 percent of Americans have access to any recycling program, let alone one that accepts polypropylene containers. Most facilities only accept plastics that are easier to recycle, such as bottles made of PET. And additional data that Dell is compiling for 2022 shows that only half of the country’s 373 material recovery facilities, or MRFs — specialized plants that process and sort all the items people toss in their blue bins — say they accept polypropylene tubs, one of the most recyclable PP products out there (think margarine containers and cottage cheese cups). As a result, only 28 percent of Americans have access to recycling programs that accept these polypropylene containers.

“Overall accessibility for plastic recycling has dropped, if anything,” said John Hocevar, Greenpeace’s oceans campaign director. In recent years, labor shortages and high prices for recycled materials have caused cuts in curbside recycling programs, and many MRFs have stopped accepting most plastic resins. 

What’s more, Hocevar and others argue that the accessibility of recycling programs is a distraction from a more important metric: the real recycling rate. Just because polypropylene is collected doesn’t mean it will ultimately be recycled. According to the most recent available data from the Environmental Protection Agency, only 2.7 percent of polypropylene “containers and packaging” were recycled in 2018. If you include all forms of polypropylene, that number falls to just 0.6 percent.

One reason PP is difficult to recycle is that it’s not as clean or pure as other kinds of plastic. Unlike products made from PET or high-density polyethylene (HDPE) — labeled with the numbers 1 and 2, respectively — polypropylene products, labeled with the number 5, often contain toxic additives that make it difficult to turn them back into usable items. Another reason is that PP is typically collected in bales of mixed plastic that include a variety of resins labeled with the numbers 3 through 7.

In order to be recycled, PP must be picked out of these bales and then sold to an extremely limited number of facilities that will actually accept that plastic. (​​In 2020, Greenpeace estimated that the U.S. only had enough processing capacity to recycle less than 5 percent of its PP waste.) The whole process is prohibitively expensive, especially since the final product must be competitively priced against virgin plastics. According to the EPA, the U.S. generated more than 8 million tons of polypropylene waste in 2018, the most recent year for which data are available.

Jeff Donlevy, a member of California’s Statewide Commission on Recycling Markets and Curbside Recycling and general manager of Ming’s Recycling, a company based in northern California, said that many facilities continue to accept polypropylene — even if they have no intention of recycling it — because of outdated, 10-or-more-year contracts with cities. At the time when many of these contracts were signed, MRFs said they would accept polypropylene because they could send mixed plastic bales to China for sorting and recycling. But in 2018, when China enacted its “National Sword” policy and closed its borders to most plastic waste imports, U.S. MRFs were saddled with a glut of resins that are uneconomical and logistically difficult to turn into new products.

Of the roughly 80 MRFs in California, Donlevy said the vast majority are not recycling plastics made of resins labeled number 3 and above. This includes polypropylene, number 5. Most facilities are “just landfilling whatever number 5 they get,” he said. 

* * *

How2Recycle says on its website that it takes four factors into account when determining a product’s recyclability — collection, sortation, reprocessing, and end markets — but it is not transparent about the exact methodology it uses to evaluate these criteria. Much of its data comes from an industry report conducted by How2Recycle’s parent organization that looks at a “non-random” sample of large recycling programs throughout the U.S., along with a random sample of recycling programs in smaller communities. In the most recent edition of the report, these censuses consisted of web searches for each recycling program to determine what kinds of plastic they accept. 

Environmental advocates question the results of these analyses, but they say the larger issue is that How2Recycle fails to say anything about the real recycling rate of PP products. Again, the “widely recyclable” label is only supposed to reflect a material’s acceptance by curbside and drop-off recycling programs. But this information is not printed on the organization’s unconditional recycling labels. Donlevy said this oversight “misleads the public.” 

It may also contravene sustainable packaging guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, a government agency that promotes consumer protection. By slapping recycling labels without qualifiers onto polypropylene tubs and other containers, How2Recycle appears to be ignoring key provisions of the FTC’s Green Guides, a set of detailed but nonbinding requirements for claims about products’ environmental benefits. The U.S. government does not have a program to issue or approve recycling labels, so this is the primary check for labels created by private groups.

At the broadest level, the FTC says it is deceptive to “misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is recyclable.” This means that companies should not use a recycling label without qualifiers — like How2Recycle’s gold standard chasing arrows symbol — unless they can prove that recycling facilities for their labeled products are available to at least 60 percent of consumers. Critically, the commission also calls on companies to substantiate that these facilities “will actually recycle, not accept and ultimately discard” labeled products. 

Marketers “should not assume that consumers or communities have access to a particular recycling program merely because the program will accept a product,” the FTC says in the Green Guides’ statement of basis and purpose. Although the guides aren’t legally binding, activity that is inconsistent with them can be used as evidence of a violation of the FTC Act’s provisions on “Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices” and can result in fines or additional rulemaking. State governments can also cite the Green Guides when building false advertising or consumer protection cases.

Dell lamented that the FTC has never, to her knowledge, taken action to stop a company from misusing an unqualified recycling label. But courts have. Take, for example, a 2018 lawsuit filed by a consumer against Keurig over claims that the company’s polypropylene coffee pods were “recyclable.” Keurig argued that its labels were consistent with the Green Guides, but a U.S. District Court in California disagreed and refused to dismiss the case. The court said that even if the coffee pods were technically collected by municipal recycling programs, they were not in practice being recycled. Keurig settled the case this year for $10 million and has changed the labels on its coffee pods.

Greenpeace argues that How2Recycle is using similar sleight with its own labels, claiming recyclability with insufficient substantiation. “Polypropylene does not come close to meeting the requirements” for recycling labels laid out by the FTC, the organization said in a press release. It is neither accepted at recycling facilities that serve 60 percent of the population nor actually recycled at a significant rate. 

In response to Grist’s request for comment, Paul Nowak — executive director of How2Recycle’s parent organization, GreenBlue — said that How2Recycle’s labels not only satisfy the Green Guides’ requirements but “go beyond them.” Although How2Recycle does not have internal data on the real recycling rate for polypropylene, Nowak said How2Recycle has reviewed “letters of support” from MRFs saying that they plan to expand their recycling capacity for polypropylene. Nowak declined to share these letters with Grist.

How2Recycle’s website offers some clarification. Although the organization claims to consider “sortation” and “reprocessing” for products that will feature its labels, How2Recycle explains online that it ultimately does not take into account the real-world recycling rate when evaluating a product’s recyclability — in contrast to definitions of recyclability from other organizations, like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, an international nonprofit that advocates for a circular economy.

* * *

Nowak insists that How2Recycle spent “several months” verifying data on the increased recyclability of polypropylene. But Dell thinks there’s an irresolvable conflict of interest at play, since How2Recycle and the organizations whose data it cites are run and funded by companies that make and sell plastics. “We’ve got all these front groups funded by the plastics and products industry to create and perpetuate the myth that plastics are recyclable,” she said.

The recent push to make polypropylene “widely recyclable” started outside How2Recycle, with a separate industry group called the Recycling Partnership — a nonprofit whose board of directors includes executives for major brands and plastic industry groups: Keurig Dr. Pepper, Nestlé, the Association of Plastic Recyclers, and the American Beverage Association, among others. The organization lists roughly 80 “funding partners” on its website, including two of North America’s main petrochemical industry trade groups, the American Chemistry Council and the Plastics Industry Association.

In 2020, a few months after How2Recycle downgraded PP products to only be eligible for the “Check Locally” label, the Recycling Partnership launched a new initiative — directly funded by many plastic brands and industry trade groups — to “ensure the long-term viability of polypropylene.”

The Recycling Partnership claims it contributed to a spike in polypropylene recycling over the past two years through a series of 24 grants worth $6.7 million. The group did not respond to Grist’s request for more information, but a press release notes that the funding helped “support sorting improvements and community education across the U.S.” According to the Recycling Partnership, these grants increased the amount of polypropylene recovered by 25 million pounds annually. Now, the group says its proprietary “National Recycling Database” shows 65 percent of Americans having access to PP recycling.

According to Nowak, the Recycling Partnership approached How2Recycle with this data in early 2022, requesting that How2Recycle reevaluate its labeling for polypropylene. After what Nowak described as a lengthy evaluation process, he said the data matched what he was seeing with How2Recycle’s own analysis, as well as information provided by an outside consulting firm. In response to Grist’s request for comment, the consulting firm said it provided How2Recycle with access-to-recycling data and “end market” research to show there is a market for polypropylene that ultimately does get recycled. The firm did not share data on polypropylene’s real recycling rate and told Grist to reach out to the Recycling Partnership.

How2Recycle, meanwhile, has its own web of connections to big brands and the plastics industry. The group’s parent organization, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, is an industry working group whose members include Procter and Gamble, Coca-Cola, and the ExxonMobil Chemical Company, as well as a host of other plastic makers. GreenBlue, the umbrella organization that houses How2Recycle and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, has a board of directors that includes executives from the Dow Chemical Company, Mars, the packaging companies Printpack and Westrock, and more.

Nowak said he is aware of concerns over potential conflicts of interest, but that How2Recycle’s parent organizations are “very careful about who we start to work with.” At How2Recycle, he added, “we stay neutral in all that.”

* * *

Dell has often spoken of the plastic labeling landscape as the “wild, wild West,” with “no sheriff in town” to protect consumers from deceptive recycling claims. The FTC, whose Green Guides may soon be updated for the first time since 2012, declined to comment on How2Recycle’s labeling system, and environmental advocates have expressed frustration that the commission hasn’t done more to enforce the guidelines.

Without stronger government regulation, Dell said, “How2Recycle and the product companies have filled the void to become the deciders” of what should and shouldn’t bear the recycling label.

But states are catching on. California passed nation-leading legislation last year making it illegal for companies to use the chasing arrows on products that are not actually being turned into new products. (In this case the state, rather than How2Recycle, will determine recyclability, and it will take into account both collection and the real recycling rate.) The law is expected to eliminate recycling symbols on virtually all plastic packaging that isn’t made of number 1 or number 2 resins, since those are the only kinds of plastic currently being recycled with significant regularity. It could have an impact on other states, too — if plastic manufacturers decide it is too cumbersome to create new product lines for the California market, they could decide to remove recycling symbols for the whole country.

Hocevar of Greenpeace said the California bill is an important step in the right direction and called on other states to adopt similar policies. Environmental advocates have also cheered a separate effort from the California attorney general’s office, which announced in April that it was launching an investigation into the petrochemical industry’s “aggressive campaign to deceive the public” about the feasibility of recycling.

To truly address the plastic pollution crisis, Hocevar and others say that the top priority should be turning off the tap — limiting the production of plastic that ultimately has to be dealt with. In the U.S., perhaps the most promising move in this direction is the proposed Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act, a far-reaching federal bill that would ban carryout plastic bags and other single-use plastic products, require plastics companies to launch and finance programs to manage the waste they produce, and place a moratorium on new petrochemical facilities until the EPA can undertake a comprehensive assessment of the industry’s environmental impact.

In the meantime, Donlevy said that companies should stop trying to trick consumers into feeling good about their plastic consumption. “Producers have to realize they’re using plastic for their benefit and for the consumers’ benefit, which is fine,” he said. “But to put a recycling symbol and say that that cottage cheese or cream cheese or sour cream container is recyclable? You don’t need to do that, that’s not a part of the sales pitch. … The only plastics that are really getting recycled in the U.S. are number 1 and number 2 bottles.”

How youth activists energized the right — and drove politics into madness

Fifty-eight years ago, young conservatives flocked into a San Francisco ballroom, eager to nominate their hero for president: Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who had urged the Cold War right to embrace “extremism in the defense of liberty.” But just a few months later the energy of the Republican National Convention of 1964 — later dubbed the Woodstock of the right and the birthplace of modern conservatism — seemed to hit a wall, as Goldwater lost the 1964 election by a humiliating 16 million votes, one of the biggest landslides of modern political history. 

In the aftermath, the defeated Goldwaterites famously set about building a new conservative machine that could eventually help them win. Realizing that part of what they had lacked in 1964 was the left’s support among the young, building a right-wing youth movement became something of a mission. Over the following decades, that choice paid off in spades, as generations of Republican leaders, grassroots activists and right-wing intellectuals found a level of conservative institutional support and opportunities that young lefties could only dream of. 

But over the last 10 years, the role of right-wing youth movements has grown even more central, helping to establish the guiding narratives and elevating some of the most visible faces of conservatism today, as journalist Kyle Spencer writes in her new book, “Raise Them Right: The Untold Story of America’s Ultraconservative Youth Movement and Its Plot for Power.” 

Spencer’s book traces the shape of this movement through a focus on three of its most outspoken and effective leaders: Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, commentator and “Blexit” creator Candace Owens and embattled former Young Americans for Liberty head Cliff Maloney. Despite the juvenile aggression of much of their activism — from affirmative action bake sales to diaper-clad protests against “safe spaces” — the movement’s promise to transform liberal college kids into right-wing firebrands has drawn support from such patrons and mentors as Ginni Thomas and Donald Trump Jr. Whether their activism was originally sparked by genuine conviction or just a quest for fame, all three have helped mainstream some of the right’s most radical ideas. 

Spencer spoke with Salon this week.

Figures like Charlie Kirk have become such fixtures on the right that it’s hard to remember what things were like before they arose. What have they changed about movement conservatism? 

