Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Trump turned DOJ into his personal law firm”: Senate probes prosecutor’s claim of Trump corruption

The Senate Judiciary Committee announced on Monday that it will probe former federal prosecutor Geoffrey Berman’s claim that former President Donald Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr sought to pressure federal prosecutors to go after Trump’s perceived enemies.

Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland that the panel will investigate claims of “astonishing and unacceptable deviations” by DOJ officials to pursue partisan prosecutions and Barr’s efforts to replace Berman with a “Trump loyalist.” Berman’s claims “indicate multiple instances of political interference,” Durbin wrote, calling on the DOJ to produce all documents and communications related to Berman’s claims.

“It violated all the norms and traditions of the Department of Justice, which is supposed to be independent from politics,” Berman told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday. “Trump turned the department into his own personal law firm. He put in people who would do his bidding. And they would, you know, target Trump’s political enemies and assist Trump’s friends. And it was a disgrace.”

Berman, a Republican former Trump transition official who served as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York until he was fired by Trump in June 2020, wrote in his upcoming book “Holding the Line” that he “resisted the worst of the attempted interference, whether from Main Justice or the White House,” according to an excerpt published by The New York Times.

Berman was fired by Trump after he refused Barr’s request for him to resign after he led the prosecutions of multiple Trump allies, drawing allegations of “corruption” at the DOJ.

Berman wrote that Barr pushed his office to drop its prosecution of former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, who was ultimately convicted on eight federal charges, including campaign finance violations that he claimed were on behalf of Trump. Berman told ABC News that DOJ officials also pressured his office to remove references to Trump from Cohen’s indictment.

“On the eve of Cohen’s guilty plea, main Justice tried to get our office to remove any reference to Individual-1, who was President Trump,” he said. “They were unsuccessful in that venture. And they were unsuccessful in every attempt to politically interfere with our office. We held the line in every instance.”

Berman also claims that Justice Department officials pressured his office to prosecute former Secretary of State John Kerry. Trump publicly called for Kerry to be prosecuted over claims that he discussed the nuclear deal with Iranian leaders while Trump was in office. When Berman declined to prosecute Kerry, DOJ officials asked another U.S. attorney’s office, which likewise declined, according to Berman.

“That was truly outrageous,” Berman told ABC News on Monday. “President Trump attacks John Kerry in two tweets saying that Kerry engaged in possible illegal conversations with Iranian officials regarding the Iran nuclear deal. The very next day, the Trump Justice Department refers the John Kerry criminal case to the Southern District of New York. Two tweets by the president and the John Kerry criminal case becomes a priority.”


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


Berman also claimed that DOJ officials told his deputy to charge Democratic lawyer Greg Craig ahead of the 2018 midterms to “even things out.” Craig was ultimately prosecuted by the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C. but was acquitted by a jury in less than five hours of charges that he misled the DOJ about his lobbying work for Ukraine.

“The Justice Department told us, ‘Hey, you have just indicted two allies of the president, Chris Collins, who is a Republican congressman from upstate New York, and Michael Cohen, who was the president’s lawyer and fixer, and it’s time for you guys to even things out and indict a Democrat before the midterm election,'” Berman told ABC News. “It was something we never heard or seen before.”

Berman told Maddow that he was fired while he was investigating Trump ally Steve Bannon’s “We Build the Wall” case. Bannon and others involved in the scheme were convicted of funneling hundreds of thousands in donations to themselves from Trump supporters that backed a privately-built border wall. Bannon was ultimately pardoned by Trump, which Berman called “outrageous,” but has since been indicted by state prosecutors in New York. Bannon has pleaded not guilty.

Former Republican White House ethics chief Richard Painter argued on Monday that Berman’s firing was illegal.

“Berman was fired because his investigations got too close to Trump,” he tweeted. “A president may NOT remove a federal officer in order to obstruct justice. That’s a crime and should be charged as such.”

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner also called for “abuse by Barr” and others at DOJ to be addressed.

“As a former career DOJ prosecutor,” he wrote, “Bill Barr’s corruption/weaponization of DOJ to protect Trump and persecute Trump’s critics makes me want to f’ing scream!”

Amid the turmoil of COVID, biosafety legislation gets political

In March 2021, three members of Congress sent a long letter to the director of the National Institutes of Health, the country’s premier funder of biomedical research. The lawmakers help lead a House subcommittee overseeing public health, and they wanted details about the agency’s support of coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, site of the first reported cases of Covid-19.

Their concerns about that research — and its possible role in the pandemic’s origin — were growing more mainstream. Days earlier, a group of 26 scientists and biosecurity experts had called for an investigation into a possible lab leak. In the coming weeks, a chorus of prominent scientists, including the head of the World Health Organization, would make similar appeals.

Conspicuously absent from the Congressional letter — and subsequent requests from the subcommittee — were the signatures of any Democrats. The omission seemed illustrative of a broader dynamic: The pandemic has brought unprecedented public attention to the safety practices of laboratories that work with dangerous pathogens. But it has also polarized a conversation about lab security that, until recently, was largely bipartisan — in the process leaving Congressional Democrats hesitant to engage publicly on biosafety and biosecurity issues, according to some analysts. (Biosafety deals with laboratory accidents and biosecurity with intentional breaches.)

“Understanding how this pandemic started is one of the most important public health questions of our time — and it is necessary to prevent future pandemics,” wrote Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who signed the House letter along with her colleagues Morgan Griffith and Brett Guthrie, in a statement to Undark earlier this year. “We continue to urge our Democrat colleagues to join us in our pursuit for the truth,” the statement said, adding that the committee “has a tradition over many years of bipartisan oversight into biolabs.”

At stake are questions about what lessons, exactly, the United States should learn from a pandemic that has now killed more than 1 million Americans. In the biosafety and biosecurity world, some observers hope that this moment will prompt substantial reforms to an oversight system they describe as patchy, poorly enforced, and ill-equipped to handle new kinds of research.

Amid partisan gridlock in Washington, however, another possibility looms: That, having lived through a devastating pandemic that some scientists believe could have emerged from a high-security laboratory, policymakers may actually expand such research in order to prepare for future pandemics — but without substantive changes to oversight.

Reforms are receiving “a lot more attention,” said Gregory Koblentz, a biodefense expert at George Mason University. But, he added, “the part that really concerns me right now is this kind of hyper-partisan polarization of this issue, which might make it harder to translate the level of concern that people are expressing into an effective policy response.”

Today, the U.S. has hundreds of laboratories equipped to deal with deadly pathogens, including 10 active facilities rated at the highest level of security, or BSL-4, which can handle some especially dangerous pathogens. These labs allow scientists to do crucial biomedical research, helping fight threats like Covid-19. In some cases, scientists enhance a pathogen’s ability to spread or infect people in order to study it — a practice often called gain-of-function research.

Experts sometimes compare work with the most dangerous pathogens to nuclear power: Both fields offer benefits (low-carbon electricity, insights into diseases.) And, in both areas, a single major safety incident could trigger a catastrophe.

An independent federal agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, oversees nuclear activities in the U.S. Nothing similar exists for pathogens. Oversight is “really just composed of a patchwork, with no single entity in charge, which creates gaps in regulations, gaps in guidance, gaps in leadership, gaps in science that aren’t being addressed,” said Rocco Casagrande, a co-founder of Gryphon Scientific, a research and consulting firm that often works with government agencies.

The Federal Select Agent Program, run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, regulates research on certain pathogens, such as Ebola and anthrax. In the past, independent government auditors have described the program’s oversight as incomplete and beset with conflicts of interest. Other research, including work on dangerous influenza strains and some coronaviruses, isn’t subject to those regulations, governed instead by a set of guidelines, with minimal oversight from the NIH.

Meanwhile, if researchers work with a pathogen that does not appear on the select agent list, and they don’t receive government funding, they may not be subject to oversight at all. “Because I don’t have a pilot license, I am not allowed to fly a drone in certain places and beyond my line of sight,” said Casagrande. “But I can just get a really dangerous strain of flu, that’s not a select agent, and using my own money, do whatever the hell I want with it in my garage. That makes no sense.”

In a recent paper in the journal Health Security, Casagrande and five colleagues call for a single, independent federal agency to oversee all research on pathogens, similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Rebecca Moritz, the biosafety director at Colorado State University and the president-elect of ABSA International, the flagship biosafety professional organization in the U.S., said the idea has merit: “Just being someone who is regulated, it would be a lot easier — and there’d be a lot more consistency, probably — if there was one organization in charge of biosafety and biosecurity.”

Some experts have been airing concerns about the existing oversight process for years, as have lawmakers from both parties — but with limited results. “The pattern has been: incident involving handling of select agents, news stories, committee hearings, outrage, reaction, and short-term reform,” complained Griffith, a Virginia Republican, during a 2017 Congressional hearing about the Select Agent Program. “Wash, rinse, repeat.”

One of Griffith’s Democratic colleagues, Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, echoed those concerns during her opening remarks, citing previous safety lapses in federal labs. “At some point,” she warned, “something very bad is going to happen unless the CDC acts.”

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought renewed interest to biosafety and biosecurity. After the first reported cases of Covid-19 emerged just miles from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a global hub of coronavirus research, some infectious disease experts suspected that the virus may have escaped from that facility. In public, though, some prominent researchers dismissed those allegations as a conspiracy theory. As Undark has reported, the issue swiftly grew partisan, with Republicans and right-wing media organizations boosting the lab leak theory.

By May 2021, though, more scientists were saying they thought the new coronavirus could have escaped from a lab. Rep. Anna Eshoo, the California Democrat who chairs the House committee that oversees public health, joined the calls for more scrutiny of the research in Wuhan. “In order to crush the virus and prevent future global pandemics, we must consider every hypothesis available,” she wrote in a statement that month, calling for an investigation by “non-partisan, independent, scientific experts.”

But, as The Christian Science Monitor reported in June of 2021, the Congressional Democratic majority was hesitant to launch an investigation, or to subpoena senior NIH officials and other scientists. (Eshoo’s office did not respond to requests for comment; nor did a spokesperson for the committee’s Democratic majority.)

Instead, Republicans have become the standard-bearers for the issue in Congress — often linking those concerns with opposition to Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the public face of the federal government’s Covid-19 response.

For years, Fauci has been a prominent defender of certain kinds of research that involves altering the properties of dangerous pathogens. “Important information and insights can come from generating a potentially dangerous virus in the laboratory,” he and two colleagues wrote in a Washington Post op-ed in 2011.

During a hearing last summer, Republican Sen. Rand Paul suggested Fauci was illegally lying to Congress about NIH-funded pathogen research, and accused him, with little evidence, of “trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million people dying around the world from a pandemic.”

For experts and advocates who have spent years calling for more scrutiny of laboratory practices, the resulting political landscape has been jarring: Some welcome the attention to biorisks and want further investigations, but have concerns about seeing their cause championed by Republicans who appear eager to score political points against Fauci and the Chinese government. “One political party has kind of gone off the rails,” said Laura Kahn, a physician and policy researcher who spent 18 years as a research scholar in the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University. “By having them be the main driver to try to get to the truth is actually quite distressing, because it really should be a bipartisan issue.”

Indeed, there are signs that the Covid-19 origins debate has polarized the broader discussion about the safety and oversight of pathogen research.

In October 2021, when Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, a Republican, sponsored a bill that would place a moratorium on research that imparts enhanced properties to influenza and coronaviruses, he enlisted 10 co-sponsors — none of them Democrats. Another bill in the Senate, calling for the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office to audit NIH’s funding of such research, also has all-Republican co-sponsors. (Some scientists have expressed concern that broad restrictions on gain-of-function experiments will shut down important biomedical research.)

“It’s a very strange political environment,” said Richard Ebright, a microbiologist at Rutgers University. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Ebright opposed the expansion of pathogen and bioweapons research. In the years since, Ebright has emerged as one of the most prominent scientific critics of U.S. government biosafety and biosecurity policy. In that role, he told Undark, he sometimes sparred with Fauci, as well as with Republicans in the George W. Bush administration.

Recently, Ebright said, he has heard strong interest in biosafety reform from Congressional Republicans. According to Ebright and other experts, officials in the White House also are engaged on these issues. But, Ebright added, there is “strong opposition” among House and Senate Democratic leadership.

Policymakers have taken some steps to address biosafety and biosecurity. Last September, the Biden administration proposed a sweeping package of pandemic preparedness measures that would include some funding for biosafety research. In February, White House and NIH officials instructed the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, a federal committee, to evaluate that agency’s policies for reviewing certain kinds of pathogen research.

The PREVENT Pandemics Act, a bill introduced in March by Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat, and Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican, includes several provisions for improving biosafety, including more research on safety practices and new reporting requirements for accidents. The bill also tasks the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy with establishing a new strategy to oversee federal BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories.