Charlie Kirk in particular arose amid a sort of anti-Obamaism. Obama’s two campaigns really revolutionized the use of the internet as a political tool, as young people used social media to spread his message. When Charlie decided to build his movement, he saw a catching up that had to happen, and essentially decided he wanted to mimic what the Obama kids had done. They were coming from a sense that they had missed the ball, which is always how Republicans build their movements: out of a sense that they’re getting beaten by the other side.

Most young people vote Democrat. That’s an undeniable fact. So in trying to activate young conservatives, Republicans are always trying to shave away at the edges of the Democratic Party — particularly among white men, though we’re also starting to see it among young Latino and Black men too. They’ve found they can add male voters, in particular, to the Republican Party with the right messaging. A lot of the messaging that seems to work is about the left’s supposed “intolerance” and the idea that men are being beaten down by progressive ideas. 

How did Turning Point USA use college campus dynamics — like its early “Professor Watch List” and its later protests — to build its movement? 

We think of college campus activism as being progressive by definition. Traditionally it’s been that way, from the Civil Rights and free speech movements in the 1960s. But even in the ’60s, there was strong right-wing activism on campus happening too. And what happens with right-wing activists is they often have to be a lot louder, more radical, more creative. When progressives or Democrats are activating on college campuses, they’re really registering people to vote; they’re saying, we know most of you agree with us, so we just need to get you involved. But Republicans and conservative activists need to change hearts and minds. They do that by being really in your face, with mockery, inducing rage and loud, aggressive efforts. 

In the book, I write about an incident at the University of New Mexico in 2017 where Turning Point USA held an “affirmative action bake sale”: a right-wing activism tool that tries to depict the ills of affirmative action by selling baked goods at different prices, depending on a person’s race. So white people pay more, and Black and Latino people pay less. It’s an effort to send the message that if you’re white, you have to pay more — financially, emotionally and academically — to get to college. 


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


That bake sale was extremely unpopular, extremely poorly received by people on campus, who became very upset about it and called the TPUSA activists racist or disgusting. But that resulted in the group getting media attention, from local press to national coverage by the AP. So you saw these activists who knew that most people would find their bake sale disgusting, but also knew there would be a few people who would say, “Oh, yeah, I think that, too,” and that would essentially pull a few people in. So again, it’s Republicans understanding that they’ll never win over the Democratic base, but they can shave away at the edges. 

Republican donors care a lot about what’s happening on college campuses. There’s a sense in the country that colleges are places where you don’t have a voice if you’re conservative. And one thing right-wing youth activists do really well is to highlight any instance that suggests intolerance by the left, against the right. That does well with right-wing media like Fox News, of course. But it starts to bleed into more moderate conservative outlets, and even left-leaning outlets, too, so that once these stories arrive at the New York Times, they’ve been distorted enough that it actually looks like a serious problem. That in turn raises money for conservatives and also starts to turn off moderate voters to young Democrats and progressives, and creates this general idea that Democrats are intolerant. 

That seems similar to the way that figures like Candace Owens have built their profile, denouncing what they call leftist “victimhood politics” while simultaneously embracing a form of right-wing victimization. 

Yeah, victimhood politics and the politics of resentment are tools the right uses a lot. What I think is interesting is that progressives are very concerned with trying to help the person lowest on the totem pole. When Democrats express concern about victims, what they want to do is help them. When Republicans focus on victimhood, it encourages anger and resentment, and they use it more as a tool to do things that are egregious in the name of being a victim. Election denial was rooted in a sense of victimization. Refusing to take a COVID vaccine took on this sense of victimhood. When people stormed the Capitol, they cast themselves as victims of the system, who could therefore do something illegal and violent. Victimhood is a great tool for the right to essentially destroy norms.

You write a lot about the personal backstories and the ambition for power or fame of the right-wing leaders you profile. How do they compare to the young foot soldiers they’re trying to activate?

Charlie and Candace both like their fame. Cliff Maloney, I think, is more concerned with being a power broker and having influence behind the scenes. I would also say that Kirk is more of an ideologue than Owens, who was a liberal before she became a conservative. So in some ways she’s a wannabe celebrity looking for an idea to latch onto, whereas Charlie really believes these things. 

But more generally, one thing I came to understand in my reporting is that the Republican Party is now a celebrity-making machine. That seems counterintuitive, because we know Democrats are more closely allied with Hollywood. But they have come to understand they need a base for their movement and when they find people willing to be spokespeople for conservatism, they cultivate them immediately. They bring them in, they train them, they teach them. They will actually dress people! 

The Republican Party is now a celebrity-making machine. When they find people willing to be spokespeople for conservatism, they cultivate them. They bring them in, they train them, they teach them. They’ll actually dress them.

For a lot of young conservatives engaged in politics, the truth is that if they want to become celebrities or stars, they can. You’ll see that with Turning Point’s “ambassadors,” who are encouraged to go out and co-brand themselves and their organization with Turning Point USA. You can go to conferences and learn how to brand yourself, how to work social media, how to start publications. One of the perks of the movement now is that it’s a door to fame if you want it to be. 

But for the young conservatives who aren’t trying to become well-known activists, Charlie and Candace still serve as role models. One thing I find so fascinating about Charlie is that he was a geek in high school. He was unpopular, he wasn’t respected, he didn’t have any prestige. Then he started to sell conservatism as something cool you can join — something that was a social movement as well as a political movement. He understood that a lot of conservative kids are also geeks on college campuses, also misunderstood and mocked. So he said, this is a place for you to belong. 

You talk about the right-wing conference circuit, where so much of that training and social movement building takes place, as being akin to a “PornHub for politics”: different events that appeal to all different flavors of conservatism. Could you talk more about that?

In the 1960s, after Barry Goldwater, all these wounded Goldwaterites arrived in D.C., determined to build a movement that could take over the country. They had an understanding that lots of things had to happen, among them the need to get conservatives together to share ideas, network and make friends. So conservatives have had a conference culture for years. But in the last 10 or so years, that movement has really extended itself to young people. You see more and more of these young conservative conferences popping up, as a way for young people to get together, network and get trained, but also because the Republican Party has become this celebrity-making machine. 

They’re opportunities for young people to meet their heroes: You can watch Tucker Carlson wail and rant, see Dennis Prager yell about horrible Democrats, or get on line to get your videos signed by Dinesh D’Souza. So conferences have become almost like rock concerts with all these celebrities roaming around. They are also really expensive. Donors spend millions of dollars donating to youth groups to hold these conferences. So young people who come often get free hotels, free food, obviously free entertainment and lots of swag. It’s like a groupie bonanza for young conservatives. And they’re fun. It’s almost like spring break. 

Republican donors are always concerned about the fact that young people are most often progressive or liberal. They’re constantly trying to come up with creative measures to recruit young people. That sense of urgency allows them to think long term about how to grow this generation of conservatives. And that means they spend a lot of money: On a yearly basis, Republicans spend three times more than Democratic donors on youth groups and recruiting young people. You also see conservative donors developing personal relationships with young conservatives, because they see them as so important to building the movement. So young conservatives get special treatment, whereas Democrats tend to take their young activists for granted. It’s a real problem.

There are other right-wing youth movements that have come out in opposition to either Charlie Kirk personally or to the brand of conservatism he stands for, from the white nationalist groyper movement, which made its name protesting TPUSA events, to newer strains of conservatism that reject libertarianism. Where do they fit into the picture?  

Turning Point USA is arguably the largest conservative youth movement in the history of our country, so everybody is going to position themselves in relation to it. Everybody is going to have an opinion about Charlie, whether they’re in alliance with him or in opposition. For young conservatives, he’s the center everyone else is circulating around. In terms of more radical groups, I think the most interesting alternative to Charlie are groups like the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. Those groups generate a lot of attention, fear and anxiety, but I think groups like Turning Point USA are far more dangerous, because they hold a lot of the same views but package them in a much more palatable manner. They’re not targeting the fringe, but everyday students and moderates. In doing that, they have a much better chance of gaining more followers and normalizing these ideas. 

Republicans spend three times more than Democratic donors on youth groups and recruiting young people. Young conservatives get special treatment, whereas Democrats tend to take their young activists for granted.

For example, Charlie talks about the idea that racism doesn’t exist in this country anymore, and that if you focus on it, you’re just looking for problems. Turning Point USA put out this “pro-choice” poster, where the “choice” is between three different guns. In one talk in an Oklahoma church, Charlie described a gun strapped to a parishioner as “an extension of who you are,” saying it was necessary to “defend you against evil.” He’s constantly telling young people that the left wants to take away their freedom. He told people in Idaho they should kick federal agencies out of the state and refuse to enforce unwanted federal laws. That’s radical stuff. 

How does all this compare to earlier generations of right-wing movement building, and what should the left learn from this? 

For one thing, their social media prowess is definitely a new bent in the movement, as is this obsession with celebrity culture. 

I think what the left can learn is that it needs to invest in its young people. There’s a lot of internecine warfare between young progressive activists, establishment donors and the Democratic Party. That has to stop if Democrats really want to win elections and to save democracy. There are differences in how young progressives think about things. They can often be more “radical” than their elders. But those aren’t irreconcilable. Everyone doesn’t have to agree on everything. What everyone has to agree on is that it’s important to beat the Republicans. 

One thing Republicans do really well is to have everybody messaging together. Democrats are constantly complaining that their young activists are messaging in ways that are ineffective or overly radical. But if they had a better rapport with their young people, they would be able to prevent some of the messaging they find problematic.

Also, young conservatives are winning the social media war. They are much better at getting their message across online. Partly that’s because messaging hate is a lot easier than messaging some of the more complex ideas that Democrats stand for. But Democrats also don’t understand how expensive it is. When I was at Turning Point USA headquarters, they had actual wings of their headquarters dedicated to social media. They spend millions and millions of dollars a year on social media outreach, on testing messaging, on creating advocates for their cause who can go online. Democrats have to understand that they have to use social media better, and they have to spend the money to do it. It’s not accidental that the conservatives have gotten so good at this.

How “media literacy” became the new “fake news”: A meaningless corporate buzzword

Tessa Jolls, president of the Center for Media Literacy, published a report last month entitled “Building Resiliency: Media Literacy as a Strategic Defense Strategy for the Transatlantic.” It reads like a blueprint for indoctrinating students in corporatism and militarism under the auspices of media literacy education. Jolls received a Fulbright-NATO Security Studies Award to study “aspects of the current information ecosystem and the state of media literacy in NATO countries.”

Let’s offer some historical context: NATO during the Cold War and has long since outlived its original stated purpose of combating the spread of communism. Political sociologist Peter Phillips has argued, for instance, that NATO has morphed into a global army that engages in questionable conflicts and human rights abuses in an effort to serve the “transnational capitalist class.” 

As with the crisis created by the manipulated term “fake news,” media literacy is being weaponized by organizations and individuals who seek to increase their power by influencing the public’s perception of reality. For example, Steve Bannon, former White House chief strategist for Donald Trump, has a long history of spreading false information. Form 2012 to 2018, he was the executive chairman of the Breitbart News site, which has manipulated videos, manufactured stories, and spread baseless conspiracy theories. Starting with Bannon’s tenure, Breitbart published articles lauding “media literacy” as a way to combat “fake news,” proclaiming that the site’s late founder, Andrew Breitbart, integrated media literacy into the platform. But what Breitbart means by the term — especially given the site’s track record — seems to run counter to traditional definitions of media literacy. 

The standard definition of media literacy used in American education is “the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create and act using all forms of communication.” In response to the post-2016 panic over fake news, there was a demand for more media literacy education in schools. This provided a window of opportunity for major media companies — which had long sought to enter the classroom to advertise their products and collect student data — to move rapidly toward indoctrinate students with corporate propaganda under the “media literacy” umbrella.


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


Jolls’ report only serves to empower such efforts, arguing that corporate “allocations for media literacy education are few and far between.” It also appeals directly to the military-industrial complex — meaning the alliance between the military and related defense and national security industries — in calling for “funding and programming from all corners: government, foundations, and the private sector (tech and media companies, other corporations).” Most Big Tech companies emerged from the military industrial complex, and continue to serve its interest in many ways.

Rather than advocate for a critical standard of media literacy education, one that would account for the power dynamics invested in NATO and its long history of working against democracy and social justice, Jolls lauds the “values that NATO states” represent, saying they represent an “excellent foundation” for “media literacy initiatives.” Indeed, to normalize NATO values in education, Jolls suggests what amounts to a psychological operations campaign, or psy-op, to spread NATO’s version of media literacy to the public through “mass media, media aggregators such as AP, Reuters and LexisNexis, social media and influencers.” The report calls on NATO to “nurture grassroots efforts,” which sounds more like astroturfing.

The same military and intelligence communities now calling for “media literacy” have been producing and spreading fake news, at home and abroad, for at least 70 years.

Jolls’ report ignores that members of the same military and intelligence communities that she lauds have produced and spread fake news to U.S. citizens, from the time of Operation Mockingbird in the mid-20th century up through the present on various social media platforms. She also never discusses public efforts to disempower the military-industrial complex’s ability to dictate truth. Earlier this year, for instance, critics from both the left and the right successfully lobbied to have the Department of Homeland Security scrap its Disinformation Governance Board, which was altogether too reminiscent of the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s “1984.”

Instead, Jolls seems to be following the lead of similar dubious media literacy projects from the military-industrial complex, such as the NewsGuard browser extension. Described as an “Internet Trust Tool” and positioned as an objective tool for educators, NewsGuard has an advisory board loaded with military veterans and former intelligence officers. Its rating system has a clear ideological bias: NewsGuard consistently promotes establishment and legacy media sources that echo a narrow range of status-quo opinions — even when they have been proven to spread false information — and downgrades independent and alternative media outlets that challenge institutions of government, industry and the military. Jolls mirrors NewsGuard’s top-down approach to media literacy education, calling on NATO leaders to determine “the intent and purposes for media literacy interventions” by choosing the “social problem or behavior or ideology” or issue for educators to focus on.

It is certainly true that we need a critical media literacy curriculum in the U.S. — but that’s not what Jolls and NewsGuard are promoting. Real media literacy education empowers students to be autonomous and sophisticated media users, who ask their own questions about who controls media messaging and interrogate the power structures behind them. When a student is left dependent on the military-industrial complex to analyze content for them, that’s not education. It’s indoctrination. 

Bill O’Reilly-endorsed investment group linked to Ponzi scheme

On Thursday, The Daily Beast reported that National Realty Investment Advisors, an upscale real estate investment firm with celebrity backing from disgraced former Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly, has been busted by federal investigators as a Ponzi scheme.

“After investing a few thousand dollars, the New Jersey-based group focused on high-end real estate in gentrifying neighborhoods claimed, clients might see returns of at least 12 percent. The message was repeated in thousands of emails, on huge billboards at the Lincoln and Holland tunnel, and even radio ads featuring the former Fox News host and ex-NFL star,” reported Pilar Melendez. “But on Thursday, prosecutors alleged that the investment company’s president and an associate were in fact participating in a brazen $650 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors.”

“The U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey announced an 18-count indictment, including charges of securities and wire fraud, against Thomas Nicholas Salzano and Rey E. Grabato II for their role in the almost four-year-long alleged scheme. The pair also allegedly tried to evade $26 million in taxes,” said the report. The founders allegedly scammed almost 400 retirees out of savings, and used them “to pay distributions to other investors, to fund an executive’s family’s personal and luxury purchases, and to pay reputation management firms to thwart investors’ due diligence of the executives.”

O’Reilly himself is not charged with any crimes in relation to NRIA, nor are any of the other celebrity endorsers.

“These defendants schemed to create a high-pressure, fraudulent marketing campaign to hoodwink investors into believing that their bogus real estate venture generated substantial profits,” said U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger in a statement. “In reality, their criminal tactics were straight out of the Ponzi scheme playbook so that they could cheat their investors and line their own pockets.”

Trump says if he appears before Jan. 6 committee, he wants it broadcast live

Donald Trump is considering obeying a congressional subpoena issued by the House Select Committee Investigating the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol.

On Thursday, the select committee voted 9-0 to subpoena testimony and documents from the former president.

This is a question about accountability to the American people,” Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said. “He must be accountable.”

On his Truth Social website, Trump lashed out at the select committee, but he is reportedly considering complying.

Maggie Haberman of The New York Times reported, “Since it became public that the House select committee planned to subpoena Trump for his testimony, the former president has been telling aides he favors doing so, so long as he gets to do so live, according to a person familiar with his discussions.”

“However, it is unclear whether the committee would accept such a demand,” Haberman noted.

 

 

How to mummify a dinosaur

Some 67 million years ago, in what is now known as Slope County, North Dakota, an adolescent duck-billed dinosaur was killed and chewed up by various predators and scavengers. The Edmontosaurus left behind an impressive fossil nicknamed Dakota the Dinomummy, so called because unlike most dinosaur fossils, which are mostly bones or teeth, this one has exceptionally preserved skin.

In the nearly two decades since Dakota was discovered in the Hell Creek Formation, one of the most studied and fossil-rich regions on Earth, paleontologists have been trying to solve the mystery of how it died and became so well preserved. A recent analysis of the fossil in the journal PLOS ONE not only lends new insight into how it formed, but suggests that dinosaur “mummies” are far more common than previously thought.

Dinosaur mummies aren’t like the ancient Egyptian kind. As far as we know, dinosaurs didn’t bury their dead. Instead, mummy is a catch-all term for fossilized imprints of soft tissue, especially skin, that doesn’t readily form under most conditions. But the examples that survived are stunning.

One such nodosaur mummy was so well preserved. Dubbed the “Mona Lisa” of dinosaurs, scientists could determine that variations in its skin color were a form of camouflage. Another duck-billed mummy nicknamed “Leonardo” even has evidence of parasitic stomach worms.

There are two competing hypotheses: The first is that the dinosaur was rapidly buried after death, in just a few minutes or hours, preventing it from decomposing too quickly. The second theory posits that Dakota’s carcass desiccated.

While dino mummies are already rare, some scientists argue they should be even more scarce. That’s because it’s hard to make a fossil, but especially a mummy. The conditions necessary are so specific that it only occurs in rare instances.

But life on Earth has been around for so long — about 3.7 billion years — that fossilization has happened enough times for scientists to study these remains, detect patterns and draw conclusions about what life was like in the ancient past. But there are still competing theories as to how these fossils exactly form.

With Dakota the Dinomummy, there are two competing hypotheses, which are believed to be broadly applicable to all dino mummies. The first is that the dinosaur was rapidly buried after death, in just a few minutes or hours, preventing it from decomposing too quickly. The second theory posits that Dakota’s carcass desiccated or dried out.

However, neither of these theories satisfactorily explain what happened to Dakota. First of all, analysis of the dirt around the fossil suggests that the dinosaur died in a warm and humid environment that was close to water. There’s no evidence that it was buried by a sudden flood, either. So rapid burial has been ruled out. Instead, it seems more likely the ancient beast perished on a sandbar that slowly entombed the corpse.

But before all that, there is ample evidence to suggest predators or scavengers were actively feasting on Dakota. Injuries on the bones and skin seem consistent with the bite marks of crocodyliforms, which are extinct relatives of modern alligators and crocodiles. Unrelated crocodyliform fossils have been discovered at the site, confirming they coexisted with duck-billed dinosaurs like Dakota called hadrosaurids.

“Under the previous explanations of dinosaurian ‘mummy’ preservation, this fossil should have never formed,” Stephanie Drumheller of the University of Tennessee–Knoxville and colleagues, who penned the PLOS ONE study, reported.


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


At approximately 35 feet long and 3.5 tons, Dakota was one juicy meal. As carnivores gorged themselves on this this buffet, tears and holes in the dinosaurs skin may have caused it to deflate, pushing out the fluids, gases and microbes that cause decomposition. The paleontologists believe this may have helped in its unique preservation.

“Drying of the overlying skin could have progressed for weeks or months, until sediment from the adjacent river buried the remains,” the authors wrote. This may have actually lengthened “the window for preservation” they argue, “in stark contrast to previous explanations of natural mummification.”

Because this rationale for how a dinosaur mummy forms is more nuanced — and doesn’t require a “spectacularly unlikely convergence of events,” as the authors put it — Dakota may indicate why dino mummies are more common than they necessarily should be.

“Not only has Dakota taught us that durable soft tissues like skin can be preserved on partially scavenged carcasses, but these soft tissues can also provide a unique source of information about the other animals that interacted with a carcass after death,” Clint Boyd, a senior paleontologist at the North Dakota Geological Survey and one of the study authors, said in a statement.

Recognizing this pathway sheds light on “why fossilized skin, though still uncommon, is not exceptionally rare in the dinosaur fossil record,” the authors conclude.

“Doubt is healthy”: “Ramy” will make you question everything about monogamy and spirituality

“Maktub” is a word you will hear a lot during season 3 of Hulu’s comedy series “Ramy.”  This Arabic word, which many may also know from “The Alchemist” by Paulo Coelho, literally translates as “it is written.” But, as you will also learn in “Ramy,” it also poses this philosophical question: Is life predestined?

The beauty of “Ramy” this season and as a whole, is that it not only entertains, but it also challenges you to ask hard questions about your faith, identity and purpose. I spoke to the Emmy-nominated creator and star of the show, Golden Globe winner Ramy Youssef on “Salon Talks” about the new season.

As Youssef explained, the idea of “Maktub,” is widely debated in the Islamic tradition. Do we truly have free will, are we living in a big simulation, or are we making choices that we believe are our own but are in fact made for us? 

Season 3 of “Ramy” also poses more real-world challenges, especially taking production on the road and filming in the Middle East. Through comedy, Youssef exposes viewers to the lives of Palestinians under occupation, from checkpoints to Palestinian Americans being denied entry to Israel and Palestinian children being imprisoned by the Israeli military. One of the most powerful moments comes when Ramy’s Uncle Naseem (Laith Nakli), who is Palestinian American, is told by the Israeli authorities who are interrogating him at the Tel Aviv airport that if he doesn’t give them the code to his iPhone so they can view the contents, they will send him home, to which Naseem responds, “I am home.”

Youssef — who I’ve known personally for over 10 years, back when he was a co-producer of the NY Arab American Comedy Festival that I co-created along with comedian Maysoon Zayid — has always understood comedy. What he has done with “Ramy” has intertwined his ability to make people laugh with making them better informed. Watch or read my interview with Youssef below.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Ramy, I’ve always wanted to ask you this question. On “Seinfeld,” Jerry Seinfeld’s the star of every episode. When you watch “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” it’s Larry David. Even “Mo,” which you co-created, Mo drives every episode. There are episodes of “Ramy” that you’re not even in. Obviously, you made a choice. Why that choice?

Yeah, we made that choice early. Even in the first season, I think I’m only in seven of the 10 [episodes]. That was something that the network [Hulu], at first, they were a little bit concerned. Like, “Wait, what? How’s that happening?” I’m really interested in writing for other people. I really like directing other people. The more that we’ve gotten to do the show, I’ve been able to step into that more. I like the real-life pacing of planting a character problem, then stepping away from them for a bit, and then seeing where they’re at with their problem. I like doing that with my character. The pacing, it creates something that is organic.

Every season, Ramy, the character, has struggles, but this season, faith was the most pronounced to me. Even though you are a person of faith, does it track that you have deep questions about God, faith, and that you’re on the right path?

Yeah, doubt is a natural path for anyone. Doubt is healthy, it’s a radar for getting deeper. In the same way that guilt can be healthy as a radar for what you want more of — even jealousy. All those feelings can be indicators for something you want to grow or something you want to figure out in a more meaningful way. With the character, we definitely take what, for me, probably in real life have been moments where it’s a bit more muted than what we do in the show. The show definitely takes it to a different level and that’s where you get to have fun in making a TV show, doing the things that don’t happen regularly.

Take us behind the scenes for a second. In your writers’ room, how do topics come up? Is it collectively with your whole team and then selections are made? Or is it about what resonates for the characters in the storyline and then you just pick the best of and go forward?

“We depict things that I like to describe as emotional or spiritual illnesses that people have, whether it be lust, greed, or shame. Those are things that everyone carries around.”

It’s a very collaborative environment. In terms of how it funnels through me, we talk about a lot of things in the room. A lot of stuff comes from stand-up bits I’m doing or areas I want to explore. Also, especially at this point of the show where we have these characters that have their own lives, a lot of people are bringing up really great ideas for how it goes. Our process tends to be that we talk about these things, we get them into beats of stories, then I’ll take those beats, work on a script, then I’ll bring that back into the room, and then we make it better. It goes through me, in terms of I’m the one who’s doing a lot of those initial drafts and picking the things that feel right, but it’s a show I definitely could not make by myself. Part of why it’s grown and gotten so, to me, actualized in a place that I really like is because there’s this great team that really understands what the show is and what the characters are. Working with them is really fun.

I have read you talk about not having long, long hours in the writers’ room. It’s more defined in a way, which I think is so much better. It’s not like a job at Home Depot.

Yeah.

In the show, you talk about maktub. Your jeweler is called Maktub. It comes up in the last episode and other episodes. It’s an Arabic word. Can you share what it means?

Yeah, it’s this principle. We open the season with it, it’s threaded throughout, we close with it. It’s this idea that there are parts of our life, or our entire life. It depends, really. One of the most interesting things about Islamic scholarship is that there is diversity of thought. There are people who say, “It’s all written,” or, “No, no. Only certain parts are written.” There are even people who will say what equates to a simulation theory. They all hold valid viewpoints that are open to interpretation.

That’s part of what’s interesting about diversity of thought in our tradition. The way we talk about it in the show is posing this question that things are written, but we also choose. “How can you choose what’s already been chosen?” It’s this impossible math problem that any believer struggles with. It’s this idea that is supposed to not make sense and you see the characters struggling with that.

It’s something that goes through my mind a lot. As Muslims, we say, “insha’Allah,” a lot, “God willing,” but is it already been willed by God? Is your path already been defined by you or is it free choice? I think a lot of people know Maktub from “The Alchemist.”

Yeah.

It transcended everything. It became the hummus of the world. You’re like, “Maktub, I know. Why do I know Maktub?”

Spiritual hummus.