For people pushing for more comprehensive reform, the bill is welcome — but does not go far enough. “I wish there was more,” said Nikki Teran, the senior biosecurity fellow at the Institute for Progress, a non-partisan science policy think tank that receives funding from tech industry philanthropists. “I appreciate that they’re thinking about it,” Teran added. “And I suppose that some step in that direction is better than none.”

Biosafety legislation has also popped up in Kansas, where a major new high-security federal research facility will soon open near the campus of Kansas State University. The bill calls for the facility to maintain a public list of all laboratory accidents or near-misses — a requirement that Kansas State officials say is burdensome, unnecessary, and likely to “create a sense of danger that does not exist.”

“It felt important, considering what happened in Wuhan,” State Sen. Richard Hilderbrand, the bill’s sponsor, told The Topeka Capital-Journal earlier this year. The bill narrowly passed the state senate in February, exclusively with Republican votes.

Behind the scenes in Washington, some policy analysts say, there’s interest in new biosafety legislation among lawmakers in both parties. But building political capital can be difficult. “These issues are not really of concern to the average voter,” said Koblentz. “People don’t get elected because they improve biosafety. It’s just too narrow and technical of an issue — unless you can tie it to some higher partisan issue, which is what Republicans have done.”

In recent remarks to the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, a nonprofit group, Koblentz warned that the stakes of inaction are only getting higher: New developments in genome editing, synthetic biology, and other fields could pose fresh risks. More private companies are doing work in this area, often with virtually no public scrutiny. And the pandemic, he predicted, would lead to a surge in pathogen research — fueling a growth of BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories in countries that have limited biosafety oversight. It’s time, he wrote, for reforms at home — and for a “new global architecture for biorisk management.”

In the U.S., Ebright, the Rutgers professor, said the November 2022 elections could point toward more legislative action on biosafety — at least if Republicans win control of the House or Senate. “If there is a change in control in either or both houses,” he said, “for the first time in four or five decades, the matter will be on the table.”


This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Enduring the Emmys: Have award shows as we know them outlived their purpose?

Around 45 minutes into its airtime, the 74th Emmy Awards ceremony was over. That was the moment “Abbott Elementary” star Sheryl Lee Ralph took the stage, gemstones sparkling in her hair, and accepted the Emmy for best supporting actress in a comedy by effortlessly belting out a lyric from Dianne Reeves’s 1993 scorcher “Endangered Species.”

“I am an endangered species,” she sang, “But I sing no victim’s song/ I am a woman I am an artist/ And I know where my voice belongs.” One imagines her voice vibrating the very molecules inside the Microsoft Theater in Los Angeles, the host venue for the show. Fortunately for the relatively few million of us watching at home, Ralph’s joy was radiant enough to leap through the screen, demanding that we appreciate the wonder of that moment. Her moment.

Not only did she become the second-ever Black woman to win this award, following in the footsteps of Jackée Harry, who won in 1987 for her work on NBC’s “227,” but this Emmy represents only the second time Ralph has won major industry recognition in her four-decade career.

“To anyone who has ever, ever had a dream and thought your dream wasn’t, wouldn’t, couldn’t come true, I am here to tell you that this is what believing looks like. This is what striving looks like. And don’t you ever, ever give up on you,” Ralph said, before thanking the people who mattered most to her.

As far as many folks were concerned, that was all we needed to see. Nothing in the Emmys telecast would top Ralph, who came, saw, and slew; game over. Even Lizzo, who was set to present the next category, recognized it would be a challenge to meet the high bar Ralph set or top it.

Understandable, since everything that came before Ralph and much of what followed was predictable, barely memorable, and made a person question why we chose to end our Monday by watching NBC’s Emmys telecast. (The awards show rotates between broadcast networks and usually airs on a Sunday, but NBC airs its Emmys telecasts on Monday to steer clear of Sunday Night Football.)

At a time when millions of us are evaluating our relationship with the status quo, shouldn’t we also reconsider awards how telecasts are executed?

Much about the TV industry has changed over the last five years, a transformation accelerated by the pandemic, a worldwide human event that produced a surge in TV viewing. But those elevated viewership numbers did little for awards telecasts, whose ratings trended downward save for a small uptick for the Emmys last year when the telecast saw a 23 percent improvement over the numbers for 2020, aka the Pandemmys.

It also makes us contemplate whether awards shows have any use to the average person. Never mind the question of whether the Oscars, Globes and Emmys are better with a host or without. Maybe it’s time to ask what hours’ worth of industry self-congratulation has to do with our lives. At a time when millions of us are evaluating our relationship with the status quo — whether that applies to our work, our families or our politics — shouldn’t we also reconsider how awards telecasts are executed? Do we need to sit through any more toothless monologues, dull sketches and the long parade of categories?

Really, all we really want is to see Ralph sing her heart out, or Jennifer Coolidge, who won for her work in “The White Lotus,” playfully wiggle to “Hit the Road, Jack” instead of leaving when her appointed time was up.

The value of any awards show is in spontaneous moments like these, although such happenings are always a matter of luck, and usually reliant on Emmy voters defying longstanding voting habits, which they don’t typically do.

This year’s winners in the top categories prove this. Last year’s best comedy winner “Ted Lasso” took that award again. “Succession” dominates all corners of life when its season is airing, which also made its repeat win in the Best Drama category a guarantee, giving HBO its sixth win in the category in the last eight years.

Don’t get me wrong — we love those shows. But this is yet another year when voters could have rewarded creative swings like “Squid Game” or “Severance,” or a phenomenal network sitcom like “Abbott Elementary,” and didn’t.

Instead, there were many of the usual wins within a wash of forgettable bits, plus the odd advertiser-sponsored skit, stacking the show with a lot of detritus to sort while waiting for treasure to bob to the fore.

With Instagram, Twitter and TikTok serving up celebrity fashion all day, every day, and the titanic surge in content on TV and for theatrical release, the appeal of award shows has dwindled.

Before Ralph’s moment, a person might have been on the verge of nodding off or turning the channel. And once her glorious but brief center stage moment came and went, there were still more than two hours of the show to go.

The obstacle lies in our patience for putting up with the mechanics of Hollywood self-congratulation. Years ago, industry awards shows were like unofficial holidays for people who loved glamour, fashion and Hollywood mystique. The Oscars, Emmys and Globes themselves are measuring sticks for industry professionals above all.

We, the plebes on the couch, watch for the red carpet looks, gossip fodder and for the possibility of shock or excitement — which, as this year’s Oscars reminded us, tend to manifest in ways nobody wants.

But with Instagram, Twitter and TikTok serving up celebrity fashion and influencer looks all day, every day, and the titanic surge in content on TV and for theatrical release, the appeal of award shows has dwindled. Nowadays, aside from a few exceptional productions, live awards shows are endeavors to be endured instead of lightly enjoyed.

This is why NBC’s choice to forego airing the 2022 edition of the Golden Globes in light of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s miserable record of inclusion didn’t cause much of a stir.  Those who did notice its absence were probably relieved to have their time back.

Nevertheless, if there is a point in putting up with awards shows, it is the opportunity to witness strides being made through artists and the performances we endured. Almost every one of them makes some history, and to their credit, the producers of the 74th Emmy Awards did what they could to get out of the way of those moments. Speeches were kept relatively brief by showing the list of people the winners wanted to thank in a bottom-of-the-screen banner while they were talking.

Due to its stringent approach, the show ended more or less on time, better allowing us to appreciate the victories that made us sit up and take notice, such as “Euphoria” star Zendaya becoming the first Black woman to win lead actress in a drama series twice along with becoming the youngest two-time winner of any Emmy ever.

“Abbott Elementary” creator Quinta Brunson became the second Black woman to win the Emmy for best writing in a comedy after Lena Waithe’s 2017 win for “Master of None.” This would have been another wonderful moment of Brunson’s making, if not for co-presenter Jimmy Kimmel committing too hard to a bit and pretending to remain passed out onstage as she accepted.

“Squid Game” star Lee Jung-jae’s win for best actor in a drama series made him the first Asian man to win in the category as well as the first winner from a show whose primary language is not English. And these solid wins give faces to the industry’s attempts to change, limited though they may be.

On the other hand, they also occurred during an awards show whose writers wrote, and made announcer Sam Jay say out loud, “Here are two cops no one wants to see defunded” to introduce “Law and Order” stars Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni.


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


If there is one reason we haven’t quite outgrown awards shows like the Emmys, it is because they still make room for the overlooked like Ralph, a Broadway legend who deserved a Tony for her nominated performance in “Dreamgirls” and has appeared in many TV shows over the years. Monday, finally, she got her gold.

Eventually so did Lizzo, who snagged the Emmy for outstanding competition program for her Amazon show “Lizzo’s Watch Out for the Big Grrrls,” breaking the streak established by “RuPaul’s Drag Race.”

“When I was a little girl, all I wanted to see was me in the media,” she said while holding back tears. “Someone fat like me, Black like me, beautiful like me. If I could go back and tell little Lizzo something, I’d be like, ‘You’re going to see that person, but b***h, it’s going to have to be you.'”

If you had turned off the Emmys after Ralph’s celebratory singing, you would have missed Lizzo’s triumph. But even after she’d left the stage, there was still more than half of the show to go. Or a viewer could have cut the scene at that moment and gotten what we needed, which is the joy of witnessing wishes come true and taking hope in inspiration.

As for the rest of it, reading the winners’ lists the next day takes up a lot less time.

 

Ron DeSantis tries out 2024 pitch, vowing vengeance on Big Tech and “woke” capitalism

MIAMI — “Welcome to America’s citadel of freedom: the free state of Florida, proud to be a refuge of sanity in a world gone mad,” said Gov. Ron DeSantis on Sunday night, in a keynote speech to the third U.S. National Conservatism Conference. The address felt a lot like a road test for potential themes of a 2024 presidential campaign, with DeSantis largely avoiding hot-button issues that appear to be damaging Republicans at the moment — such as abortion or threats to democracy — but fulsomely praising his own heavy-handed educational “reforms” and vowing to wage war on “woke” corporations and Big Tech “censorship.”

Since 2019, the National Conservatism movement and its series of conferences have served as a highbrow meetup for right-wing intellectuals, writers and think-tank staff who largely agree that the old conservative coalition that fueled “mainstream” Republican politics until the mid-2000s is now defunct and a new coalition must take its place. Many NatCon adherents belong to a “post-liberal” school of thought which holds that classical liberalism — in the Adam Smith sense of that term, with its focus on free markets and individual rights — led directly to the “neo-Marxist” progressive movements they abhor, as well as to the unchecked power of corporations to enforce economic and cultural hegemony. 

Last year, Viktor Orbán’s Hungary emerged as the nation NatCons saw as their most imitable model. But more recently, Florida, which this week hosts its second consecutive NatCon conference, has been declared America’s most promising version of a domestic Hungary. So it was no coincidence that DeSantis, a national conservative lightning rod and likely 2024 candidate (even, perhaps, against Donald Trump), was the headline act on opening night. 

Sunday also featured keynote addresses from Sen. Rick Scott of Florida (the embattled chair of Senate Republicans’ campaign arm) and conservative tech billionaire and GOP mega-donor Peter Thiel. Monday featured speeches from Florida’s other Republican senator, Marco Rubio, the slightly tarnished Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado. Leading Southern Baptist theologian Albert Mohler will close the conference Tuesday night. 

While both Rubio and Hawley spoke at last year’s NatCon, DeSantis’ debut address was greeted with a rapturous welcome. Marion Smith, CEO of the Common Sense Society, an international conservative nonprofit, introduced DeSantis as not only “the future president of the United States” but one fashioned after Ronald Reagan.  

“I’m surely not the only person that is reminded of another governor of a very sunny state in the 1970s,” Smith said, “who provided through successful commonsensical policies an alternative to the malaise taking place nationally.” 

In the hour-long speech that followed, DeSantis touched on many of his major talking points of recent months, including during his recent national tour to promote the campaigns of far-right Republican candidates such as Arizona gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake and U.S. Senate nominee Blake Masters (who hosted a VIP reception at the conference Sunday afternoon) to Pennsylvania gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano. DeSantis touted the influx of new transplants to Florida during the COVID pandemic; his moves to restrict how public schools teach racism and LGBTQ issues; his war with the Walt Disney Company over  Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law; his efforts to ban gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors; and his “law and order” agenda, which includes the “anti-riot” law enacted amid the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and a new “election integrity” police force, which has become mired in controversy only weeks after its creation.  

But alongside these greatest hits, DeSantis sounded like someone who seems to know he’s leading the pack in a more national sense. He boasted about recent criticism his anti-riot legislation has attracted from the UN, declared that the World Economic Forum’s agenda was “dead on arrival” in Florida and invoked Reagan’s legacy to declare that he was “basically the protector of the state’s freedom and opportunity.” 