This season, Ramy goes to the Middle East. You go to Palestine and Israel. To me, that was a real change for the show. Your character’s half Palestinian in a way, but it really feels like you’re Egyptian. You filmed there. You show checkpoints, you show children being arrested by the Israeli military, you show Laith Nakli who plays Uncle Naseem, who’s Palestinian. IDF stops him at the airport and say, “We’re sending you home.” He goes, “I am home.” I’m like, Wow. This is remarkable. Tell us a little bit behind that. What drove you to do this episode from a creative point of view? You point out things that we don’t see in mainstream media, but Palestinian Americans have lived through it bluntly and know exactly what you’re talking about.

In Season 1, we established the Palestinian heritage of the Maysa, [Ramy’s] mother. Hiam Abbass [who plays her] is Palestinian. We were establishing the dialect of Arabic that she was speaking and how it differed from the Egyptian dialect that Amr Waked was speaking as Farouk, her husband. It’s something that we always were excited to figure out, how we were going to dip into. It started to feel like a really logical place for where we wanted Ramy’s character to go, in terms of his business ambitions, that working in the Diamond District would bring him to Tel Aviv.

For me, positioning Ramy’s character when he goes overseas is always about making him an American. As a show, we show what is complicated about living in America and almost not understanding what your space is when you have a different background and a different faith – especially in terms of how Islam is dehumanized and what the lens is on that. The really funny thing is, then you go to a Muslim country, and he’s so clearly an American. That’s something that we have a lot of fun doing, whether we did it in Egypt or we did it when he goes to Palestine and Israel. You really see his privilege. We wanted to highlight that because there is this difference. There are massive advantages to being in the diaspora as opposed to living there. Everyone’s negotiating their space with that.

It’s something I saw firsthand when I was in Jordan crossing a border. Clearly, they looked at me like I’m the white guy, but I’m like, “No, I’m you. My dad’s Palestinian.” They’re like, “You’re a white guy.” They treat you a little bit nicer, to be honest. I did have a U.S. passport and that is part of it. There was an episode you did, and I don’t know if you’re getting any feedback yet or not about, “More than one wife.” You even have a warning at the beginning.

Yeah.

Share more about this warning you had for the episode dealing the character Ahmed potentially getting a second wife.

“If I’m going to be generous to Hollywood, there’s just more room now. … Hollywood used to be way more of a numbers-driven game. Now there’s more latitude and space to try things.”

We put it up as a spiritual warning, which we thought was tongue in cheek, because this is obviously a conversation that we don’t want weaponized into something that it’s not. Really, the episode is about open communication. I would probably sum up the episode as we watch this character wondering if he should open up as a relationship, but really, what he needs to do is just open up.

The spiritual warning that we put in front of it was mainly for comedy. Just noting the elephant in the room that this is a massively heated debate within our various communities and we’re not actually trying to provide any answer or, honestly, even an opinion on the ruling. It’s more just watching the nuanced debates that happened with just a few characters. Obviously, we don’t cover all of it, but it was probably mainly for comedy.

For me, the conversation more so sits in the context of we’re in a time where everyone is speaking about all sorts of types of relationships and how they can look. In general, monogamy is under the microscope for all sorts of communities. It was more about looking at what, at this point in time, is considered alternative relationships, but looking at one through a different lens. It’s not something I personally would ever be in a position to practice.

Sure.

But it was something that felt funny to, again, look at a few nuances within. When people see the show, the reasoning behind why the character is exploring it is not sexual. It’s actually more about him loving his wife, her not wanting to have children, what that might mean, and how you build a family when maybe there are alternative points of view on how that should happen. It felt like a philosophically interesting way in that wasn’t just about – yeah, it wasn’t about more sex or anything like that. It was about a philosophical issue of how to build a family.

There was a lot of nuance. Even subtle little things. They each had the same house, he’s treating them all equally, which is, Islamically, if you’re going to do this, what you’re supposed to do. Treat all the wives equally, which is impossible.

Yeah.

Azhar Usman, who’s in the cast, plays the episode of the man with four wives. I’m like, “That’s your next show.” The man with four wives, Ramy.

What’s interesting is that’s a famous Egyptian sitcom.

It is? I didn’t know that.

Yeah, it’s a really famous sitcom premise of this guy who has four wives. It’s funny. Part of what’s really interesting, too, about this show and thinking about media in general is we start to zoom out and realize there are so many stories being told all over the world. We categorize stuff that happens in different countries and put it just in, “The foreign box.” Maybe some of it historically was made only for those places, but a lot of what we’re going to see more of in the next 10 years is anything made anywhere can be for anyone. Everyone has a real global view of how they’re viewing things, especially with the way streaming continues to be available in almost every country at this point.

In 2019, when you first started “Ramy,” America was different. Trump was president, the demonization of Muslims was off the charts. The guy rants on banning Muslims, we see a spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes. Now it’s 2022, Trump’s sort of gone. He’s not president anymore, he still lurks about. Anti-Muslim bigotry is not at the same level as it was. Does that inform anything, in terms of what you first started doing in the first season to what you wanted depict on screen?

Not really. Mainly because anyone who’s been watching the show from the beginning knows that it’s more about the spiritual debate that pretty much everyone has going on inside of them. I really describe this show as watching, at first, the guy, but then you realize a family is navigating the space between their higher self and their lower self, and who they want to be versus who they actually are.

That’s something that becomes algebraic. I have this experience where people of various faiths and people of various cultures say, “I have this, but I’m Mormon, I’m Jewish, I’m Jehovah,” or, “I’ve got that uncle, but he hates Muslims. He’s Islamophobic instead of this uncle that is antisemitic. We depict things that I like to describe as emotional or spiritual illnesses that people have, whether it be lust, greed, or shame. Those are things that everyone carries around and we watch them navigate it within the specificity of a type of family that hasn’t been covered with much nuance. That’s where the Muslim part comes in. I never felt like the show was a reaction to Trump or anything that was happening, it felt more like an inevitability of getting this portrait of this type of story.

As time has evolved, I think Laith’s character, Uncle Naseem, might end up being a remarkably unique point of view that we haven’t seen. At the beginning, he was more like the funny bigoted guy, then it turns out he’s closeted gay and he’s struggling with this to gray points. Almost like in the last episode, in the Chinese restaurant. You’re like, “OK, put the gun down.” I’m like, “What is going on here?” Was that something that just organically happened as he got more integrated in the cast himself?

That’s a character that we’ve learned more about the more that we’ve worked with him and looked at him. At some point towards the end of the first season, I was watching this scene and I was trying to understand a bit. At first, I was writing this machismo and aggression because it was familiar to me in the community. I’ve seen it. Putting it on screen, highlighting the ridiculousness of it, and what I think is a generational divide on what a man should look like, was where we started.

The more we watched the performance, saw what was going on, and started to dig into it, I had this thought at the end of the first season of, “Is this what’s going on with him? What if this is what’s going on with him?” That became what we explored in Season 2 and, obviously, now into Season 3. He’s really gray, and I don’t think being in the closet condones half of what he does or even any of it.

No.

You watch it and you go, “I know that guy.”

Right.

That’s the thing that happens with a lot of the characters on this show. It’s not much to condone. I prefer it that way, because I never want television to feel instructive and I never want anyone to be lulled or deluded into thinking that we are putting out any how-to guide, especially when we’re talking about spiritual stuff. The more that people can feel, “This isn’t the way you should live,” I actually like that.

Over the years that “Ramy” has been in production, we’ve simultaneously seen Hollywood become a bit more embracing of our community. Not hugely, there’s a lot more work to be done, but a few examples, “Mo” which you co-created with Mo Amer on Netflix, “Miss Marvel,” the new Hasan Minhaj Netflix special. Do you credit it to more people being born here and getting more getting involved in entertainment, or do you think actually Hollywood was standoffish and now a little bit more embracing?

A lot’s happening at once. Everything you’ve said and I also think that streaming is a massive boon to networks. If I’m going to be generous to Hollywood, there’s just more room now. There’s more room to do more. Hollywood used to be way more of a numbers-driven game. Now there’s more latitude and space to try things. Even if Muslims are only three to four million in America, that used to be a, again, metric for what was going to get made. That might feel like a low number, but now you have all these streamers looking to get a foothold, and making things that feel unique and feel definitive.

Even what we did with Hulu at the time was part of defining their comedy brand three years ago, four years ago. We were part of a slate of two, three things that might not have ever been made anywhere else, but it started to build something over there. Immediately after that, we walked into Netflix, I pitched Mo’s show with him, and they were excited to do that. There’s just space in a really cool way.

There’s a business upside. It’s an international audience now.

Totally.

This episode ends the season with prayer. It actually made me pray. I’m not even kidding. Watching you, your dad, and your family there praying. I heard, though, that the next season might be your last. Is that true?

I’m hoping that we’re able to do one more, but in terms of me, creatively, where I am, that feels like a very satisfying end to where I think this is going. Just because we could keep it growing, keep it exciting, and keep it really definitive for one more season. My dream has always been to put it down for a while and then maybe, who knows? At some point, in many years, I have different experiences further on into my adulthood and we could bring back what I feel is one of the best, most beautiful casts on TV. That would be exciting.

Your next show, just throwing out there, half Italian, half Palestinian guy from Jersey show.

Yes. The Sicilian Palestinian. It’s got to have a rhyme.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story listed Ramy Youssef as an Emmy winner. He is a Golden Globe winner for best actor in a musical or comedy TV series, and has two Emmy nominations, for acting and directing. Salon regrets the error.

One of Jupiter’s moons may be hiding magnificent underwater lakes — and perhaps even life

At first glance, Europa — the Jovian moon widely believed by scientists to be a prime candidate for harboring extraterrestrial life — appears unremarkable. It is mostly off-white and covered in tiny cuts known as “lineae” that appear as scratches on the surface, giving Europa the look of a scuffed-up pool cue ball. Yet despite its waiting-room-ecru shade, Europa is so intrinsically interesting that NASA has fixated on the moon as an object of study — which is why the agency is planning for the upcoming Europa Clipper mission (scheduled for 2023), where they hope among other things to learn about the water that covers the celestial body.

Part of the moon’s appeal is that many of its secrets are hidden below its icy crust. Because Europa is constantly stretched by tidal forces from the gravity of the largest planet in the solar system, its interior is believed to have liquid oceans, though it lies beneath at least 10 to 15 miles of surface ice, planetary scientists say. 

This is significant because, just as life on Earth originated from the vast array of water-based structures on our planet, life on Europa may very well be flourishing within any system of lakes that exists on that planet.

Now, NASA scientists are particularly excited about recent analysis of data from the Galileo orbiter. Though the Jupiter-orbiting probe’s mission ended in 2003, the probe’s data continues to be analyzed. As the space probe passed over Europa, it observed that there may be large reservoirs of salty liquid all over Jupiter’s fourth-largest moon. Some could be close to the surface, but others are pockets of brine located miles deep.

In other words, Europa might not just have oceans. It may also have lakes.

The notion of lakes on Europa is significant because, just as life on Earth originated from the vast array of water-based structures on our planet, life on Europa may very well be flourishing within any system of lakes that exists on that planet.

Yet it would be a mistake to think of Europa as nothing but a water world. Galileo’s images of Europa have also helped scientists learn that its icy crust is not just water, but filled with various unidentifiable minerals and salts. Although Galileo attempted to ascertain their composition using reflectance spectroscopy, it was unsuccessful.

“We mapped the distributions of the different materials on the surface, including sulfuric acid frost, which is mainly found on the side of Europa that is most heavily bombarded by the gasses surrounding Jupiter,” team leader and University of Leicester School of Physics and Astronomy Ph.D. student Oliver King told Space.com in a statement. “The modeling found that there could be a variety of different salts present on the surface but suggested that infrared spectroscopy alone is generally unable to identify which specific types of salt are present.”


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


Europa’s main allure, of course, is the tumultuous ocean that churns beneath its frigid white surface. First noticed by NASA’s Voyager probe in the 1970s, astronomers were fascinating that Europa could maintain a liquid water ocean despite being so far away from the Sun. Some scientists believe that tidal forces on Europa generate enough heat to keep the water in a liquid form, and that being trapped under a sheet of ice makes sure it stays that way. Robert Tyler, an oceanographer from the University of Washington, has hypothesized that Jupiter itself generates large (underground) waves on Europa, which keeps the ocean heated.

“The modeling found that there could be a variety of different salts present on the surface but suggested that infrared spectroscopy alone is generally unable to identify which specific types of salt are present.”

More recently, a study in April published by the journal Nature Communications speculated that life could exist in Europa’s watery bodies precisely by inhabiting lake equivalents near the lineae that criss-cross its surface.

“Here we present the discovery and analysis of a double ridge in Northwest Greenland with the same gravity-scaled geometry as those found on Europa,” the authors explained. “Using surface elevation and radar sounding data, we show that this double ridge was formed by successive refreezing, pressurization, and fracture of a shallow water sill within the ice sheet. If the same process is responsible for Europa’s double ridges, our results suggest that shallow liquid water is [ubiquitous] across Europa’s ice shell.”

If nothing else, the newly-detailed images of Europa are further whetting researchers’ appetites to learn more about the moon’s many mysteries — and possibilities. And while Mars has been a fixation for astrobiologists, any life that ever existed there is almost certainly extinct — making Europa perhaps more intriguing than Mars in many ways.