“The last few years have witnessed a great American exodus from states and localities governed by leftist politicians…that are failing on core matters of concern for everyday Americans,” DeSantis said at the start of his speech. But Florida had become “the promised land for record numbers of people,” thanks to its willingness to “buck the discredited ruling class” and stand “for what’s right.” 

Striking the same populist note as much of the NatCon conference, DeSantis also said that Florida had “rejected the elites” on many fronts — pandemic public health measures, school closures, mask or vaccine mandates and public “lockdowns” — with the result that Florida had become “a roadblock to what I think would have taken hold in our country if not for our leadership, and that is a biomedical security state.”


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


To a standing ovation, DeSantis declared, “This country would look a lot different now if people like me hadn’t stood up and said, ‘Not on my watch.'” 

DeSantis focused in some depth on his track record of attacking public K-12 schools and universities, approvingly noting the fact that 1.3 million students in Florida are in “school choice” programs; that new legislation gives the state far more power over tenured professors at Florida’s public universities; and that his new civics initiative, which mandates that students learn that Americans’ rights “come from God, not from the government” and study the “victims of Communist regimes.” 

He also recounted how Florida had banned “critical race theory” not just in schools but also in the corporate sector, by giving employees the right to opt out of diversity training so they don’t have “to self-flagellate to keep [their] job.” 

That last point resonates with a larger NatCon focus that differentiates this movement from generations of previous American conservatives. They tend to view many large corporations with skepticism, believing that they have become a cornerstone of “woke” cultural hegemony and — perhaps to a lesser extent — that they have fostered a labor market that harms middle-class families. DeSantis echoed some of these arguments as well.

“When Reagan came on the scene,” he said, “it was really big government that was to blame, and big government that needed to be reeled in.” That might still be the case, he continued, “but now you have a woke mind-virus that has infected all these other institutions” — including, he said, private institutions that “are exercising quasi-public power in terms of trying to change policy in this country.” 

“When Reagan came on the scene, it was really big government that was to blame,” DeSantis said. “But now you have a woke mind-virus that has infected” corporations that “are exercising quasi-public power.”

Among an earlier generation of conservatives, DeSantis said, “muscle memory” drove the reaction that “If it’s private, defer to it.” But times have changed. “We don’t want to micromanage different things in the economy,” he continued, “but corporatism is not the same as free enterprise.… My view is, obviously free enterprise is the best economic system, but that is a means to an end — it’s a means to having a good fulfilling life and a prosperous society, but it is not an end in itself. We need to make sure that the U.S. is a nation that has an economy, not the other way around.” 

DeSantis said Republicans must be willing to take on Big Tech in particular and suggested that, when it comes to how such companies have acted in China, they “cannot be viewed as private entities, given that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are doing the regime’s bidding when it comes to censorship.” Even if Twitter, Facebook and Google are not “formally colluding with the [Chinese] government,” he continued, “they are de facto the enforcement arm of regime narratives.” 

But that wasn’t just the case overseas, he suggested. In the U.S., he continued, “They are trying to enforce an orthodoxy on the country” through terms of service that he said were imposed in “radically different ways based on your underlying viewpoint.”

Because of that, DeSantis said, Florida was working to enable private citizens whose social media accounts were suspended to sue technology companies for political or ideological discrimination, predicting that such a bill would land before the Supreme Court within the next year and a half. 

DeSantis also echoed other speakers on Sunday in attacking the recent FBI search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence as evidence that national law enforcement and national security agencies “have been weaponized” “against the rest of us.” The deep state, he elaborated, “is not a conspiracy” but rather the logical result of how many federal agencies and institutions had “been captured by a failed, ossified ruling class” working in conjunction with corporations and technology companies.  

 “That is an agenda that is trying to render the conservative half of the country second-class citizens,” he said towards the end of his speech, referencing Joe Biden’s recent speech attacking Trump’s MAGA movement.

Sounding a great deal like someone gearing up to declare his candidacy for larger office, DeSantis concluded, “The left is playing for keeps.” And fighting back, he said, wouldn’t be easy, “because they have so much support across the commanding heights of society. It requires that, yes, we use common sense, yes, we understand the issues and be correct on those, but more and more it requires that you do so by demonstrating courage under fire,” and then letting “the political chips fall where they may.” 

Quit fawning over the royals: The British monarchy is a tool of class war and white supremacy

The fawning adulation of Queen Elizabeth in the United States, which fought a revolution to get rid of the monarchy, and in the United Kingdom, is in direct proportion to the fear gripping a discredited, incompetent and corrupt global ruling elite.

The global oligarchs are not sure the next generation of royal sock puppets — mediocrities that include an accused pedophile prince and his brother, a cranky and eccentric king who accepted suitcases and bags stuffed with $3.2 million in cash from the former prime minister of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, and who has millions stashed in offshore accounts — are up to the job. Let’s hope they are right.

“Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories,” Patrick Freyne wrote last year in the Irish Times. “More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown.”

Monarchy obscures the crimes of empire and wraps them in nostalgia. It exalts white supremacy and racial hierarchy. It justifies class rule. It buttresses an economic and social system that callously discards and often consigns to death those considered the lesser breeds, most of whom are people of color. The queen’s husband Prince Philip, who died in 2021, was notorious for making racist and sexist remarks, politely explained away in the British press as “gaffes.” He described Beijing, for example, as “ghastly” during a 1986 visit and told British students: “If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed.

The cries of the millions of victims of empire; the thousands killedtortured, raped and imprisoned during the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya; the 13 Irish civilians gunned down in “Bloody Sunday”; the more than 4,100 First Nations children who died or went missing in Canada’s residential schools, government-sponsored institutions established to “assimilate” indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture; and the hundreds of thousands killed during the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are drowned out by cheers for royal processions and the sacral aura an obsequious press weaves around the aristocracy. The coverage of the queen’s death is so mind-numbingly vapid — the BBC sent out a news alert on Saturday when Prince Harry and Prince William, accompanied by their wives, surveyed the floral tributes to their grandmother displayed outside Windsor Castle — that the press might as well turn over the coverage to the mythmakers and publicists employed by the royal family.

Royals, to the ruling class, are worth the expense. They are effective tools of subjugation. Postal and rail workers canceled strikes. The Trade Union Congress postponed its meeting. Labour Party leaders poured out heartfelt tributes.

The royals are oligarchs. They are guardians of their class. The world’s largest landowners include King Mohammed VI of Morocco with 176 million acres, the Roman Catholic Church with 177 million acres, the heirs of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia with 531 million acres and now, King Charles III with 6.6 billion acres of land. British monarchs are worth almost $28 billion. The British public will provide a $33 million subsidy to the royal family over the next two years, although the average household in the U.K. saw its income fall for the longest period since records began in 1955 and 227,000 households experience homelessness in Britain. 

Royals, to the ruling class, are worth the expense. They are effective tools of subjugation. British postal and rail workers canceled planned strikes over pay and working conditions after the queen’s death. The Trade Union Congress (TUC) postponed its congress. Labour Party members poured out heartfelt tributes. Even Extinction Rebellion, which should know better, indefinitely canceled its planned “Festival of Resistance.” The BBC’s Clive Myrie dismissed Britain’s energy crisis — caused by the war in Ukraine — that has thrown millions of people into severe financial distress as “insignificant” compared with concerns over the queen’s health. The climate emergency, pandemic, the deadly folly of the U.S. and NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, soaring inflation, the rise of neofascist movements and deepening social inequality will be ignored as the press spews florid encomiums to class rule. There will be 10 days of official mourning.


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


In 1953, Her Majesty’s Government sent three warships, along with 700 troops, to its colony British Guiana, suspended the constitution and overthrew the democratically elected government of Cheddi Jagan. Her Majesty’s Government helped to build and long supported the apartheid government in South Africa. Her Majesty’s Government savagely crushed the Mau Mau independence movement in Kenya from 1952 to 1960, herding 1.5 million Kenyans into concentration camps where many were tortured. British soldiers castrated suspected rebels and sympathizers, often with pliers, and raped girls and women. Her Majesty’s Government inherited staggering wealth from the $45 trillion the British looted from India, wealth accumulated by violently crushing a series of uprisings, including the First War of Independence in 1857. Her Majesty’s Government carried out a dirty war to break the Greek Cypriot War of Independence from 1955 to 1959 and later in Yemen from 1962 to 1969. Torture, extrajudicial assassinations, public hangings and mass executions by the British were routine. Following a protracted lawsuit, the British government agreed to pay nearly £20 million in damages to over 5,000 victims of British abuse during war in Kenya, and in 2019 another payout was made to survivors of torture from the conflict in Cyprus. The British state attempts to obstruct lawsuits stemming from its colonial history. Its settlements are a tiny fraction of the compensation paid to British slave owners in 1835, once it — at least formally — abolished slavery. 

During her 70-year reign, the queen never offered an apology or called for reparations.

The point of social hierarchy and aristocracy is to sustain a class system that makes the rest of us feel inferior. Those at the top of the social hierarchy hand out tokens for loyal service, including the Order of the British Empire (OBE). The monarchy is the bedrock of hereditary rule and inherited wealth. This caste system filters down from the Nazi-loving House of Windsor to the organs of state security and the military. It regiments society and keeps people, especially the poor and the working class, in their “proper” place.

The British ruling class clings to the mystique of royalty and such fading cultural icons as James Bond, the Beatles and the BBC, along with television shows such as “Downton Abbey” — in the 2019 film version, the aristocrats and servants are convulsed in fevered anticipation when King George V and Queen Mary schedule a visit — to project a global presence. Winston Churchill’s bust remains on loan to the White House. These myth machines sustain Britain’s “special” relationship with the U.S. Watch the satirical film “In the Loop” to get a sense of what this “special” relationship looks like on the inside. 

It was not until the 1960s that “coloured immigrants or foreigners” were permitted to work in clerical roles in the royal household, although they had been hired as domestic servants. The royal household and its heads are legally exempt from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination, what Jonathan Cook calls “an apartheid system benefitting the Royal Family alone.” Meghan Markle, who is of mixed race and who contemplated suicide during her time as a working royal, said that an unnamed royal expressed concern about the skin color of her unborn son.

The British ruling class clings to the mystique of royalty and such fading cultural icons as James Bond, the Beatles, the BBC and “Downton Abbey” to project a global presence and sustain the “special relationship” with the U.S.

I got a taste of this suffocating snobbery in 2014 when I participated in an Oxford Union debate asking whether Edward Snowden was a hero or a traitor. I went a day early to be prepped for the debate by Julian Assange, then seeking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy and is currently in His Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh. At a lugubrious black-tie dinner preceding the event, I sat next to a former MP who asked me two questions I had never been asked before in succession. “When did your family come to America?” he said, followed by “What schools did you attend?” My ancestors, on both sides of my family, arrived from England in the 1630s. My graduate degree is from Harvard. If I had failed to meet his litmus test, he would have acted as if I did not exist. 

Those who took part in the debate — my side arguing that Snowden was a hero narrowly won — signed a leather-bound guestbook. Taking the pen, I scrawled in large letters that filled an entire page: “Never Forget that your greatest political philosopher, Thomas Paine, never went to Oxford or Cambridge.”

Paine, the author of the most widely read political essays of the 18th century, “Rights of Man,” “The Age of Reason” and “Common Sense,” blasted the monarchy as a con. “A French bastard landing with an armed banditti and establishing himself as King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original.…The plain truth is that the antiquity of the English monarchy will not bear looking into,” he wrote of William the Conqueror. He ridiculed hereditary rule. “Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” He went on: “One of the strangest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is that nature disproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ass for a lion.” He called the monarch “the royal brute of England.”

When the British ruling class tried to arrest Paine, he fled to France where he was one of two foreigners elected to serve as a delegate in the National Convention set up after the French Revolution. He denounced the calls to execute Louis XVI. “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression,” Paine said. “For if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” Unchecked legislatures, he warned, could be as despotic as unchecked monarchs. When he returned to America from France, he condemned slavery and the wealth and privilege accumulated by the new ruling class, including George Washington, who had become the richest man in the country. Even though Paine had done more than any single figure to rouse the country to overthrow the British monarchy, he was turned into a pariah, especially by the press, and forgotten. He had served his usefulness. Six mourners attended his funeral, two of whom were Black.

You can watch my talk with Cornel West and Richard Wolff on Thomas Paine here.

There is a pathetic yearning among many in the U.S. and Britain to be linked in some tangential way to royalty. White British friends often have stories about ancestors that tie them to some obscure aristocrat. Donald Trump, who fashioned his own heraldic coat of arms, was obsessed with obtaining a state visit with the queen. This desire to be part of the club, or validated by the club, is a potent force the ruling class has no intention of giving up, even if hapless King Charles III, who along with his family treated his first wife Diana with contempt, makes a mess of it.