“It’s quite possible that Mars could have had life in the past, in a warmer-weather era, and it’s possible that there are subsurface pockets on Mars that could have remnants of this living biosphere,” Jet Propulsion Laboratory planetary scientist Cynthia Phillips told The Atlantic. “But on somewhere like Europa, life could exist there now.”

Trump’s attempt to edit on the fly by fiddling with his documents was rejected by the Supreme Court

Trump’s request to reverse a federal appeals court and allow a special master to look over 100 of the classified documents taken from the White House to an unsecured area in Mar-a-Lago has been denied by the Supreme Court.

The “emergency request” was made by Trump in an effort to allow his legal team time to determine which, if any, of the classified documents could be marked as “off limits” to prosecutors, but the effort was benched with a one-sentence refusal on Thursday.

“As this Court has emphasized, courts should be cautious before ‘insisting upon an examination’ of records whose disclosure would jeopardize national security ‘even by the judge alone, in chambers,'” the DOJ said earlier this week via reporting by CNN

Trump, who once had access to classified documents such as these, but now lacks jurisdiction himself, pushed against the Supreme Court last week with a statement from his team saying “The Eleventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review, much less stay, an interlocutory order of the District Court providing for the Special Master to review materials seized from President Trump’s home.”

“The Government argued on appeal, without explanation, that showing the purportedly classified documents to Special Master Judge Dearie would harm national security,” Trump’s attorneys said in a quote obtained from CNN. 


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


The fact that the denial came down from the Supreme Court during the House Select Committee hearing on the events of January 6 speaks to this particular Thursday being a bad one for Team Trump.

“Chef’s kiss trifecta for the US democratic project, today,” Tweets Economic & Investment Strategist Refilwe Moloto.”

Trump “has not even attempted to show that he has a need to know the information contained in the classified documents,” wrote the appeals court panel . . . The United States has sufficiently explained how and why its national security review is inextricably intertwined with its criminal investigation.”

Lena Dunham and I both had hysterectomies, but I reject her grand, unified thesis on infertility

With the release of Andrew Dominik’s controversial film “Blonde,” an adaptation of Joyce Carol Oates‘ equally controversial novel fictionalizing the life of Marilyn Monroe, there’s been an impassioned cultural outcry against what many people see as the reduction of Marilyn to pure victimhood. Never one to shy away from merrily dumping kerosene all over discourse and lighting her match, writer-director-cringe Tweeter Lena Dunham penned an essay for Vogue titled, “What Marilyn Monroe Means to Me.” Unsurprisingly, the essay is more about what it means to be Lena Dunham at 36, the age Marilyn Monroe was when she died (though Dunham does take pains to remind readers that she is, in fact, “36 and a half”). 

Unlike Marilyn Monroe, I’m able to defend myself against Dunham’s destructive, essentialist take on infertility and self-worth. 

The only direct point in common for both women is severe endometriosis: The disease supposedly contributed to Monroe’s difficulties conceiving and sustaining a pregnancy, and it compelled Dunham to get a hysterectomy for relief from years of debilitating pain. One might imagine that shared infertility would inspire loud and proud feminist Dunham — whose new Amazon film adaptation of “Catherine, Called Birdy” is receiving roundly positive reviews for its poppy, girl-power bent — to reclaim Monroe from the stereotype of the tragic barren woman. One would be wrong. Dunham is breathtakingly cruel about Monroe’s infertility, offering the mean-spirited assertion that, “without her wished-for baby, Marilyn was just another lonely starlet with a few broken marriages under her belt . . . and a raft of people she paid to look out for her interests but continued to treat her as a disposable resource.” 

Taking it upon herself to imagine Monroe’s inner anguish as “the most discussed woman in the world, both valued and cursed for your feminine power” who is “not . . . able to do what we think women should do,” Dunham describes infertility as a contributor in the doomed beauty’s decision to “roll over, say ‘Fuck it,’ and go back to sleep.” An image she juxtaposes with Monroe’s actual deathbed. Dunham’s writing about infertility is swaddled in self-pity that she projects upon the bodies of any woman who can’t have a biological child, like Marilyn — and like me. But unlike Marilyn Monroe, I’m able to defend myself against Dunham’s destructive, essentialist take on infertility and self-worth. 

BlondeAna de Armas as Marilyn Monroe in “Blonde” (Netflix)Several months after my 39th birthday, on a September morning unexpectedly warm but still ink-dark with early fall, I counted down from 10 on an operating table and woke up hours later without my uterus. That day was years in the making: years divided up into good days and bad days, with the bad days, the days where an underwater bomb detonated in my gut over and over, becoming every day. After one particularly terrifying flare-up seized my body in the barbed-tooth maw of a vicious beast who’d tasted flesh and would never let go, I was diagnosed with endometriosis (later, I would discover fibroids and polyps).  

Equating womanhood with carrying children isn’t just wrong, it’s profoundly dangerous.  

Unable to knuckle through cramps that compelled me to learn Lamaze breathing and heavy bleeding that leeched the life force out of me, I opted for a hysterectomy.  As I researched the procedure, searching for what my recovery might entail and what life could look like once my scars healed, I mostly found images of gray-haired women staring pensively over tea or advice for husbands and grown children who want to be supportive during “the change of life.” Most of my friends were still young enough to become first-time parents and making the choice to never join them in the experience of watching a belly swell or feeling a flutter inside me — even if it was the right choice, the only choice against crushing pain and fatigue — made me feel old and alone. 

Dunham’s 2018 essay was one of the only hysterectomy stories from a woman under 40. Even if I rolled my eyes at the cringier scenes — like the men on the set of “Girls'” final season regarding her, clad in her character’s fake baby bump, as some sacred vessel figure — I searched for some sense of kinship. Though I’ve never found Dunham compelling as “a voice of a generation,” I related to her desperation to wrench herself out of that razor-wire ouroboros of pain that birth control and yoga and acupuncture and herbs couldn’t touch: “I gave up on more treatment. I gave up on more pain. I gave up on more uncertainty.”

Despite having a platform to address all aspects of life post-surgery, Dunham’s post-hysterectomy output traffics in crassly maudlin sentiment about infertility, making it a crucible of personal brokenness. Over countless interviews and Instagram — including a nude shoot symbolically taken nine months post-surgery and even a feature film called “Sharp Stick,” about a young woman after an early-in-life hysterectomy — Dunham ties her value to the organ she’s lost, writing on Instagram that medical infertility brought “feelings that my worth and purpose were being taken from me.” Even in her initial Vogue essay, she randomly observes that, “women are attached to their uteruses (for me, an almost blind, delusional loyalty, like I’d have to a bad boyfriend).”

https://www.instagram.com/p/BqMWRfVAikH/

One wonders who, exactly, Dunham is referring to by this monolithic word, “women”? Certainly not the people posting on Reddit forums and sites like Hyster Sisters happily counting down to “yeeterus” days and celebrating with special hysterectomy cakes and cookies frosted with slogans like, “Goodbye uterus, you were cramping my style,” “Monthly subscription: canceled,” and my personal favorite, “see you later, ovulator.” Her essay “about” Monroe goes even further in dressing up gender essentialism in the sackcloth of personal grief: “Losing your fertility has a way of forcing questions about your womanhood — I spent a good two years asking myself what my purpose was . . .”

These words seem more suited to Ben “WAP sounds a like medical condition” Shapiro or any TikTok tradwife than a star who built her brand as an avatar of intellectually frothy, artisanal white millennial feminism. When fascistic forces across government and media have turned, “What is a woman?” into their scaremongering “gotcha” question du jour, holding its supposed answer like a knife to the throats of transgender people, equating womanhood with carrying children isn’t just wrong, it’s profoundly dangerous.  

Though I never wanted a biological child with the same intensity she claims, watching a door click shut forever made me wonder what is on the other side of it. Leading up to surgery, my desperation to hold a thought in my head or sleep through the night overtook any concerns about my fertility. Only months post-op, as my hormones began to settle and I started re-gaining strength, did I seek out my pathology report. Clinical descriptions of fallopian tubes so laden with endometriosis that they warped in on themselves, a uterus bogged down with fibroids and polyps so large that it had to be peeled off my bladder overwhelmed me.

Dunham is entitled to her sorrow, but she is not entitled to a grand, unified thesis on infertility.

On the phone with a friend, I wept. Perhaps even hysterectomy hadn’t made me infertile; my body had made its choice for me long before that morning I counted down from 10. Whatever fantasies I might have harbored about being liberated from my avowed spinsterhood, complete with “late in life” baby were already gone before I could fully acknowledge them. My infertility is like an old injury that bothers me on rainy days; a lingering soreness that makes me extra careful with myself, avoiding certain friends’ Instagram feeds or steering clear of the baby clothes section of Target. Sometimes, something hard hits a tender spot, and a podcast ad with a small child chatting happily to his mother makes me cry. I may come away from these moments bruised, but I’m not broken.

The path of my life is so much broader than the road not taken. My purpose came to me after surgery and complete medical infertility; without the constant glaze of pain, I’m a more present friend. I swim. I sit through long movies, no anguished trips to the bathroom. I pick up old hobbies. Every day into recovery, even the hard days, I feel a brightness click behind my eyes. That brightness is my worth — the light of possibility filling the space where the dark star of my uterus had been. 


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


Dunham is entitled to her sorrow, but she is not entitled to a grand, unified thesis on infertility. In her recent Vogue essay, she laments infertility as “a humiliation more ancient than any I had known,” a turn of phrase that simultaneously signifies nothing while portraying herself, and Marilyn, and me — anyone who will never have a baby — as little more than the victim of some cosmic joke. Like Dunham, I chose to free myself from annihilating pain, even if that freedom came with the absolute inability to ever bear a child. But my worth and purpose were not lifted out of me by a surgeon’s hands. Neither was my womanhood.

I am not disposable, or humiliated. There is purpose and potential beating through my veins right now, and it matters more than what could or could not have grown inside of me.

Somebody had to do it! Jan. 6 committee wraps with a bang — and a subpoena for Donald Trump

“Our nation cannot only punish the foot soldiers who stormed our Capitol. Those who planned to overturn our election, and brought us to the point of violence, must also be accountable.”

In her opening statement of the final hearing of the last House Jan. 6 committee before the midterms — and perhaps the last one, period — Rep. Liz Cheney, the no-longer-exactly-Republican congresswoman from Wyoming, laid out the stakes. Donald Trump was “the central cause of Jan. 6,” she said, not just the inspiration.

Over the next couple of hours, the committee carefully painted a picture of Trump as a conductor who brought many different forces together and forged an insurrection. Yes, various other people — longtime Trump lackeys and loyalists like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon — evidently act as go-betweens, translating Trump’s desires for an insurrection to the extremely online right-wing goons he needed to actually do the thing. But from beginning to end, this was Trump’s plan: To declare the election rigged or stolen, even before votes were cast or counted, and to use those bogus accusations as excuses for his judicial appointees to steal it for him. When that wouldn’t work, he turned to Republican all over the country, trying to badger or coerce them into falsifying or invalidating the election results.

That didn’t work either, so Trump moved on to his biggest and most audacious plan: Unleash a violent mob on the Capitol, and quite likely show up in person to claim the crown. He was unable to break through the security bureaucracy (and, very likely, his own cowardice) enough to actually get that done. But new evidence introduced on Thursday demonstrated that Trump’s vision involved him actually standing at the head of his violent MAGA army, in a cosplay update of Benito Mussolini’s March on Rome


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


“We have left no doubt — none — that Donald Trump led an effort to upend American democracy that directly resulted in the violence of Jan. 6,” committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in his closing statement. 

New evidence demonstrates that Trump’s vision involved him standing at the head of his MAGA army in the ravaged Capitol, in a cosplay update of Benito Mussolini’s March on Rome

And so, with deliberate sobriety and very little fanfare, the committee ended its possibly-final hearing with a unanimous vote to subpoena Donald Trump. Cheney’s words weren’t just empty rhetoric or impotent flailing against recalcitrant Attorney General Merrick Garland, who seems determined to slow-walk this process until he’s out of office or we’re all dead, whichever comes first. In its vote to issue a subpoena to the most recent ex-president, the committee is attempting to live up to the immortal words from “Spider-Man”: To those with great power comes great responsibility. 

Or, in other words, pull on your big-kid pants and do something about Trump — and his imitators and followers — before he, and they, strike again. 

This hearing offered another riveting spectacle, along with an overwhelming amount of evidence that Donald J. Trump is guilty as charged. The committee did their best to keep things crisp and organized, using both what they identified as Trump’s “seven point plan” to overthrow the election and a straightforward timeline. Two arguments stood out as those likeliest to sway timid centrists and normies who remain unwilling to accept that this really did happen in the US of A.  First, the committee made the case for extensive premeditation: Trump and others plotted for months to steal the election, well before it happened. Second, the committee provided even more evidence that Trump envisioned himself as the leader and figurehead of the mob he had incited. 

That latter point is definitely a sore spot for Trump defenders. More energy has been put into denying that Trump wanted to march on the Capitol himself than into refuting any other allegation leveled by the committee. Maybe that’s because picturing and accepting that reality makes it unmistakable that Trump was the leader of this insurrection in every meaningful sense. The defeated president showing up in person to oversee the overthrow of democracy is undeniable an arresting and dramatic image. Ironically, that’s no doubt why Trump spent hours trying to make it happen, as the committee persuasively contends.

As Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., put it, Trump’s plan to declare the election fraudulent “was intentional, it was premeditated,” and we know that “it was not based on election results” because he and his allies were bragging about it both in public and behind closed doors. Footage of Stone and Bannon gleefully congratulating themselves on the supposed brilliance of the plan has already made headlines, but it’s also worth remembering Trump was seeding this conspiracy theory for months — really, for years — long before the 2020 election. 


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


While there’s not exactly a smoking gun — such as a video or signed statement — in which Trump orders the Capitol riot, at this point it takes concentrated and willful denial not to believe that wasn’t Trump’s explicit plan going into Jan. 6. The committee established the links between Trump, Stone and the leaders of groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, many of whom have been indicted or convicted of seditious conspiracy. Committee members brought forward evidence that rioters talked as if they were getting orders from Trump, albeit filtered through intermediaries. They showed Jason Miller, a key Trump campaign official, sharing a link to a site where violence was openly being plotted and gloating about how successful Team Trump’s efforts were. 

Let’s suspend disbelief for a second and say, OK, maybe this was not a conspiracy. Maybe this is all just a remarkable million-monkeys coincidence, in which thousands of people independently came to the same conclusion at the same time without any direction or guidance. But remember the axiom: When you hear the sound of hooves, assume horses, not zebras. 

While the committee’s focus on Thursday was about building the public case for issuing a subpoena to Donald Trump, it has not abandoned the project of pressuring Garland and the Department of Justice to deal with Trump as  they would any other criminal: With handcuffs. (Or, OK, more likely with an indictment leading to a negotiated surrender and an immediate release on bail, probably paid for by his PAC suckers, I mean donors.) In her opening remarks, Cheney pointedly reminded viewers that Congress lacks the authority to charge Trump with crimes, because that’s the DOJ’s job. She also pointed out — likely as much to Garland as the public — that DOJ officials swear to uphold the Constitution, just as members of Congress do. 

Cheney’s frustration was palpable, but it is worth noting that during the hearing  news came down that Supreme Court has rejected Trump’s efforts to shut down or delay the DOJ investigation of  the classified documents Trump had illegally stashed at Mar-a-Lago, and that he took great pains to conceal from investigators. In fairness, Garland’s team has been aggressively fighting, and largely defeating, Trump’s attempts to get away with that set of probable crimes. So it’s at least somewhat reasonable to hope that Garland is not, in fact, a stone wall who will never allow a former president to be indicted no matter how many ludicrous crimes he commits. 

We still don’t know what’s in those classified documents, but even if it’s extremely bad — and we’re hearing it’s “nuclear intel” bad — it’s unlikely to exceed “led a fascist insurrection” bad. Perhaps future historians will chewing for years on a qualitative debate over the relative evils of sedition vs. treason. For now, what we know is that the Jan. 6 committee has taken its best shot: Donald Trump needs to be held to account. If no one else is stepping up, they’re going to do their best.

15 ways to use apple cider to amp up savory autumn dishes

For some, apple cider is merely apple juice’s oft-neglected step-sibling, or perhaps something to wash down those wondrous apple cider donuts. For others, apple cider is a unique elixir that represents a world of rich, autumnal flavors, encompassing beverages and cocktails, desserts and savory foods, and everything in between. If you’re unacquainted with ciders, wondering what differentiates it from apple juice, or have yet to utilize cider in a savory capacity, look no further!

What’s the difference between cider and juice?

Apple cider is often darker and sometimes even thicker, while apple juice is translucent. This is because apple cider is fresh, often made in the fall-time, and unfiltered. Apple juice is filtered, pasteurized, and often processed, which is why you can buy apple juice year-round — which is certainly not the case for apple cider. Apple cider lasts just over a week in the fridge and should be enjoyed immediately after purchasing. 

Apple juice is also sometimes sweetened above-and-beyond the apple’s natural, inherent sweetness, as well as including preservatives. Apple cider is also a raw product and is minimally processed. In addition, some unpasteurized apple cider can even ferment over time. Did you know: if you do not consume your apple cider within two weeks, it may begin to turn to either apple cider vinegar or alcoholic cider, or just generally go bad?

Be mindful, also — some companies sell the same product interchangeably, but in most cases, it’s clear how to differentiate between the two beverages. Some establishments also sell a spiced apple cider, which is just like normal apple cider, but elevated with mulling spices to help further flavor the drink and give that special fall je ne se quoi. (Of course, steer clear of using a spiced apple cider in the bulk of these savory concepts, which would certainly muddle the flavor profiles). 

How to use apple cider in savory applications

Celebrate the best of autumn with these apple cider enriched dishes!

01
Whip up a savory apple cider caramel

Enjoy this like a Vietnamese-spiced caramel that’s tossed with hot, fried chicken, in which the apple flavor adds a levity that doesn’t otherwise come through. If you’re a heat seeker, feel free to throw in some chile flakes or actual chiles for a really special bite. To make, carefully toss together apple cider, brown sugar, cream, salt and some unsalted butter, cooking it down until it’s thickened and almost jammy. Conversely, use the apple cider caramel as a base in coffee drinks or drizzled over desserts. Toss it with coconut flakes and chocolate for a Samoas-esque treat, or add some flaky sea salt for a crave-worthy salted apple cider caramel that’d be terrific tossed with fresh, hot popcorn. 

02
Cook an elevated fall soup
This is certainly a step up from canned! Cook your favorite vegetable (rutabaga, fennel, celery, leek, celeriac) in a mix of half stock and half cider. When tender, use an immersion blender to puree the cooked vegetables into the cooking liquid, continue to cook over medium heat until thickened and rich. When ready, serve it up in hot bowls garnished with frizzled leeks, crème fraîche and subtly sweet lump crab.
03
Create an elegant, rich pan sauce

You’ll be stunned by how viscous and rich this is. Sauté your protein of choice in a flat, heavy-bottomed skillet; skinless, boneless chicken breasts or thighs would be a great option here. When perfectly browned, remove to a plate, and add a finely minced shallot to the skillet. When translucent, add apple cider and white wine and reduce by half. Add stock or broth of your choosing, reduce by half again, and then add a touch of cream and a few pats of butter. Cook over low heat until thickened and beautifully bronzed. 

04
Make a bright, plucky vinaigrette
Apple cider is an amazing acidic element. In a mason jar or shallow bowl, stir together equal parts honey and Dijon mustard, drizzling in apple cider. Begin to add the oil of your choice, continually stirring, until well emulsified. Season with salt and pepper and dress mixed greens or the leaves of your choice. 
05
Enjoy a deeply crisped, flavorful stuffing

Make your usual stuffing or dressing recipe, but instead of adding milk, water, broth, or stock, use only apple cider. This will add amazing flavor to your stuffing but also won’t make it soggy, allowing for an extra crisping under the broiler, if you wish. 

06
Baste an amazingly moist (and flavorful) turkey
Once you’ve brined, seasoned, trussed, or otherwise prepared your turkey, add it to a roasting tray over an assortment of roughly chopped vegetables and aromatics. Add a mix of white wine, cider, broth, or stock to the bottom of the tray (don’t get it on the turkey itself), and this will help keep the turkey moist as it cooks, lend an amazing aroma, and season the vegetables underneath the turkey, which will also mix with the natural turkey drippings. 
07
Make a unique, autumnal baked pasta dish
You can aim for a macaroni-and-cheese (with apple cider) type-vibe or a more immediately Italian-American energy with a Bechemel of sorts that’s flavored with apple cider. The subtle sweetness will blend well with the savory notes (and all of the cheese), making this fall pasta a welcome treat for the whole family, no matter if you’re using ziti, rigatoni, manicotti or cannelloni. P.S. don’t forget the freshly ground nutmeg to really round out the dish and add a complementary note for the cider. 
08
Use as a braising liquid in pulled pork

Using a pork butt or shoulder, along with aromatics, vegetables, herbs, and spices, swap out water or stock for cider, which will help to permeate the pork with a bright, sweet flavor and also make the meat super-tender. Enjoy in sandwiches, over nachos, in tacos, or crisped up on the stovetop before being enjoyed over a brightly dressed cabbage salad. 

09
Flavor a retro fondue
There may be no “party food” more genuinely fun and enjoyable than fondue with all the fixins’. Opt for a gruyere or fontina fondue with apple cider as the primary liquid, garnish with lots of finely chopped chives, and serve with apples (duh), pumpernickel bread, raw carrots and celery, poached or roasted chicken or other proteins, boiled potatoes, tortilla chips, crackers or pita bread. 
10
Diversify chicken and dumplings

A top tier cozy dish, chicken and dumplings will benefit from apple cider in both the dumping dough and the gravy or sauce itself. This one is a real winner — trust us. 

11
Pair with butternut squash, lots of cheddar and a touch of cream

In a super hot oven, roast butternut squash with garlic and onions until tender and slightly browned. Toss into a pot with apple cider and stock, cook down a bit, carefully transfer to a high-speed blender or Vitamix, blend away, return to the pot and add cream, salt and pepper. Serve soup in large bowls garnished with a mountain of freshly grated cheddar cheese and big hunks of crusty bread. 

12
Use to steam shellfish

One of the simplest food preparations in the world is easily elevated with apple cider. Take a pound or two of your favorite shellfish, such as mussels or clams, toss them in a big ol’ pot with garlic, onions, and a half-and-half mixture of broth or stock and apple cider. Throw in some clam juice or fish sauce, cover with a lid, and let steam until the shellfish open up, revealing their insides and adding their “liquor” to the simmering liquid. 

13
Enjoy in risotto
Grab some rice (arborio or Carnaroli), an onion, some wine, and a ton of cider. Cut up the onion until the pieces are about the size of a grain of rice. In a large pot, warm some oil and begin heating up your onions until just translucent – you want no color here. Add the rice and toast it, then add the wine and cook down, reducing until dry, before adding ladlefuls of warmed apple cider. Continue this dance, adding and stirring and adding and stirring, until the risotto is smooth and creamy. The cider is helping to coax the starches out of each grain. Once you’ve reached this ‘all’onda’ (or wave) stage, add some handfuls of grated Parm, a drizzle of oil, and a few pats of butter and voila, you have an amazing meal ahead of you. 
14
Use to flavor granola
Apple is an inherently perfect pair for granola, so when making granola at home, toss the oats and nuts with an egg white, a splash or two of apple cider and a drizzle of maple syrup or honey before roasting until deeply browned and crisp. Let cool and store in an airtight container to enjoy over yogurt. 
15
Enjoy in pot pies or shepherd’s pie

Add a touch of apple cider to the gravy mixture, the dough itself or the root vegetable mash, and appreciate the alluring look on your guests’ faces as they try to figure out that slight, autumnal flavor emanating from each bite. 

You know what they say — an apple (cider) a day! 


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


Experts taken aback by Florida surgeon general advising against COVID vaccines for young men

Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., has positioned himself as the face of ideological defiance to the COVID-19 policies supported by the overwhelming majority of public health experts and scientists. DeSantis sued Joe Biden’s administration over the president’s vaccine mandates, has been accused of intimidating state officials into destroying COVID-19 data from his state and even scolded high school students for following scientific wisdom and wearing masks.

Now, Florida Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo — a staunch DeSantis supporter appointed by him to replace Scott Rivkees, who DeSantis famously pulled from a press conference in 2020 for refusing to downplay the pandemic — is facing his own firestorm of controversy for seeming to politicize the pandemic.

In a press release linked to in a brief Friday evening tweet, Ladapo claimed that young adult men should avoid taking the mRNA vaccines produced by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna on the grounds that they would be at an “abnormally high risk” of heart-related deaths. The Florida Department of Health-certified press release claimed that “the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group [males 18-39 years old].” 

Ladapo only offered one piece of evidence for his assertion: A short state analysis with no authors, that has not been peer reviewed, that admits its own findings are “preliminary,” that seemed to select patients in a way that would skew its conclusions, and which relied on unreliable information like death certificates instead of more reliable information like medical records. Ladapo, though a physician, does not specialize in infectious diseases.

Twitter initially removed Ladapo’s tweet, describing it as misinformation, but reposted it hours later. It has been retweeted over 50,000 times at the time of this writing.

Public health experts who spoke to Salon about Ladapo’s views were less than impressed. Dr. Monica Gandhi, the director of the University of California San Francisco Bay Area Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), criticized the study by email for its small sample size, biased control group, failure to account for COVID-19-related mortality, refusal to acknowledge the long-term vaccine benefits in younger males and other problems.


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


“In short, the risk factors for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccine in males are quite well defined and are enhanced by giving the second dose too close to the first, so we recommend spacing of at least 8 weeks between mRNA vaccine doses,” Gandhi told Salon. “But this study is too flawed to be used to set policy on the mRNA vaccines in younger males.”

“One can go on and on with the spurious, undocumented nature of these alleged data.”

Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, dismissed Ladapo’s study as “totally ridiculous.”

“No other reputable institution has reported anything like the results he is quoting, and there are very many carefully studied situations in which nothing of this sort has ever been found,” Sommer wrote to Salon, adding that “one can go on and on with the spurious, undocumented nature of these alleged data.”