Trump supporters may be trying to “destabilize” midterms with deluge of records requests

Election officials across the U.S. are facing what many believe appears to be a coordinated effort to overwhelm their offices just as employees are mailing out absentee ballots and preparing for the 2022 midterms. Critics say the deluge of requests hitting election offices is the work of prominent supporters of former President Donald Trump.

As the Washington Post reported Sunday, election workers in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and other states have spent much of their time in recent weeks fielding requests for an array of documents related to the 2020 election, which Trump continues to claim was fraudulent.

Although many counties have published electronic images of all ballots cast in 2020, election offices are receiving demands for documents including poll books, spoiled ballots, remade ballots, voter registration applications and cast vote records — a record of everything scanned by voting machines, which high-profile election deniers say could help identify ballots that they baselessly claim were switched from votes for Trump to President Joe Biden.

Election workers are bound by law to respond to records requests, which government watchdogs agree serve a vital purpose in ensuring a transparent, fair democratic system.

“They should not be used to harass or overwhelm a system as these coordinated requests from Trump supporters to local election offices appear intended to do,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), on Monday.

Workers in the Bureau of Elections in Michigan have spent roughly 600 hours processing public records requests this year, while the midterm elections require that they hire poll workers, send out ballots to absentee voters and members of the military, secure polling locations and make other preparations for voting, which starts as early as late September in some states.

Officials in Wisconsin told the Post that monthly records requests are coming in four times more frequently than in 2020, and the election office in Brunswick County, North Carolina, has received 10 to 15 since mid-August.


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


In Maricopa County, Arizona, workers have fielded an unprecedented amount of requests for cast vote records. Trump backer Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow, called on supporters to request the records at an event in August, according to the voting-rights news organization Votebeat.

“In 2021, 11 requests came in for the cast vote record,” reported Votebeat last week. “In 2022, up through August 25, the county has gotten more than 90, with more coming in every day.” 

In Brunswick County, one official told the Post, a request for absentee ballot envelopes sent a worker to an off-site warehouse for an entire day, cutting down on time to dedicate to setting up polling locations.

Some of the requests have included admissions that the constituent is acting at the urging of Lindell and other Trump supporters, according to the Post. Many also include identical language, including threats to sue election bureaus for their “involvement in the fraudulent elections that will soon be proven to have taken place since 2017.”

Matt Crain of the Colorado County Clerks Association told the Post that Trump supporters appear to be waging “a denial-of-service attack on local government,” rendering election offices unable to perform their usual work of organizing the election that’s set to take place in just eight weeks.

Election officials in dozens of counties across nearly two dozen states have been inundated with the requests.

“It is happening all over the country,” tweeted Sara Tindall Ghazal, a state election board member in Georgia. “County officials are drowning. And in some cases, when the requester does not like the response they get, they become belligerent and threatening.”

The apparently coordinated attack on election offices comes as election workers face other forms of harassment following the 2020 election, with one in five saying earlier this year that they planned to quit due to the threats.

The barrage of requests is straining an already “overloaded system,” said Leslie Proll, senior director of the voting rights program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Spending unlimited: How the arms industry scams taxpayers

Congress has spoken when it comes to next year’s Pentagon budget and the results, if they weren’t so in line with past practices, should astonish us all. The House of Representatives voted to add $37 billion and the Senate $45 billion to the administration’s already humongous request for “national defense,” a staggering figure that includes both the Pentagon budget and work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy. If enacted, the Senate’s sum would push spending on the military to at least $850 billion annually, far more — adjusted for inflation — than at the height of the Korean or Vietnam wars or the peak years of the Cold War.

U.S. military spending is, of course, astronomically high — more than that of the next nine countries combined. Here’s the kicker, though: the Pentagon (an institution that has never passed a comprehensive financial audit) doesn’t even ask for all those yearly spending increases in its budget requests to Congress. Instead, the House and Senate continue to give it extra tens of billions of dollars annually. No matter that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has publicly stated the Pentagon has all it needs to “get the capabilities… to support our operational concepts” without such sums.

It would be one thing if such added funding were at least crafted in line with a carefully considered defense strategy.  More often than not, though, much of it goes to multibillion dollar weapons projects being built in the districts or states of key lawmakers or for items on Pentagon wish lists (formally known as “unfunded priorities lists“). It’s unclear how such items can be “priorities” when they haven’t even made it into the Pentagon’s already enormous official budget request.

In addition, throwing yet more money at a department incapable of managing its current budget only further strains its ability to meet program goals and delivery dates. In other words, it actually impairs military readiness. Whatever limited fiscal discipline the Pentagon has dissipates further when lawmakers arbitrarily increase its budget, despite rampant mismanagement leading to persistent cost overruns and delivery delays on the military’s most expensive (and sometimes least well-conceived) weapons programs.

In short, parochial concerns and special-interest politics regularly trump anything that might pass as in the national interest, while doing no favors to the safety and security of the United States. In the end, most of those extra funds simply pad the bottom lines of major weapons contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies. They certainly don’t help our servicemembers, as congressional supporters of higher Pentagon budgets routinely claim.

A Captured Congress

The leading advocates of more Pentagon spending, Democrats and Republicans alike, generally act to support major contractors in their jurisdictions. Representative Jared Golden, D-Maine, a co-sponsor of the House Armed Services Committee proposal to add $37 billion to the Pentagon budget, typically made sure it included funds for a $2 billion guided-missile destroyer to be built at General Dynamics’ shipyard in Bath, Maine. 

Similarly, his co-sponsor, Representative Elaine Luria, D-Va., whose district abuts Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipyard, successfully advocated for the inclusion of ample funding to produce aircraft carriers and attack submarines at that complex. Or consider Representative Mike Rogers, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a dogged advocate of annually increasing the Pentagon budget by at least 3% to 5% above inflation. He serves a district south of Huntsville, Alabama, dubbed “rocket city” because it’s the home to so many firms that work on missile defense and related projects.

There are even special congressional caucuses devoted solely to increasing Pentagon spending while fending off challenges to specific weapons systems. These range from the House shipbuilding and F-35 caucuses to the Senate ICBM Coalition. That coalition has been especially effective at keeping spending on a future land-based intercontinental ballistic missile dubbed the Sentinel on track, while defeating efforts to significantly reduce the number of ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal. Such “success” has come thanks to the stalwart support of senators from Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, all states with ICBM bases or involved in major ICBM development and maintenance.

The jobs card is the strongest tool of influence available to the arms industry in its efforts to keep Congress eternally boosting Pentagon spending, but far from the only one. After all, the industrial part of the military-industrial-congressional complex gave more than $35 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress in 2020, the bulk of it going to those on the armed services and defense appropriations committees who have the most sway over the Pentagon budget and what it will be spent on.

So far, in the 2022 election cycle, weapons firms have already donated $3.4 million to members of the House Armed Services Committee, according to an analysis by Open Secrets.org, an organization that tracks campaign spending and political influence. Weapons-making corporations also currently employ nearly 700 lobbyists, more than one for every member of Congress, while spending additional millions to support industry-friendly think tanks that regularly push higher Pentagon spending and a more hawkish foreign policy.

The arms industry has another lever to pull as well when it comes to the personal finances of lawmakers. There are scant, if any, restrictions against members of Congress owning or trading defense company stocks, even those who sit on influential national-security-related committees. In other words, it’s completely legal for them to marry their personal financial interests to those of defense contractors.

The Cost of Coddling Contractors

Legislators arbitrarily inflate Pentagon spending despite clear evidence of corporate greed and repeated failures when it comes to the development of new weapons systems. Under the circumstances, it should be no surprise that weapons acquisitions are on the Government Accountability Office’s “High Risk List,” given their enduring vulnerability to waste and mismanagement. In fact, overfunding an already struggling department only contributes to the development of shoddy products. It allows the Pentagon to fund programs before they’ve been thoroughly tested and evaluated.

Far from strengthening national defense, such lawmakers only reinforce the unbridled greed of weapons contractors. In the process, they ensure future acquisition disasters. In fact, much of the funding Congress adds to the Pentagon budget will be wasted on price gouging, cost overruns, and outright fraud. The most notorious recent case is that of the TransDigm Group, which overcharged the government up to 3,850% for a spare part for one weapons system and 10 to 100 times too much for others.

The total lost: at least $20.8 million. And those figures were based on just a sampling of two-and-a-half years of that company’s sales to the government, nor was it the first time TransDigm had been caught price gouging the Pentagon.  Such practices are, in fact, believed to be typical of many defense contractors.  A full accounting of such overcharges would undoubtedly amount to billions of dollars annually.

Then there are weapons systems like Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter aircraft and that same company’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Both are costly programs that have proven incapable of carrying out their assigned missions. The F-35 is slated to cost the American taxpayer a staggering $1.7 trillion over its life cycle, making it the most expensive single weapons program ever. Despite problems with its engine performance, maintenance, and basic combat capabilities, both the House and the Senate added even more of them than the Pentagon requested to their latest budget plans. House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith, D-Wash., famously remarked that he was tired of “throwing money down that particular rat hole,” but then argued that the F-35 program was too far along to cancel. Its endurance has, in fact, forced the Pentagon to restart older jet fighter production lines like the F-15, developed in the 1970s, to pick up the slack. If the U.S. is going to be forced to buy older fighters anyway, cutting the F-35 could instantly save $200 billion in procurement funding.

Meanwhile, the LCS, a ship without a mission that can’t even defend itself in combat, nonetheless continues to be protected by advocates like Representative Joe Courtney, D-Conn., co-chair of the House shipbuilding caucus. The final House and Senate authorization bills prevented the Navy from retiring five of the nine LCS’s that the service had hoped to decommission on the grounds that they would be useless in a potential military faceoff with China (a conflict that should be avoided in any case, given the potentially devastating consequences of a war between two nuclear-armed powers).

No surprise, then, that a substantial part of the tens of billions of dollars Congress is adding to the latest Pentagon budget will directly benefit major weapons contractors at the expense of military personnel. In the House version of the military spending bill, $25 billion — more than two-thirds of its additional funding — is earmarked for weapons procurement and research that will primarily benefit arms contractors.

Only $1 billion of the added funds will be devoted to helping military personnel and their families, even as many of them struggle to find affordable housing or maintain an adequate standard of living. In fact, one in six military families is now food insecure, a devastating reflection of the Pentagon’s true priorities.

In all, the top five weapons contractors — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — split more than $200 billion in “defense” revenue in the last fiscal year, mostly from the Pentagon but also from lucrative foreign arms sales. The new budget proposals will only boost those already astounding figures.

Pushing Back on Contractor Greed

Congress has shown little intent to decouple itself in any way from what’s still known as “the defense industry.” There is, however, a clear path to do so, if the people’s representatives were to band together and start pushing back against the greed of weapons contractors.

Some lawmakers have begun making moves to prevent price gouging while improving weapons-buying practices. The Senate Armed Services Committee, for instance, included in its version of the defense budget a provision to establish a program that would improve contractor performance through financial incentives.  Its goal is to make the Pentagon a smarter buyer by addressing two main issues: delivery delays and cost overruns, especially by companies that charge it above-market prices to pad their bottom lines. It would also curb the ability of contractors to overcharge on replacement parts and materials.

The program to prevent further price gouging has a couple of possible paths to President Biden’s desk. Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Representative John Garamendi, D-Calif., also included it in the bicameral Stop Price Gouging the Military Act, an ambitious proposal to protect the Pentagon from outrageous contractor overcharges. The bill would close loopholes in existing law that allow companies to eternally rip off the Defense Department.

There are obviously all too many obstacles in the path of eliminating moneyed interests from defense policy, but creating an incentive structure to improve contractor performance and transparency would, at least, be a necessary first step. It might also spur greater public input into such policy-making.

Secrecy, Inc.

Here’s the sad reality of the national security state: we taxpayers will fork over nearly a trillion and a half dollars this year in national security spending and yet the policy-making process behind such outlays will essentially remain out of our control. The Senate Armed Services Committee typically debates and discusses its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) behind closed doors. The subcommittee hearings open to the public rarely last — and yes, this is not a mistake! — more than 15 minutes. Naturally, the House and Senate will reconcile any differences between their versions in secret, too. In other words, there’s little transparency when it comes to the seemingly blank check our representatives write for our defense every year.

Sadly, such a system allows lawmakers, too many of whom maintain financial stakes in the defense industry, to deliberate over Pentagon spending and other national security matters without real public input. At the Pentagon, in fact, crucial information isn’t just kept private; it’s actively suppressed and the situation has only gotten worse over the years.

Here’s just one example of that process: in January 2022, its Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation issued an annual report on weapons costs and performance.  For the first time in more than 30 years, however,  it excluded nearly all the basic information needed to assess the Pentagon’s weapons-buying process. Redacting information about 22 major acquisition programs, the director treated data once routinely shared as if it were classified. Given the Pentagon’s rocky track record when it comes to overfunding and under-testing weapons, it’s easy enough to imagine why its officials would work so hard to keep unclassified information private.

Scamming the taxpayer has become a way of life for the national security state. We deserve a more transparent, democratic policy-making process. Our elected officials owe us their allegiance, not the defense-industry giants that make such hefty campaign contributions while beefing up lawmakers’ stock portfolios.

Isn’t it time to end the national-security version of spending unlimited in Washington?

Arizona’s Latino voters and political independents could spell midterm defeats for MAGA candidates

Two years after the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump’s resentment over losing continues to energize his supporters in Arizona.

That resentment played out during the Aug. 13, 2022, Republican primaries that saw Trump-endorsed candidates for U.S. Senate, governor, secretary of state and state attorney general sweep the GOP ticket.

While each of the candidates made Trump’s false claims that he won the presidential contest a central part of their campaigns, it’s unclear whether that message will resonate among Arizona’s increasingly diverse registered voters in the general election on Nov. 8, 2022.

Trump-endorsed Blake Masters beat his Republican challengers and faces incumbent Sen. Mark Kelly. In the governor’s race, Kari Lake, the former television anchor endorsed by Trump, is facing Democrat Kati Hobbes, the sitting Arizona secretary of state, for the governor’s office.

In the state’s attorney general’s race, GOP candidate and another 2020 election denier Abraham Hamadeh, faces Democrat Kris Mayes.

Most disconcerting to Democrats was the primary win of Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, a 2020 election denier who won the Republican nomination for secretary of state over a more moderate Republican. If he beats Democrat Adrian Fontes in the November general election, Finchem would oversee the state’s elections.

That possibility has Democrats fearing repeats of political acts such as the Republican-backed review of the 2020 presidential election in Arizona’s largest county that ended without producing proof to support Trump’s false claims of a stolen election.

Changing demographics favor Democrats

As a native Arizonan who has studied Arizona politics for the past 20 years, I have seen the rise of political extremism in my home state.

The victories of extremist GOP candidates and open support of baseless conspiracy theories have added a volatile ingredient to the politics of Arizona, where a historically conservative electorate is undergoing dramatic political shifts due to changing demographics.

Over the past 10 years, residents who identify solely as white saw their numbers shrink from 73% in 2010 to 60% in 2020. At the same time, the number of residents who identified as more than one race grew from 3.4% in 2010 to nearly 14% in 2020.

In all, Arizona has close to 7.5 million residents, and over 30% of them identify as Latino. Over the past decade, the state’s Latino population grew from 1.9 million to 2.2 million. By some estimates, Latinos could make up as much as 50% of the state’s population by 2050.

If national statistics are any indication, Latino voters tend to support Democrats. In a March 2022 poll, about 48% of Latinos nationwide considered themselves Democrats, and only 23% identified as Republican.

In Arizona, the numbers are similar.

According to a 2022 study, Latinos are more likely to be Democrats than non-Latinos are, with 45% of Latinos affiliating with the Democratic Party, compared with 28% of non-Latinos. Less than 15% of Latinos are registered as Republicans, the report found, and 40% are registered as “other” and are not affiliated with either major party.

The growth of Latino voters in Arizona contributed to Joe Biden’s win in 2020 – and also the elections of Democrats Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema to the U.S. Senate.

MAGA state?

For the past 70 years, Arizona has been a reliable state for Republican presidential politicians. Bill Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to win a presidential race there since the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952.

That changed in 2020 with Biden’s surprising win over Trump. Though the election saw a record turnout of about 3.4 million voters, it was ultimately decided by a mere 10,457 votes.

Since then, Republican leaders in Arizona and around the nation have taken a hard right.

The party that was once dominated by conservative leader Barry Goldwater and John McCain, a moderate Republican who believed in fighting against climate change, has been taken over by leaders who support the notion that Trump somehow won the state and the last presidential election.

Given the increase in Latino voters in the state, it is no surprise that tightening immigration laws is an issue among the GOP, especially among Trump supporters.

In fact, Lake wasted little time after her primary win to use incendiary language in proclaiming her first goal if elected governor in November.

“Day 1,” she wrote on Twitter. “I take my hand off the Bible, give the Oath of Office and we Declare an Invasion on our Southern Border …”

As part of her campaign, Lake has attempted to paint Hobbes as someone who would be ineffective on border security. It’s unclear whether that strategy will work in a state with a fast-growing Latino population.

While Lake is fully embracing her MAGA support, Masters is doing the opposite in the U.S. Senate race against the incumbent Kelly. In one of the most competitive U.S. Senate races in the country, Kelly, a moderate Democrat, is favored to win. As a result, Masters has started moderating his image and toning down his extremist rhetoric after beating his GOP rivals.

On abortion, for instance, Masters has gone as far as scrubbing his own website of previous hard-line, anti-abortion stances and support for Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

“We need to get serious about election integrity,” Masters posted on his site in August. “The 2020 election was a rotten mess – if we had had a free and fair election, President Trump would be sitting in the Oval Office today and America would be so much better off.”

After the primary, Masters’ site only says, “We need to get serious about election integrity.”

Counting the political numbers

Heading into November, one thing is clear: The 2022 midterm elections in Arizona cannot be won by one party alone, but requires a combination of Republicans, Democrats and independent voters to win in this evenly divided state.

Among registered voters, the GOP has about 1.5 million residents, or 35%. Nearly 1.3 million voters are registered as Democrats, while about 1.4 million, or about 34%, registered as other or independent.

With such an equal split among political parties, election outcomes rely more on voter turnout. In the past two presidential elections, the number of registered voters who cast ballots jumped from about 2.6 million, or 74%, in 2016 to 3.4 million, or nearly 80%, in 2020.

The state GOP is counting on President Biden’s low approval ratings, high inflation and the typical midterm referendum on the incumbent’s party to get its voters out on Election Day.

The Democrats are focusing on get-out-the-vote efforts, particularly among young Latinos, and painting the Trump-endorsed candidates as too extreme for Arizonans.

Given the changing demographics in Arizona, that strategy may appeal to not only independent voters but also mainstream Republicans disillusioned with the extreme wing of their party.

 

Gina Woodall, Principal Lecturer at the School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University

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

The fight against an age-old effort to block Americans from voting

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

 

For nearly 10 hours on Georgia’s primary day, Olivia Coley-Pearson tracked down every potential voter she could find, working two cellphones as she paced the parking lot outside the polls, repeating the same message: “You need to tell all your cousins, your brothers, your sisters, your aunts, your uncles — everybody you know — to come on down here to vote.”

A third of her neighbors in Coffee County struggle to read at a basic level, and she wanted to make sure they had help navigating their ballots. In the late afternoon, she slid behind the sparkly pink steering wheel of her SUV for her final push of the day, heading down a long stretch of road where buildings gave way to fields and thickets of pine. She turned in to the Kinwood Estates mobile home park and stopped at the edge of a familiar dirt driveway just as Shondriana Jones, 30, bounded down the steps of a trailer.

“I can’t find my ID and Mama, she’s still at work,” Jones said.

Coley-Pearson has helped the family vote for years — she’s known them since she and Jones’ mother, Sabrina Fillmore, were young. Now 60, Coley-Pearson serves as a city commissioner in Douglas, the majority-Black county seat. Fillmore, 54, works at the local poultry plant cutting chickens. Neither Fillmore nor her daughter can read beyond a first-grade level, but they rarely miss an election, believing their votes can influence everything from their electricity costs to the way police treat them.

Coley-Pearson urged Jones to track down a utility bill to prove her identity at the election office just as Fillmore returned from a 10-hour shift, exhausted. With the women aboard, Coley-Pearson started the car, anxiety brewing in her mind.

Even though federal law guaranteed the two women the right to have someone help them vote, Coley-Pearson knew too well that this right was under attack. For all of the recent uproar over voting rights, little attention has been paid to one of the most sustained and brazen suppression campaigns in America: the effort to block help at the voting booth for people who struggle to read — a group that amounts to about 48 million Americans, or more than a fifth of the adult population. ProPublica analyzed the voter turnout in 3,000 counties and found that those with lower estimated literacy rates, on average, had lower turnout.

“How the system is set up, it disenfranchises people,” said Coley-Pearson, who blames Southern political leaders for throwing up hurdles. “It’s by design, I believe, because they want to maintain that power and that control.”

Conservative politicians have long used harsh tactics against voters who can’t read — poor, often Black and Latino Americans who have been failed by the U.S. education system and who conservatives feared would vote for liberal candidates. Some states have required voters who needed help to sign an affidavit explaining why they need assistance; some have prevented voters who couldn’t read from bringing sample ballots to the polls and limited the number of voters that a volunteer could help read a ballot. Time and again, federal courts have struck down such restrictions as illegal and unconstitutional. Inevitably, states just create more.

Over the last two years, the myth of election fraud, supercharged by former President Donald Trump in the wake of his 2020 loss, has fueled a barrage of new restrictions. While they do not all target voters who struggle to read, they make it especially challenging for voters with low literacy skills to get help casting ballots.

Last year, Georgia passed a law limiting who can return or even touch a completed absentee ballot. Florida expanded the radius around election locations in which volunteers are prohibited from asking people if they need help. Texas passed a law prohibiting voters’ assistants from answering questions or paraphrasing complicated language on the ballot; a federal judge struck down several sections of the law in June. But the court left other provisions in place, including ones that increase penalties for helping voters who don’t qualify and require people who assist voters to fill out more paperwork. Texas did not appeal the decision.

To appreciate the impact of voter suppression, consider that recent elections have been determined by a narrow sliver of the electorate:

Despite losing the popular vote, Trump secured the presidency in 2016 by winning Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by a margin of just under 80,000 total votes.

President Joe Biden prevailed in 2020 by winning Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin by just over 40,000 votes combined.

Coley-Pearson recognizes the importance of this moment for Georgia, which is no stranger to close elections. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp faces another challenge from Democrat Stacey Abrams, and Sen. Raphael Warnock is attempting to hold on to his seat in a race that could tip the Senate back to Republican control. But to Coley-Pearson, helping people vote isn’t only about politics or even just about their rights as individuals. It is about the future of democracy at a time when it seems like the views of the majority are being marginalized by the actions of the few.

As a child in the 1970s, she’d watched as her mother, Gladys Coley — who stood just above 5 feet and had only an eighth grade education — rose to the helm of the local NAACP and challenged the discriminatory school system and police department. Her mother begged her not to return from college in Atlanta, but Coley-Pearson wanted to fight for the people of Coffee County, too. As she headed to the polls on primary day this past May, though, she couldn’t subdue her fear that by helping Jones and Fillmore, she was putting a target on her own back.

Over the course of several years, she’d become tangled in an investigation of supposed voter fraud, which took aim at her attempts to assist voters who requested help. She had pleaded her case to television cameras and at a hearing before the state’s highest election official. She had even wound up in jail.

“Intimidation is real,” Coley-Pearson said. “If we don’t continue to vote, they’re going to have us right back where it used to be.”

Coley-Pearson was born in an era when Southern states forced convoluted literacy tests on voters to keep Black people out of the polls. In those days, local voting officials often made exceptions for white people who couldn’t read. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act prohibiting racial discrimination at the polls. That didn’t stop white conservatives, especially in the South, from continuing to discriminate against voters with low literacy skills, who, due to centuries of oppression, were disproportionately Black.

Conservatives argued that removing barriers for voters who couldn’t read would allow the federal government to overrule states’ decisions on how to run local elections and would hand more votes to liberal candidates. Clearly, they said, voters with low reading skills would be easily swayed by anyone assisting them, leading to rampant fraud.

“Today the bureaucrats are issuing certificates to vote to people who cannot read the ballot nor even the instructions on a ballot or on a voting machine,” segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace declared in late 1965. “The left wing liberals need as many illiterates as they can get to vote in order to keep them in power.”

By 1981, voters of color, including those with low literacy levels, still faced “white resistance and hostility,” according to a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report. “For many minority voters, the kind of assistance that they receive at the polls determines whether they will vote,” the report stated. “If minority voters who do not speak English or who are illiterate receive inadequate assistance, they may become too frustrated and discouraged to vote or they may mark their ballots in such a way that they will not be counted.”

Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to affirm that voters who need help due to an “inability to read” could bring someone, other than their employer or union representative, to assist them in the voting booth. A string of subsequent lawsuits shows this federal action again failed to eradicate the discrimination.