Ladapo has a long history of opposing science when it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic. Before his appointment, he signed a petition opposing a decision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to fast-track authorization of COVID-19 vaccines. He has wrongly claimed that mRNA vaccines are unsafe and urged children not to get their shots. Under Ladapo’s watch, Florida became the only state to not pre-order vaccine supplies for children after the FDA authorized vaccination for children under the age of 5 as an emergency measure. Ladapo has repeatedly cited erroneous or non-definitive sources, as he did in his recent statement, to back his views.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon by email that Ladapo’s new source is “a very poorly constructed study. I am still unclear who the heck wrote it.” He added that, while “I try to stay away from his motives as much as I can, it’s not uncommon for health departments to do internal studies and then to make policy decisions based on their studies. But when those studies are in variance to common accepted guidance, it takes a lot more vet and quite frankly, you usually bring in outside experts to validate the study and certainly do some kind of peer review on the study, and none of that was done.”

In short, Benjamin felt that “the challenge we have with this particular physician is that I’m just not quite sure how we can trust his guidance based on this particular study.” Noting that Ladapo seemed to be refusing to give advice based on the preponderance of evidence and the analysis of trained experts (which Ladapo is not), Benjamin concluded that “I still think that the best advice is from trusted experts, which includes the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I cannot recommend [Ladapo] as a trusted expert.”

There is no evidence that mRNA vaccines pose a threat to human heart health — whereas, by contrast, a recent study in the scientific journal Immunology found that COVID-19 patients likely suffer from long-term heart problems.

While Ladapo has criticized mRNA vaccines such as those manufactured by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, the new vaccines are effective and far less dangerous than COVID-19 infections. The term “mRNA” is short for “messenger RNA,” a specific type of RNA that transmits information from genetic codes in the nucleus to the cytoplasm where proteins are manufactured. While other vaccines use dead or weakened version of pathogens to train your immune system to fight them, mRNA vaccines contain instructions that help cells produce proteins similar to those on designated pathogens. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccine, the mRNA helps cells produce proteins similar to the spike proteins that the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses to infect human cells. The immune system then recognizes and eradicates those spike proteins, thus learning how to defend against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Rarely, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines seem to be connected to myocarditis and pericarditis cases, meaning inflammation of the heart or surrounding heart tissue. A peer-reviewed study published in January 2022 in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported 1626 cases of myocarditis after vaccination out of 354,100,845 mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines given — or, 0.0004 percent. In contrast, contracting COVID-19 itself poses a much higher risk for one’s heart. A recent open-access study involving more than 11 million people found that COVID-19 patients were at a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases like heart failure or stroke longer after the virus had cleared their bodies.

Secret Service Jan. 6 messages show they got tip that Proud Boys were plotting to “kill people”

The Secret Service revealed in information sent to the House Select Committee that they knew that the U.S. Capitol was going to be a target on Jan. 6, 2021.

“This email, for example, was an alert that the Secret Service received on December 24, with the heading, armed and ready, Mr. President,” read Rep. Adam Schiff, citing the intelligence. “Multiple users online were targeting members of Congress, instructing others to march into the chambers on January 6, and make sure they know who to fear. In this report, received on Dec. 26 the Secret Service Field Office-related tip that had been received by the FBI.”

“According to the source of the tip, the Proud Boys plan to march arm in arm into D.C. and they think they will have a large enough group to march into D.C. armed, the source reported. We will out number the police so they cannot be stopped, the source went on to say. Their plan is to kill people. please, please take this tip seriously and investigate further.”

The source made it clear that the Proud Boys had detailed plans that were posted on multiple websites.

Secret Service protectees were also targeted on social media sites like Parlor and other places. Vice President Mike Pence was one of those protectees. On the morning of Jan. 6 they got threats saying “Mike Pence will be a dead man walking” if he doesn’t do what Trump tells him.

At no point did the FBI or the White House do anything to ensure the Capitol was protected.

Watch video below or at this link.

Jan. 6 hearing: Trump ordered military to create “disaster” for Biden — in a sign he knew he lost

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said Thursday during a hearing held by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack that former President Donald Trump knew full well that he lost the 2020 election. Meanwhile, he was acting on that loss, and trying to quickly withdraw troops from around the globe even though the Department of Defense urged him not to.

Kinzinger showed videos of several defense officials who testified that it was young staffer Johnny McEntee, who did nothing more than run the staffing office of the White House, and penned the directive ordering all troops out of Afghanistan and Somalia.

“Knowing that he had a lost and had only weeks in office, President Trump rushed to complete his unfinished business,” said Kinzinger. “One key example is this: President Trump issued an order for a U.S. troop withdrawal.”

“He disregarded concerns about the consequences for the fragile government on the front line of the fight against ISIS and terrorists. Knowing he was leaving office, he acted immediately and signed the order on November 11, which would have required the withdrawal of troops from Somalia and Afghanistan all to be complete before the Biden administration on January 20.”

He showed clip after clip of high-ranking military and security officials revealing that Trump wanted the “immediate” withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan. Military leaders told him it would be a disaster, but Trump didn’t care. When Joe Biden entered office, it was the mess that he was forced to clean up and for which he was blamed. The implication is that it was what Trump wanted.

Watch video below or at this link.

Jan. 6 hearing reveals email exposing Trump’s “premeditated plan” to subvert the election

Former President Donald Trump and his aides crafted a proclamation that he won the 2020 election days before it took place, according to an email obtained from the National Archives by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who serves on the bipartisan nine-member panel, stated at Thursday’s hearing that “the draft statement which was sent on October 31st declares ‘we had an election today and I won.'”

Trump wrote to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton that “the Ballots counted by the Election Day deadline show the American people have bestowed upon me the great honor of reelection of President of the United States.”

While prepping victory speeches in advance is not unusual under normal circumstances, Lofgren noted that Trump’s instructions to Fitton signify an “intentional” and “premeditated” effort to subvert the democratic process.

“The Fitton memo specifically indicates a plan that only the votes counted by the Election Day deadline – and there is no Election Day deadline – would matter,” Lofgren said. “Everyone knew the lawful counting would continue past Election Day. Claiming that the counting on Election Night must stop before millions of votes were counted was, as we now know, a key part of President Trump’s premeditated plan.”

Watch below or at this link.

It’s taking more time to cast a ballot in elections – and even longer for Black and Hispanic voters

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the November 2020 election brought out about 155 million voters. That represented 67% of Americans over 18, and it was the highest voter turnout of any modern election.

Americans also set records in the percent and number of people voting early and by mail, continuing a decadeslong trend away from voting only on election day.

That was the good news.

The 2020 elections also saw record numbers of Americans forced to wait longer to vote, partly because of the increased number of voters and the difficulties of safely voting during a lethal pandemic. Tellingly, as in the past, if you waited over 30 minutes to cast a vote, you were more likely to be a low-income Black American.

Since 2012, when more than 5 million Americans were forced to wait longer than an hour to cast their ballots, long waits have become a visible indicator of voting problems.

The Presidential Commission on Election Administration stated in 2014 that “No citizen should have to wait more than 30 minutes to vote.”

Eight years later, that goal is further away than before. Where you are and who you are significantly affect how long it will take you to vote. As well as demanding more time and commitment – including arrangements for child care if needed – long waits can discourage future voting.

Increasing wait times

Average waits nationally increased to 14.3 minutes in 2020 from 10.4 minutes in 2016, a 40% jump. These waits were concentrated in poorer neighborhoods with a higher percentage of nonwhite voters.

A further indication that waiting is a growing problem was its addition in 2022 to the voting inconvenience category by the Cost of Voting Index project, which measures the ease or difficulty of voting in individual states.

While the great majority of Americans waited only a few minutes to vote in 2020, a significant minority did not.

One in 7 voters – 14.3% – waited longer than the 30-minute 2014 goal set by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, compared with 1 in 12 – 8.3% – in 2016. And 1 in 16 voters – 6.3% – surveyed by the MIT Election Data Science Lab waited over an hour.

Twelve states – including Alabama, Georgia, New York, Indiana and Maryland – exceeded that average. In 2020, Delaware voters reported the highest average wait at 35 minutes – up strikingly from 5 minutes in 2016. South Carolina had the second-longest wait at 30 minutes, up from its nation-leading 20 minutes in 2016.

But the time spent waiting in line to cast a ballot is only the most visible cost of voting.

The full cost not only includes the actual vote, but also the time and effort of registration, staying registered and the nonpartisan counting and administration of the vote. Most election administration officials are partisan figures, though they are expected to administer the election in a nonpartisan manner.

Partisan voting laws

Political parties are using the voting process itself as a way to gain advantage.

Researchers have found a correlation between the number of Republican legislators in a state and the greater the cost to vote will be disproportionately to Black voters.

In at least one state, Florida from 2004 to 2016, as the number of Democratic voters increased in a county, so did the number of voters per poll worker, thus increasing the potential for waiting and other delays.

Strict voter identification laws appear to disproportionately affect minority voters but not overall voter turnout, although the full impact of these laws remains uncertain.

In 2021-22, 21 states passed 42 laws making voting more difficult. Some of those laws include imposing new photo ID requirements, limiting Election Day registration and requiring voters to provide identification numbers when they apply to vote by mail.

On the other side, 25 states passed 62 laws making voting easier. In June 2022, for example, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the landmark John Lewis Voting Rights Act that created new legal protections against voter suppression, vote dilution and voter intimidation.

Despite the greater number of bills that made voting easier, the restrictive laws were more encompassing, often rolling back successful pandemic-based efforts to encourage early and absentee voting. Despite research showing no partisan advantage to early and absentee voting, restrictive laws were passed primarily in Republican states and expansive laws primarily in Democratic states.

A question of fairness

The effect of these laws on turnout is uncertain, especially if they inspire a “backlash mobilization” or civic education efforts. Lawsuits may block some laws. In early October 2022, a Montana state judge deemed three laws unconstitutional – one that required additional identification if voting with a student ID, another that halted third-party ballot collection and a third that banned same-day voter registration.

The last two laws would have adversely affected Native Americans, who might live 50 miles from a polling place.

In September 2021, the GOP-controlled Texas legislature passed a new election law that restricted early voting, tightened absentee voting, instituted new rules for voter assistance and added criminal penalties for some violations.

One ramification occurred during the 2022 primary, when Texas election officials rejected over 12% of absentee ballots, a huge increase from the normal 1% to 2%.

While rejections equally affected voters in Republican and Democratic Texas primaries, strict rules about who could vote absentee meant most of those disqualified voters were over 65 or had disabilities.

Depending on who was the majority party, Texas Democratic and Republican politicians have long led the nation in making voting difficult for Black citizens since the end of the Civil War, and more recently once Republicans gained power in the 1980s.

In 2020, Republican Governor Greg Abbott restricted ballot drop boxes to only one per county, giving the 4.7 million people in the 1,778 square miles of Harris County, which is 20.3% Black, the same ability to drop off their ballot as the 10,500 people in the 275 square miles of Franklin County, which is 4.8% Black.

Before the ban, Harris County intended to provide 11 ballot boxes for easier access. Abbott claimed he was increasing ballot security, but the reality was that he increased the difficulty for city dwellers, who increasingly lean Democratic and nonwhite, to vote.

Perhaps the country’s most restrictive election law, Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021, reduced mail and early voting while making the State Election Board a more political office. Fulton County, the largest county with over a million people and is 44.7% Black, will be limited to eight ballot drop boxes – all indoors – instead of the usual 38 outdoor drop boxes. In addition, the law banned the county from using mobile voting buses.

Media attention, however, focused on a ban on offering food or water to voters within 150 feet of a polling place or within 25 feet of voters waiting in line. An exception was made for poll workers and election judges who can provide water to voters.

Just as some nonprofits have helped states improve the clarity and legibility of their ballots, so too could similar nonpartisan expertise of resource optimization and supply chain management improve the administration of elections.

Like other state governments, Georgia could minimize the time needed to vote if it provided the resources, training and communication to its staff that administers elections, and thus encourage American citizens to exercise their ability to vote.

“A cornerstone of our election process is fundamental fairness,” Matthew Weil, the Bipartisan Policy Center Elections Project director, stated. “If different people are experiencing the election system, the voting experience, quite unequally, that’s a problem – full stop.”

 

Jonathan Coopersmith, Professor of History, Texas A&M University

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

Nadiya Hussain’s anchovy breadcrumb spaghetti is your coziest weeknight dinner

Sure, she’s one of the most beloved winners of the beloved “Great British Baking Show.” Sure, her television series and her books — including her newest cookbook — frequently feature the word “baking” in the title. But if you know anything at all about Nadiya Hussain, you know she’s so much more than cakes. She’s also the expert you can trust with, as she delivers in “Nadiya’s Everyday Baking: From Weeknight Dinners to Celebration Cakes, Let Your Oven Do the Work,” cheerful beet salads and hearty seafood boils.

It all stands to reason, coming from a woman who admits in her “Everyday Baking” that while her family were enthusiastic cooks, growing up, “We didn’t bake… the oven knob lay unused.” Now that she’s made a career of making up for lost time, Hussain tells Salon via email that she wants her books “to make anyone attempting the recipes to feel confidence in their ability to produce something delicious.” 

For other home cooks who have likewise yet make much use of their own oven knobs, Hussain advises you to ease in to the process. “Start with a no bake bake,” she says, “rocky road or tiffin [fridge cake]. Something you can measure, mix and set in the fridge — and still have the joy of licking the bowl too.” It doesn’t take too much equipment or time to get going, either. Nadiya says, “I would suggest having a good set of spatulas, electric hand whisk and a few standard sized nonstick cake tins and weighing scales. With these key pieces, you can bake pretty much everything.”


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


And when I ask, “Which would win in your kitchen — cookies, pie, or cake?” Hussain offers the ideal reply. “All three,” she says. “Why have one when you can have all three?”

Sweet as my own tooth is, it was her anchovy and breadcrumb pasta that first called to me the loudest from the book, one bleak evening when it had been raining nonstop for days on end. I longed for something stress-free and comforting to curl up with, at least until I worked my way to dessert, and Hussain’s savory, salty, crunchy dish hit the spot. Brightened with loads of lemon and an abundance of garlic, this is the dish to convert the anchovy-ambivalent and make fans of the fish swoon. “Always taste as you go. It all takes practice,” Hussain says, a tip that’s impossible not to follow when your kitchen is heady with the aroma of toasty, buttery breadcrumbs.

I have streamlined Hussain’s recipe slightly here by browning the bread in the toaster and using quick cooking green onions, but I promise this is still incredibly rich and outrageously cozy. And while it’s a hearty meal for the dampest autumn evening, be sure save a little room afterward for some cookies, pie, cake — or all three.

* * *

Inspired by Nadiya’s Everyday Baking by Nadiya Hussain

Nadiya Hussein’s anchovy crumb pasta
Yields
 4 servings
Prep Time
 10 minutes
Cook Time
 15minutes

Ingredients

  • 2 slices of white bread (or one hamburger bun)
  • 8 anchovy filets (or less if you’re shy about it)
  • 1 tablespoon of the anchovy oil
  • 1 pound of linguini or spaghetti
  • 1/2 stick of butter
  • 6 cloves of sliced garlic
  • 3 – 6 green onions stalks, sliced
  • 1 lemon
  • Chopped fresh parsley, if you like it

 

 

Directions

  1. Set a big pot of water to boil.
  2. Meanwhile, toast your bread and then tear it into pieces.
  3. Boil the pasta to directions, about 8 – 9 minutes.
  4. While the pasta is cooking, melt your butter over medium heat until it just starts to brown. Add the garlic and 2 anchovy filets. Cook to soften, then add the green onion and cook down about 5 minutes more.
  5. Drain the pasta, reserving 1/2 cup or so of the cooking water.
  6. Add the pasta and reserved water to the anchovy butter, cooking until the liquid has not quite evaporated and everything is silky and incorporated.
  7. In a food processor, pulse the breadcrumbs, anchovy oil and remaining anchovy filets.
  8. To the pan, add roughly 2 tablespoons of the breadcrumb mixture, along with the zest and juice of the lemon.
  9. Slide the pasta to a big serving platter, and top with a generous handful of more breadcrumbs and fresh parsley. Enjoy immediately.

Cook’s Notes

I wouldn’t hesitate to throw some olives in here for even more savory flavor.

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

Trump melts down on Truth Social after judge blasts his attempt to “run out the clock”

Former President Donald Trump had a meltdown on Truth Social after a judge on Wednesday ordered him to answer questions under oath next week in a defamation lawsuit brought by a writer who alleged that he raped her in the mid-1990s.

Trump’s outburst on his struggling social media startup came hours after U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan rejected a request by Trump’s lawyers to delay the scheduled testimony. The deposition is set for Oct. 19.

Describing the case as “a complete con job”, Trump claimed he did not know E. Jean Carroll, a longtime Elle Magazine writer who accused him of rape at a Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman department store. 

“I don’t know this woman, have no idea who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event,” Trump wrote on Wednesday.

The lawsuit was brought by Carroll after Trump repeatedly denied the allegations, saying that Carroll is “totally lying” and “not my type”.

“She completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie, just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years,” he said on Wednesday.

The federal lawsuit accuses Trump of defaming Carroll when he claimed she lied and was motivated by selling her book when she said he raped her.

On various occasions, Trump’s legal team has tried to delay the lawsuit and prevent him from being questioned by Carroll’s attorneys. But, Judge Kaplan wrote that both Trump, Carroll and other defendants “already are of advanced age,” and it’s time to move forward with the case.

Trump “should not be permitted to run the clock out on [Carroll’s] attempt to gain a remedy for what allegedly was a serious wrong,” he said. 

Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba said in a statement: “We look forward to establishing on the record that this case is, and always has been, entirely without merit.”

Carroll is scheduled to be deposed on Friday. Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, praised the judge’s ruling and added that Carroll will sue Trump next month under a new New York law that provides adult sexual assault victims the opportunity to file civil lawsuits, even if the statutes of limitations have long expired.

“We look forward to filing our case under the Adult Survivors Act and moving forward to trial with all dispatch,” Kaplan said. 


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


Trump’s legal team has tried to squash the suit by arguing that the former president was just doing his job when he denied Carroll’s allegations saying “she’s not my type”. The U.S. government could become the defendant in the case if Trump was indeed acting within the scope of his duties as a federal employee.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a split decision last month that Trump was a federal employee when he commented on Carroll’s claims. But now, Trump must wait on a ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals about whether the comments he made about Carroll occurred during the scope of his employment.

As he awaits their ruling, the former president is facing other legal threats, including a federal probe into classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago residence. Surveillance footage recorded at least one Trump employee moving boxes of sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago after the Justice Department issued a subpoena demanding the return of classified documents, according to The New York Times.

One Trump employee told investigators that Trump directed staff to move the boxes after the subpoena was issued in May, according to the Washington Post

Trump raged over the probe on Truth Social Wednesday night, characterizing the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago as an “unprecedented and unnecessary break in of my home.”

“There is no ‘crime’ having to do with the storage of documents at Mar-a- Lago, only in the minds of the Radical Left Lunatics who are destroying our Country, and were just forced by the Courts to give me back much of what they took (STOLE?) during their unprecedented and unnecessary break in of my home,” Trump wrote. “These people are CRAZY!!!”

Trump is under criminal investigation for potential violations relating to obstruction of justice, destruction of federal government records and mishandling classified information.

Jury rejects death penalty for Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz, recommends life without parole

On Thursday, October 13, a jury reached a unanimous decision in sentencing recommendations in Nikolas Cruz’s trial for the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida — and the jury recommended life without parole instead of the death penalty. Cruz’s sentencing has been reset for November 1.

Prosecutors, the day before, asked the jury to sentence Cruz to death, while his defense team urged the jurors to sentence him to life in prison instead. But the jurors appeared to be persuaded by the defense’s arguments, deciding against recommending the death penalty for Cruz.

According to the South Florida Sun Sentinel’s Rafael Olmeda, “On the evidence, the prosecution made its case, the jury found unanimously. But at least one juror, and all it took was one, was persuaded by the defense plea for mercy.”

In his closing argument, the lead prosecutor, Michael Satz, told jurors, “What he wanted to do, what his plan was and what he did, was to murder children at school and their caretakers. That’s what he wanted to do.”

However, Melisa McNeil, a defense attorney for Cruz, described him as a “brain-damaged, broken, mentally ill person, through no fault of his own.”

In February 2018, the Parkland massacre became one of the most horrifying school shootings in U.S. history. Cruz killed 17 people that day, including 14 students and three staff members.

Right-wing host Dennis Prager: “There’s no secular argument against adult incest”

Right-wing radio host Dennis Prager declared on Tuesday’s broadcast of The Dennis Prager Show on the Salem Radio Network that incest between immediate siblings that results in childbirth should not necessarily be avoided.

Birth defects due to inbreeding are well-documented and result from a lack of DNA diversity, increasing the chances that a baby will inherit and display recessive genetic traits. The risks grow if the illicit reproductive practice is continued by future generations.

But Prager’s views are formulated from his fundamentalist interpretation of a verse from the biblical book of Deuteronomy.

“It’s a big deal, and I try to explain everything. Just this one verse that men should not wear women’s clothing or women men’s clothing. So, let’s go to my motto, preferring clarity to agreement. Either the Bible’s right or the left is right. They can’t both be right,” Prager said in the latest edition of “The Ultimate Issues Hour.”

First, he proclaimed that “you can’t be a serious Jew or Christian and be a leftist. You can be a liberal, you can be a conservative, but you can’t be a leftist. Just on this issue alone. You just would have to say the Bible’s wrong and you’re right. Mm, mm here. The public nudity calls are interesting. Anyway, none of you have a secular argument against it and I don’t blame you for that because there isn’t any.”

Prager then pivoted to bolster his point.

“There’s no secular argument against adult incest. Brother and sister want to make love, what’s your argument? That they’re going to produce mentally retarded offspring? That’s nonsense. It takes many generations of inbreeding to do that. There is no secular argument against adult consensual incest. There is a religious argument – sex cannot enter family life. It’s a big taboo,” he said.

“See, people think we can live without the greatest source of wisdom and morality in the history of the world, the Bible,” Prager added. “That’s what they think. And some secular conservatives think that. They don’t realize that they’re living on the fumes of the Judeo-Christian value system. But if you ultimately extract those flowers from the soil that nurtured them, those flowers will wither and die. I don’t want to see that happen.”

Watch below via Media Matters for America or at this link:

Expert: Jan. 6 committee may recommend Trump charges — but full impact could take years

The committee formed to investigate the role of former President Donald Trump and key aides in last year’s Capitol insurrection faces high stakes as it holds its 10th and possibly last public hearing on Oct. 13, 2022.

Since the committee debuted its evidence in prime time on June 9, 2022, Vice-Chair Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of two Republicans on the committee, lost her House seat in a primary election. The other GOP committee member, Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, announced last year that he isn’t running for reelection.

Should Republicans regain the House majority in November’s midterm elections, presumptive Speaker Kevin McCarthy could disband, or reconstitute, the committee. Some GOP House members have indicated that they might use their newfound control over investigations to probe the committee members themselves over how they have conducted their work.

Thus, the committee faces a ticking clock as it wraps up its hearings and finalizes its report, which may recommend criminal charges against Trump and crucial election security reforms. However, it is possible that there will be no immediate legal, policy or political ramifications of the committee’s work.

But as a scholar of oversight who in 2019 spent a year working on the Democratic majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, I believe the committee’s work will have historic impact. That effect, though, may take years to be seen and felt.

Accountability and effectiveness

Although 919 people have been charged with crimes in relation to the Capitol insurrection thus far, there’s still a lot the committee doesn’t know – or hasn’t revealed – about Trump’s direct involvement in the insurrection.

And no matter how compelling a case the committee’s final report might make, the Department of Justice may simply choose not to indict the former president.

In terms of policy changes that could emerge from the committee’s efforts, the House passed the Presidential Election Reform Act in September 2022, which among other provisions clarifies the vice president’s role in the certification of Electoral College votes. The Senate has taken bipartisan action on their version of the bill, but its fate is still uncertain.

Courting the public

Political scientist Paul Light argues that the most “high impact” investigations over the course of American history achieved their success “through a mix of fact-finding, bipartisanship, and strong leadership.” The Jan. 6th Committee took an approach that emphasized facts in presenting its case to the American people.

It dampened charges of partisanship leveled by Trump and his GOP supporters by granting Republicans Cheney and Kinzinger prominent roles. Cheney chaired the committee’s final prime-time hearing this past summer. And the committee showcased extensive testimony from officials whose Republican bona fides are unimpeachable, such as former Attorney General William Barr, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

The committee also maximized its visibility by hiring former ABC News President James Goldston to produce the hearings, and approximately 55 million people watched at least part of the hearings this past summer.

The committee even dominated the cultural conversation by highlighting meme-able moments, including Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri running from the rioters after raising his fist in solidarity earlier that morning.

There is also some, though not overwhelming, evidence that the hearings diminished support for Trump both in the polls and among donors. However, it’s worth recalling that public opinion as the Watergate scandal was unfolding did not reflect the extent to which President Nixon’s legacy would suffer as a result.

Taking time to unfold

Assessing the full impact of the investigation requires patience – probably decades’ worth.

I believe the House Jan. 6 committee’s legacy will depend on how its in-depth rendering of the events surrounding the 2020 election and the ensuing insurrection is presented, repeated and understood by successive generations of Americans.

Congress had originally planned to establish an independent body to investigate the Capitol attacks, modeled on the 9/11 Commission – an idea killed by Senate Republicans last year. So the House committee’s work constitutes, at least thus far, the authoritative public record on the insurrection, with no credible competitor.

This record will serve as a permanent, invaluable cache of information for future investigators, both inside and outside of Congress. It will also inform and inspire the scholars, journalists, novelists and filmmakers who are already shaping the public’s collective understanding of a watershed moment in the history of American democracy.

The Jan. 6th committee’s unpublished report is in hot demand from publishers. It is already a bestseller in presales, despite the fact that it will be freely available as part of the public domain.

The process by which events become part of the public consciousness is slow and often imperceptible, but it is a legacy arguably as important as the discrete electoral or policy outcomes that emerge – or not – in the short term.

As one of my students at Smith College recently put it: “Being sixteen years old and watching people attack the Capitol – I never thought I’d see anything like it. The way my grandparents talk about JFK’s assassination or the Kent State massacre is the way I might talk about this to my kids someday.”

Claire Leavitt, Assistant professor of government, Smith College

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