In a 2001 case, the federal justice department claimed that white poll managers in Charleston County, South Carolina, were intimidating Black voters who requested assistance. According to testimony given in the case, the poll workers launched a barrage of questions at these voters, such as, “Can’t you read and write? And didn’t you just sign in? And you know how to spell your name, why can’t you just vote by yourself? And do you really need voter assistance?”

A federal judge found that there was “significant evidence of intimidation and harassment,” but said evidence of the mistreatment was too “anecdotal” to take direct action.

In 2012, the chairman of Coffee County’s board of elections filed a complaint against Coley-Pearson and three other residents, alleging that they’d assisted voters who didn’t legally qualify for help. Georgia law only allows voters to receive assistance if they are disabled or cannot read English. The secretary of state’s office, then under Kemp’s leadership, initiated an investigation.

The following summer, a 52-year-old line cook named Alvin Williams answered his phone to find a state investigator on the other end. The man had questions about the 2012 election. “It looks like you were assisted by Olivia Pearson,” said state investigator Glenn Archie, in a recording obtained by ProPublica. (Archie did not respond to a request for comment.) “It’s not marked why she assisted you and I was wondering why you needed assistance.”

The tone of the man’s voice made Williams nervous. “Because I can’t read. I’m illiterate,” Williams told Archie. He’d dropped out of school at 16 to work full time catching chickens and selling them to the local poultry plant, a job he’d skipped classes for since he was 11 to help support his family.

“I’m sure she read the candidates to you,” Archie said. “Did you get to pick the people you wanted to vote for?”

“Yes, sir,” Williams said. “I can’t read. That’s why she was helping me.”

“That’s no problem,” the investigator assured him. “She can assist you if you have problems reading.”

But the call left Williams humiliated and fearful of how his vote could be used against him or Coley-Pearson. “I don’t fool with the law,” he said in a recent interview. “And I don’t do nothing for them to fool with me.”

Some other voters told investigators that they had requested and received help even though they could read. The investigation found that Coley-Pearson and the other volunteers neglected to verify whether some voters qualified for help and incorrectly filled out forms indicating why voters needed assistance. It also found that election workers failed to include required information on many forms and turned them in without making sure they were accurate.

Testifying at a 2016 hearing chaired by Kemp, Coley-Pearson maintained that she hadn’t broken any laws. In response to a poll worker’s claim that she’d touched the voting machine, Coley-Pearson said she’d merely accompanied voters who had requested her assistance and stood by to answer questions about the process or read names on the ballot. She said she followed the instructions of the poll workers, signing forms when directed.

“If someone asks me for help, I felt an obligation to try to assist if I could,” she testified at the hearing, stressing that she never told anyone who to vote for. Coley-Pearson suspected there was a deeper significance to the investigation and told the board, “Sometimes things are done to try to maybe dis-encourage, or whatever, other people from voting, and I don’t feel like that is fair.”

The state election board chose not to recommend her case for criminal prosecution, but a local district attorney’s office prosecuted her anyway, which made national headlines in BuzzFeed. It charged her with two felonies for improperly assisting a voter and for signing a form that gave a false reason for why a voter needed assistance. The trial ended with a hung jury. One of two Black people on the jury told a local reporter that she was the only holdout; everyone else voted to find Coley-Pearson guilty. She was tried again in a nearby county and, after about 20 minutes of deliberations, the new jury acquitted her of all charges. The district attorney’s office did not respond to ProPublica’s emailed questions.

Three other volunteers took plea deals in which they admitted to making false statements on forms indicating the reason that a voter needed assistance; in exchange, they got probation, after which any fines would be waived. One of them, James Curtis Hicks, said that if he had fought his case and lost, he could have faced jail time or a mountain of fines. He didn’t want to take any risks. “Around here, to me, they target the leaders, the people that are standing up for the rights of the minority,” he said in a recent interview. “To shut me and Ms. Pearson down, it would stop a whole lot of people going to the polls.”

For years, the 59-year-old truck driver had kept tabs on Coffee County voters to see if they needed help reading the ballot. But after the settlement, he stopped. “I didn’t want a focus on me to suppress anyone else,” he said. “I really felt intimidated.”

But the charges didn’t deter Coley-Pearson.

Before Jones could vote that May afternoon, she needed to get temporary identification. Dodging the pouring rain, she and Coley-Pearson scuttled into the elections office shortly before it closed. At nearly 6 feet tall, Coley-Pearson towered over the woman sitting behind a plexiglass barrier.

“She needs a voter ID, sweetie,” Coley-Pearson said, leaning in. The woman handed Jones an application.

“You need me to do it, baby?” Coley-Pearson asked softly.

Jones nodded, “Yes, ma’am.”

The woman at the counter emphasized that Jones had to complete it on her own.

“She has trouble reading and writing,” Coley-Pearson said.

After a tense moment, the woman agreed that Coley-Pearson could fill out the form. She read the questions out loud and filled in Jones’ answers, pointing out which lines to sign and date.

Jones is in the third generation of her family that is not able to read. Her grandmother never learned how, and her mother, Fillmore, left high school in her sophomore year, after frequently being disciplined for fighting. As an adult, Fillmore briefly attended an education program to help her learn how to read, but she felt discouraged and left.

Jones graduated from high school in Coffee County but says she reads at the same first-grade level as her mother. She remembers attending special education classes with more field trips than written assignments and says teachers never diagnosed her with a learning disability or gave her one-on-one assistance. School administrators also frequently suspended her for fighting, she said. “They were trying to get rid of me.”

Coffee County has long failed to provide an equal education for students of color. In 1969, federal officials sued its school board for refusing to integrate white and Black schools. Even after the school system was integrated, Black students continued to receive fewer academic resources and harsher punishments than their white peers. A decade ago, the district acknowledged its shortcomings in reading instruction and the need to rectify its problems with literacy, which were more pronounced for Black students.

The county’s lower literacy rate is related to its high poverty rate, and since integration, the district has worked to increase opportunities for students of color, Coffee County School District Superintendent Morris Leis said in an email; he added that the district does not use discipline to “push out” children who have academic challenges, and it has reduced racial disparities in discipline after it initiated a new program in 2014. By that time, Jones had graduated.

She aspires to learn how to read through an adult education program and to eventually work at a child care center, but she cannot do so without steady transportation. She has not applied for a driver’s license; though she could take the written test orally like her mother did, she hasn’t been able to find someone who has time to help her study the examination booklet.

Ordinary tasks are often insurmountable for her. She owns a smartphone, but mining the web for information is daunting. After she fell several months behind on her electric payments, she could not read the notice that warned her lights would be cut off. She likely qualifies for low-cost internet, but she cannot navigate the instructions for accessing it. When she takes her son to the doctor’s office, she prints his first and last name on the forms but asks the staff for help with the rest. Unable to decipher her most valuable documents, like her birth certificate, she entrusts them to her aunt, who can read and helps determine what she needs for appointments and applications.

Jones worries most about keeping up with her 4-year-old son as he grows. She can read beginner books to him, but she knows his knowledge will soon surpass her own.

For Jones, the voting process itself is like a literacy test. If she changes her address, she cannot easily update her registration. If she enters the polling booth alone, she may recognize a few names on the ballot, but any unfamiliar words could confound her, particularly when it comes to the often-confusing constitutional amendments. She prefers voting by mail, which allows her more time to process her choices, but Georgia’s new election law is making that more difficult. The law has banned outside groups from mailing out absentee ballot applications that have the resident’s information already filled in, and it has limited who can submit the applications on voters’ behalf. The law does include exceptions for people helping “illiterate” voters, but experts say its limit on assistance could still discourage those voters from requesting help.

“Any law that limits assistance is going to have an impact on voters with limited literacy,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, acting director of voting rights at the Brennan Center for Justice. “Whether or not that’s the intention of the lawmakers, that’s always a difficult thing to say. But I do think sometimes it may very well be the intention.”

It is impossible to say precisely what role literacy plays in voter turnout. There are many other factors that contribute to lower participation, including some closely intertwined with literacy, such as income and education level. But to put the importance of reading ability in perspective, ProPublica analyzed data on turnout from the three most recent national elections and compared it to average estimated literacy levels for over 3,000 counties. (Read more about our analysis, and the data used, in our methodology.) Our analysis found that if low-literacy counties had turnout similar to high-literacy counties, they could have added up to about 7 million votes to the national total for each of those three elections.

Across the country, people like Jones are stumbling through inscrutable election processes fraught with poor ballot design and rigid registration rules. Some are choosing not to vote at all. (Read more about how some states are trying to make voting more accessible.) “We know in general that the more barriers we put in front of people, the lower the participation rate,” said Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University. “Even if someone with lower literacy has the same desire to vote as someone reading this article, they have to overcome more barriers.”

In 2014, for example, Ohio legislators began requiring voters to fill out more complicated versions of absentee and provisional ballot forms while at the same time limiting the assistance they could get from poll workers. Minor errors in the paperwork could lead to people’s votes not being counted. In a lawsuit, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless claimed that the laws disproportionately harmed poor, nonwhite and low-literacy voters who would be more likely to have their ballots rejected for minor errors.

Data submitted as evidence shows that thousands of forms were tossed in the 2014 and 2015 general elections for simple problems such as incomplete addresses and birthdays. Poll workers refused one form because the street name “Cuthbert” was misspelled as “Cuthberth.” Several others were rejected because birth dates were listed as the current date, an indicator that voters may not have understood the instructions.

In 2016, a federal judge struck down the measures, concluding they disproportionately harmed Black voters. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that state rules requiring perfect completion of absentee ballot forms posed an undue burden to voters. But the panel said the other measures were minimally disruptive and left in place regulations that limited the assistance voters could get from poll workers and the amount of time voters were given to correct errors on absentee and provisional ballots.

“What the case demonstrates is the indifference of officials from one political party, and of unfortunately many federal judges, to voting rights and to the need to make voting not only secure, but relatively unburdensome,” said Subodh Chandra, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

A similar law in Georgia suspended voter registration applications when the information on the form didn’t exactly match a driver’s license or social security record. (If voters didn’t correct the information within 26 months, Georgia could cancel their registrations.) When then-Secretary of State Kemp ran for governor against Stacey Abrams in 2018, his office suspended the applications of an estimated 53,000 voters, most of them Black, due to these discrepancies. Kemp won the election by about 55,000 votes.

A federal judge ordered Georgia to ease the restrictive program, calling it a “severe burden” on some voters. Politicians, academics and advocates have accused Kemp of voter suppression not only for suspending registration applications over minor discrepancies, but also for purging tens of thousands of infrequent voters from the rolls — a more aggressive effort than is made in other states.

Kemp press secretary Katie Bryd disputed the allegations and noted that Kemp had implemented automatic voter registration through the state’s department of motor vehicles in 2016, which added hundreds of thousands of eligible voters to the rolls. “Politically driven, irresponsible accusations of voter suppression alleged at Governor Kemp have been repeatedly found void of basic facts and validity,” Byrd said in an email.

Today, voters flagged for minor discrepancies in their registration paperwork can no longer be removed from the rolls, but they do have to show a photo identification before they vote.

As Coley-Pearson parked at the polling station, her thoughts flew back to a similar day not long ago when she wound up handcuffed in the back of a police cruiser.

In October 2020 — more than two years after she was cleared of the felony charges — she was standing in a voting booth helping a young woman with low literacy skills read a ballot, as is allowed by law, when the county’s election supervisor, Misty Martin, confronted her. Martin yelled at Coley-Pearson to not touch the machines and told her she was barred from returning to the polls. Coley-Pearson said she wasn’t touching any machines. “We’re done,” she told the young woman after she finished voting. “Let’s go.”

Martin, who also has used the last names Hampton and Hayes, called the police to report that Coley-Pearson was disruptive, and the department issued a trespass warning barring her from the polls indefinitely. Later that morning, when Coley-Pearson returned to drop off another voter, she was arrested in the parking lot and charged with criminal trespassing. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is looking into election interference claims in Coffee County, including an incident in which Martin allowed several computer experts connected with Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 results into her offices, where they may have had access to election systems; Martin resigned from her county post under pressure last year. She did not respond to ProPublica’s questions related to either incident.

The charge hung over Coley-Pearson for nearly two years; this past June, a state judge agreed to drop the case if she signed a consent order agreeing to follow election law. “There was no evidence of any crime here,” Coley-Pearson said. “It feels like you’re fighting a losing battle.”

Her daughters see how the last several years have worn her down. AiyEsha Coley said she would sometimes wake up at 4 a.m. to feed her newborn and would find her mother on Facebook, reading through disparaging comments. Her daughters have long campaigned for her to retire from city commission, scared that the stress might eventually kill her. She’s starting to come around, and she plans to leave her post next year.

Now peering into her back seat, Coley-Pearson worried her presence could interfere with Jones and Fillmore’s ability to vote. “I did not want any type of confrontation, I did not want any kind of accusations, I just didn’t want any hassle,” she said.

She told them she would not be going in with them and instructed two close friends to help them instead. “When you get through, you all come down there to the tent,” she said, motioning to where her volunteers were sitting out of reach of the rain.

Coley-Pearson watched the women shuffle into the building and fretted as she waited, leaning on her mobile walker at the edge of the parking lot with a group of volunteer canvassers. She had reminded her friends of the rules, but she knew that sometimes, following them was not enough. “They might try to look for anything they could use against them,” she said.

After nearly an hour, Jones and her mother emerged, beaming.

Coley-Pearson’s nerves settled, at least for the moment.

Skip the ground beef in this new spin on a retro pasta dish

Recently, I ate a plate of carbonara that seemed blessed by heaven itself. I was sitting at a tiny two-top on the sidewalk patio at Via Carducci La Sorella, a cozy neighborhood Italian joint in Chicago’s Wicker Park. When the waiter brought out my pasta — thin spaghetti enrobed in a golden, yolky sauce and flecked with crisped pancetta — I swear that a sunbeam broke through the early evening haze and shone directly onto my plate. 

It was as if God was indicating his approval for the dish in all its delicate, opulent glory. 

Meanwhile, I had spent the previous afternoon recipe-testing red bean chili mac, a dish that had me revisiting my colleague Mary Elizabeth William’s recent conversation with Nigella Lawson about the allure of “brown food.” 

As you may know, chili macaroni, or chili mac, is a one-pot meal typically made with ground beef, pasta, tomato sauce and cheese. A Hamburger Helper version became one of my peak comfort foods in college because it was not only cheap and filling but also riffable. I wasn’t eating meat at the time, so I substituted the ground beef the box called for with a can or two of red kidney beans. In addition to the price point, I loved the beans for their firm yet creamy texture. 

In recent years, I’ve shifted towards making a homemade version that hits all the same nostalgic flavor beats of the boxed variety. It really amps up the smokiness and the spice, while also making room for an entirely vegan version. That said, it’s not exactly a “pretty” dish in the manner of, say, a verdant salad or slice of strawberry cake.

You can, of course, zhush it up with a little pop of green by way of chopped chives or scallions (which I heartily recommend). At its core, however, this dish is beige pasta, ruddy beans and a golden-brown cheese crust. Brown on brown on brown. 


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


While heaven didn’t immediately open up to cast an approving ray of light in the direction of my most recent batch, I have a feeling that Lawson (who is a culinary goddess in her own right) would approve.  

“No, they’re not the most photogenic,” Lawson told Williams regarding brown foods. “There are times when you just want food that has got the sort of uncontained texture that just goes all over the place. And the texture is what people don’t like the look of, but actually, when it’s in your bowl, you’re not expecting it to look picture-postcard pretty but it has a beauty of its own. It’s just not perhaps sort of, ‘Oh, grab me, look at me now.'” 

She continued, “Some food doesn’t need to draw attention to itself. It just has to be there, and there are certain moods when you just want something that tastes good but it doesn’t demand something of you. You don’t have to be equal to it. It’s there to soothe and to comfort and to bolster.” 

This red bean chili mac will certainly do all those things, especially as we shift into cooler, perhaps gloomier, weather. 

Red Bean Chili Mac
Yields
6 servings
Prep Time
10 minutes
Cook Time
30 minutes, including broiling

Ingredients

  • 16 ounces short, tube-y pasta, such as macaroni or rigatoni 
  • 2 tablespoons dairy or plant-based butter, divided
  • 1/2 medium white onion, finely chopped 
  • 2 tablespoons tomato paste 
  • 3 teaspoons cayenne pepper 
  • 3 teaspoons garlic powder 
  • 2 teaspoons smoked paprika 
  • 2 teaspoons chili powder 
  • 1 teaspoon cumin 
  • 15 ounces canned or cooked red kidney beans, drained
  • 1/4 cup dairy or plant-based milk 
  • 8 ounces shredded dairy or plant-based cheddar cheese, divided 
  • Salt to taste
  • Chives or scallions (for garnish)

Directions

  1. Cook pasta according to package directions for al dente, then drain and set aside.

  2. In a large, oven-safe pot or Dutch oven, melt 1 tablespoon of butter over medium heat. Add the finely chopped white onion and stir until softened, about 4 minutes. 

  3. Add the tomato paste and spices to the pot and stir to combine. Cook the mixture over medium heat until the tomato paste begins to brown slightly, about 3 minutes. 

  4. Add the kidney beans to the pot and stir, followed by the milk. Add the drained pasta back to the pot and salt to taste. Add 6 ounces of the cheese to the pot, as well as the remaining 1 tablespoon of butter. Slowly stir the cheese through the pasta and sauce until it begins to melt and thicken, coating the pasta.

  5. If you’re wanting to do a stovetop-only version, congratulations — this is your off-ramp! Garnish your bowls with the remaining 2 ounces of cheddar cheese and chives or scallions and enjoy. If you’re doing the oven-baked version, sprinkle the remaining 2 ounces of cheese on top of the pot and place it under the broiler for 5 minutes, or until the cheese is browned and bubbly. Garnish with chives or scallions and serve.


Cook’s Notes

If you’re reaching for plant-based cheese, make sure to grab one that melts well. (I’m partial to the Violife Cheddar Shreds.) In terms of plant-based milks, oat milk has the right texture and flavor to mimic whole milk. It’s what I’d personally recommend using here, but any neutral-tasting milk works. 

Feel free to replace the called-for spices with store-bought chili seasoning to taste. 

This recipe calls for a stove-to-oven transfer to get a cheesy “crust” on top of the pasta. If you’re running low on time or energy, feel free to skip this step. It’s just as delicious as a one-pot, stovetop meal. 

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.

“House of the Dragon”: How to groom your dragon, Targaryen style

Yeah, dragons are cool, but . . . have you ever ‘shipped the sexual chemistry between an uncle and his niece?

Reader, these are not words we ever wanted to type regardless of the flippant tone behind them. But it was only a matter of time before “House of the Dragon” ushered the silver-maned mammoth in the room, the Targaryen tradition of incestuous marriage and romances, to center stage.

The “Game of Thrones” prequel has hinted at the special relationship between Princess Rhaenyra (Milly Alcock) and her uncle Daemon (Matt Smith), brother to King Viserys (Paddy Considine) since the first episode when Daemon struts up to his niece and presents her with a necklace made of Valyrian steel. Like Dark Sister, she said, referring to Daemon’s famous sword. He places it around her neck, saying, “Now you and I both own a small piece of our ancestry. Beautiful.”

In another show, this could have been played off as generosity from, say, a cool uncle. Those exist! But not in George R.R. Martin’s universe, where nobody is kind to anyone else without there being an angle.

Rhaenyra loves her father the way a daughter should, but as a teenager harboring a rebellious streak of her own, Daemon’s fire fascinates her. From their first one-on-one conversations, it’s clear they have a special bond. “King of the Narrow Sea” leaves no question as to the nature of that relationship, which is to say that they certainly love one another, only in a way that the average person in modern society should rightly view, to put it in scientific terms, as super gross.

Leaping ahead by four years since the last time Rhaenyra and Daemon have seen each other, we see a very bored princess faking her way through another lineup of suitors for her hand, each less attractive than the next. After she abandons them to return to Kings Landing by ship, her vessel is intentionally buzzed by Daemon on the back of his dragon Caraxes, flying in unannounced to visit his brother, dedicate his war victory to the Targaryen king, and theatrically bend the knee.

Rhaenyra moons over Daemon as if he were Harry Styles. And the reunion banquet that follows, Daemon and Rhaenyra speak privately where she compliments what appears to be his newfound maturity. To that, he replies with this show’s equivalent of a skeevy adult complimenting a young girl by telling her she’s “filled out”: “You’ve matured yourself these last four years, princess. You’ll get used to the attention.”

House of the DragonMatt Smith and Milly Alcock in “House of the Dragon” (Ollie Upton / HBO)

He’s not referring to her behavior. In case that’s not clear, he leaves a rough sack in her bed chamber filled with a boy’s clothing, including a cap that covers her hair, and a note directing her to a secret passage. She dresses in those rags and follows the pathway underneath the castle to find Daemon wearing a cloak that covers his face.

Westeros’ history mimics events in our real-world history, and what Daemon refers to as “the tradition of our house” is no different.

Taking his hand, they head out to the Street of Silk, the red light district of King’s Landing, where he gives her sips from a wine sack and takes her to a pleasure den for her first up-close experience with sexuality. She’s turned on by the X-rated view. 

Daemon explains that this is where people come “to take what they want.” Then he and Rhaenyra begin kissing. He opens her shirt, takes down her trousers, and . . . pulls away from her, before stalking off. And she, unwise to the ways of being in public as a royal, runs after him with her long silver hair hanging out for all to see, announcing to the world that yes, that was Kings Landing’s biggest celebrity, the heir to the Iron Throne, making out in a whorehouse with her uncle.

This being a “Game of Thrones” prequel it’s understood within the story’s world that this behavior, while skin-crawling, is not unusual among the Targaryens. When word gets back to Viserys he’s less upset about the incest than the potential stain on his daughter’s reputation presented by the suggestion that she’s no longer a virgin. She isn’t, having drafted Ser Criston Cole, played by Fabien Frankel, to quench the fire in her loins. But she also lies about it, throwing Hand of the King Otto Hightower (Rhys Ifans) under the litter.

House of the DragonMilly Alcock and Fabien Frankel in “House of the Dragon” (Ollie Upton / HBO)

Daemon, for his part, is unrepentant. “Better her first experience be with me than some whore,” he says, before suggesting that Viserys marry Rhaenyra to him. This only makes the king more furious since that confirms his suspicions that his brother’s affectionate displays to his daughter were not born out of true love but a lust to ascend to the throne by any means necessary.

Westeros’ history mimics significant events in our real-world history, and what Daemon refers to as “the tradition of our house” is no different. Incestuous marriages were common among the pharaohs’ royal lines as well as among the ruling classes of ancient Ireland and other cultures. This is not to say it’s a noble thing to do . . . ugh. On the contrary, take a peek at the Habsburg family lineage which between the early 1500s and the 1700s, nearly straightened their tree into a maypole.

It is estimated that around 80% of the marriages taking place during that era were between close family relatives. If you’re wondering how that affected that genetic pool, Google the term “Habsburg jaw” or marvel at a few official portraits; if you’re wondering why they did it, check out the “House of the Dragon” episode where Otto Hightower  suggests that Viserys betroth Rhaenyra to her half-brother – who, at this point, is a toddler.

Viserys is shocked by the absurdity of that suggestion, but Otto points out that marrying the half-siblings would put an end to the succession conundrum and keep the throne in the family. This is another version of what Daemon points out to Rhaenyra before their raunchy field trip: “Marriage is only a political arrangement. Once you are wed, you can do as you like.”

But let’s put aside the politics of all that to return to the “ewwww” of it all, or what should be a repulsion to this turn of events, and remark upon a segment of the audience’s reaction to the episode’s events.

There’s the “girl boss” angle: “rhaenyra gotta be one of the best female characters ive seen in a fantasy show in a hot minute,” tweeted @caitvi4ever. “she’s kind but knows when to be mean, sticks up for herself, gets dick when necessary, reads people like a book and knows just when to pounce on them. shes so real.”

There’s the straight-up swooning for the character dynamics or the heat Smith and Alcock emanate whenever they share a scene which, in the minds of some, negates the verboten implications: “people ship rhaenyra and daemon because they’re interesting characters with a good dynamic where you can’t pinpoint exactly what are their motivations to be with each other so any interpretation of their relationship is equally captivating,” posits @libraIogy.

And there’s the inevitable comparison between Rhaenyra and Daemon – who, again, are uncle and niece – and Jaime and Cersei, who were not only getting it on as siblings but are twins to boot: “We all were judging the Lannisters for 8 seasons but now rooting for Rhaenyra and Daemon within 4 episodes,” points out Twitter user @starboisurg29.

It behooves one to point out that what’s happening between Rhaenyra and Daemon in “King of the Narrow Sea” is precisely the type of power dynamic exploitation experts are talking about when they call incest sexual abuse. Daemon is an older family member who holds more authority and weight within the immediate family than Rhaenyra does.

This is an example of what actual grooming looks like.

(That’s demonstrated by Viserys’ immediate reaction, which is to order his daughter to marry Laenor Velaryon – her second cousin which, as Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz points out, is totally fine! After all, Viserys first wife, Lady Aemma, was his cousin.)

Also, in a time where homophobic members of the far-right have taken to tossing around the term grooming to broadly besmirch segments of upstanding citizens who just want to live their lives, this is an example of what actual grooming looks like. From the moment Daemon purrs “turn around” to collar her with that jewelry, where this duo is heading became transparent.

House of the DragonMatt Smith in “House of the Dragon” (Ollie Upton / HBO)

But if people are cheering on the “forbidden love” between Rhaenyra and Daemon, some of that could be due to the more commonplace presentation of incest as a spicy twist on TV. It emerged as a twist in “The Sinner,” as is a recurring theme in V.C. Andrews’ oeuvre, the TV adaptations of which have been a hit for Lifetime.

“Game of Thrones” viewers not only became accustomed to watching two actors playing Jaime and Cersei Lannister simulate getting down with each other but also came to wrap their heads around the fact that Jon Snow and Daenerys Targaryen were nephew and aunt, officially established at the precise moment that they started tearing each other’s clothes off.

Remember, though, that the implication of Targaryen incest reaches back to the first episode of “Game of Thrones.” The brat who was named after this Viserys, Daenerys’ brother, strips off his sister’s clothing before ogling and fondling her like a piece of meat, a moment that remains as skin-crawling now as it was then.


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


We were never meant to like Dany’s brother, and that’s the main distinction between that scene and what comes to pass between Rhaenyra and Daemon in the bowels of that pleasure den. The look on Daenerys’ face is one of silent horror and disgust at Viserys’ transgression, making the abuse clear. It’s nothing akin to the lust between the uncle and niece whose DNA is part of Dany and her brother and likely contributed to the madness that overtook their father.

The Targaryen story is a tragedy, albeit a glamorous one borne by legendary winged wonders, extraordinary characters, and a link to a mystical land that fell into legend. “Game of Thrones” spent the better part of a decade softening the ground for audiences to embrace it, even the incest – or, if not that, allowing those who don’t see the romance in it to shrug it off.

It is a fantasy, after all, established by a bestselling book that lays out what’s in store in terms of the action to come. The scripts won’t necessarily adhere to every one of the novel’s twists, ensuring some events will remain as tough to predict as the audience’s tolerance for romanticizing a taboo. If and when people root for Rhaenyra and Daemon to get together, however, that’s less concerning in terms of the show than what that says about how its treatment, and others, have impacted the flexibility with which we excuse that which should be inexcusable.

New episodes of “House of the Dragon” air Sundays at 9 p.m. on HBO.

 

Releasing UFO footage would damage national security, Navy claims

The U.S. Navy is sitting on a trove of videos depicting unidentified flying objects (UFOs), but claims releasing them would be disastrous for national security. The announcement came as a response to a two year legal battle between the Navy and The Black Vault, a website dedicated to highlighting government secrets using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Once the realm of pseudoscience, UFOs — sometimes called unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) by the U.S. military and other government agencies — have decidedly entered the political mainstream. In late 2017, the New York Times reported on a secretive Pentagon outfit dedicated to tracking and identifying UAPs. In April 2020, the Navy published three videos of UAPs, called FLIR1, Gimbal and GoFast, although these videos had leaked years prior to their official release.

“The release of this information will harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable information regarding Department of Defense/Navy operations, vulnerabilities, and/or capabilities,” Gregory Cason, deputy director of the Navy’s FOIA office, wrote in the denial.

In the GoFast video, for example, a pilot of a F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet tracked a high-speed object as it zips across the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Florida. A pilot can be heard saying, “What the f**k is that thing?!” If the Navy ever learned what the object was, it has not announced it publicly.

Bloggers for The Black Vault assumed there were more videos like these, and filed a FOIA request. Two years later, after much back and forth, the Navy finally responded, confirming the Vault’s suspicions, but then refusing to share any additional info, deeming it classified. It is not clear how many videos or images of UAPs the military currently has kept secret.

“The release of this information will harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable information regarding Department of Defense/Navy operations, vulnerabilities, and/or capabilities,” Gregory Cason, deputy director of the Navy’s FOIA office, wrote in the denial. “No portions of the videos can be segregated for release.”

Nonetheless, the fact that UAPs have received some level of official recognition in recent years has been both validating for conspiracy theorists, who have long sought hard evidence of alien visitors; and frustrating for many scientists, many whom argue this is far from enough proof for life outside our solar system.

“I think it’s very, very difficult as a scientist to look at something like this and say anything except, you know, it’s intriguing,” Caleb Scharf, an astronomer and director of the Columbia Astrobiology Center, told Business Insider in 2019. “It’s all reliant on serendipitous data. And that’s one of the most difficult kinds of problems to solve in science. So I’m not surprised that we don’t have a good answer yet.”

Even so, even NASA appears intrigued by what UAPs may or may not be. In June 2022, the space agency announced their own intent to investigate UAPs by forming an independent study team that examines the issue from a scientific approach.

“NASA believes that the tools of scientific discovery are powerful and apply here also,” Thomas Zurbuchen, the associate administrator for science at NASA Headquarters in Washington, said in a statement. “We have access to a broad range of observations of Earth from space – and that is the lifeblood of scientific inquiry. We have the tools and team who can help us improve our understanding of the unknown. That’s the very definition of what science is. That’s what we do.”

The project is expected to take nine months, and will require NASA to gather as much data on the issue as possible. It’s not clear if they’ll have access to the Navy’s confidential archive.

For their part, the Black Vault has filed an appeal seeking the release of the Navy’s videos.

“While three UAP videos were released in the past, the facts specific to those three videos are unique in that those videos were initially released via unofficial channels before official release,” Cason wrote in the denial. So to really find out what the Navy is hiding may require another back-channel disclosure. Until then, we’ll have to continue to emphasize the word “unidentified” in “unidentified aerial phenomena.”

From corgis to currency, 7 things to know now that the queen is dead

When Queen Elizabeth II died Thursday at the age of 96, plans were in place. 

Her son Charles automatically became king. The queen had previously approved her own funeral plans — plans that King Charles III, as the current sitting monarch, was required to sign off on after her death — and as a monarch, she was automatically granted a state funeral, funded by the public. That funeral will be very large and will take place on Monday, Sept. 19.

While many details of death are universal, the death of a reigning monarch is a different affair. And as the queen has been in (mostly ceremonial) power since 1952, it’s not something the Brits have had to manage for some time. Elizabeth ascended the throne in her 20s, after her father died. Her death leaves a series of questions, ranging from the serious and pressing to the more nuanced.

Salon gets to the bottom of some our most burning questions in the wake of the queen’s death.

01
Where will she be buried?
First, the most serious. The queen will be buried at the King George VI Memorial Chapel, part of St. George’s Chapel, which is on the grounds of Windsor Castle. For the four days before the funeral, her coffin will lie in state at Westminster Hall. The hall will be open 24 hours a day so that the public may pay their respects during this time, though the U.K. government has warned of “airport-style” security and very long lines. The funeral itself will take place at Westminster Abby. The day of the funeral has been declared a public holiday in the United Kingdom.
02
What is the fate of her corgis (and non-corgis)?

It is unclear how the divorced pair will handle custody arrangements of the dogs.

Nearly as pressing, especially if you’re a corgi, the dogs beloved and raised by the queen will go to live with the Duke and Duchess of York, Andrew and Sarah, who both live at the Royal Lodge on the Windsor estate, despite being divorced since 1996. It is unclear how the divorced pair will handle custody arrangements of the dogs.

 

Even after her divorce, Sarah maintained a close friendship with the queen. Both women loved dogs and horses, and Sarah would walk dogs on the Windsor estate. 

 

In 2019, Prince Andrew stepped back from public duties after mounting scrutiny over his associating with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In 2022, Andrew paid a settlement to a woman who accused him of sexual abuse and the case was dismissed by a judge. 

 

Reportedly, the queen left behind two corgis named Sandy and Muick, as well as two other non-corgi dogs, a “dorgi” (corgi and dachshund mix) named Candy, and Lissy, a cocker spaniel. It is not clear if the non-corgis will live with Sarah and Andrew as well.

03
 Will currency with the queen’s image be phased out for Charles?

Images of Queen Elizabeth II appear on currency throughout the world. In 1953, the year after she took the throne, British coins featuring her image were first available. Seven years later, she was the first British monarch to have her photo on paper bills. Those bills and coins are still in circulation, as is currency in Commonwealth countries. 

 

But now that she’s gone, what will happen to them? 

 

In a statement, the Bank of England confirmed that current bills with Elizabeth’s image will stay legal tender. The statement also adds, “A further announcement regarding existing Bank of England banknotes will be made once the period of mourning has been observed.” According to ABC News, Canada, which also has banknotes with the queen’s image, plans no change. Neither do Australia or New Zealand, though Australia is planning a new $5 bill with Charles’ image. 

 

Charles will also appear on coins issued by the Royal Mint in Britain. Elizabeth faces right on her coin. Coin Charles, according to tradition, will face left. The new Chuck bucks and coins won’t be seen until at least next year though.

04
What’s this about bees?

There is an official royal beekeeper, 79-year-old John Chapple, and the day after the queen’s death, he performed an actual task in his responsibility: informing the more than one million bees in his care that Queen Elizabeth had passed. 

 

As Vanity Fair wrote, “Chapple placed black ribbons around the hives, and then told the busy workers inside the news. He also explained that King Charles III is now their new master, and that he will be good to them.”

 

You knock on each hive and say, ‘The mistress is dead, but don’t you go.'”

Chapple, who has been the palace beekeeper for 15 years, told the Daily Mail: “The person who has died is the master or mistress of the hives, someone important in the family who dies and you don’t get any more important than the Queen, do you? You knock on each hive and say, ‘The mistress is dead, but don’t you go. Your master will be a good master to you.'”

 

The Daily Mail writes of the tradition of telling bees not only of deaths in the family, but important events like marriages and births: “If the custom was omitted or forgotten and the bees were not ‘put into mourning’ then it was believed a penalty would be paid, such as the bees leaving their hive, stopping the production of honey or dying.” The British newspaper links the custom to European countries, but it’s also a tradition that can be in found many places in America, including the South and New England

05
Will Camilla be Queen Camilla?
 

Yes. Camilla has become what is known as Queen Consort. When Charles and Camilla married in a 2005 civil ceremony, Camilla took the title HRH The Princess Consort. Upon Charles’ coronation, she will be known as Queen Camilla. Earlier this year, upon the occasion of the 70th anniversary of her accession, Queen Elizabeth said in a message that it was her “sincere wish” that Camilla became Queen Consort when Charles became king. The queen said, as reported by The Guardian, “And when, in the fullness of time, my son Charles becomes King, I know you will give him and his wife, Camilla, the same support that you have given me.”

 

Charles’ first wife was the beloved Princess Diana, who died tragically in 1997, one year after their divorce.

06
Who is called what now?
 

Along with Camilla’s title change, Prince William and Kate Middleton, formerly known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, are known now as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge.

 

Though Prince Harry and Meghan Markle left the royal family, their children, Archie and Lilibet, are technically allowed to use the HRH title, as the offspring of a son of a sovereign. So, it could be Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. As of this writing, new titles have not been officially announced.


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


07
Will Prince Philip be moved?
Yes.  After the queen’s husband, Prince Philip, died in April of 2021, his coffin was placed in the royal vault (not a freezer, despite the rumors). According to Yahoo! News, “This was never meant to be his final resting place.” His coffin was “placed on a marble slab” in a part of St. George’s Chapel called The Quire, and then lowered into the vault beneath the chapel. As this location is not intended to be the queen’s resting place, Philip’s coffin will be moved in order to rest beside the queen.

 

 

Queen Elizabeth’s final act, in Scotland: What will her death mean for the union?

Where one dies can be just as significant, and telling, as where one decides to live. And when one is royal — by ancient definition a symbol, the state itself embodied in human form — this act takes on even larger, more powerful and political dimensions.

The death of Queen Elizabeth II at 96 on Thursday at Balmoral Castle in the highlands of Scotland initiated four successive days of Scottish ritual. On Friday and Saturday, her oak coffin, draped with the royal standard of Scotland, lay at rest in the castle’s ballroom. When she left Balmoral for the final time on a 175 mile, six-hour procession to Edinburgh, the Scots turned out for her. There they were first in nearby Ballater — the butchers and confectioners and fishermen who knew her as their neighbor. In the countryside, farmers steered their tractors to the carriageway and raised their diggers in salute. The sidewalks of Dundee, a nationalist stronghold, were clogged with onlookers. Some 60,000 people, 20 deep in places, lined the narrow confines of Edinburgh’s Royal Mile. They applauded softly, respectfully, and held their smartphones aloft to record the history passing before them. As the cortege approached the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the Queen’s official residence in Scotland where she would rest for the night, a lone dog was heard barking its own tribute. Today she was carried back up the Royal Mile to St. Giles’s Cathedral. There, before she lies in state later this week as Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the medieval Westminster Hall in London, thousands will have filed past Elizabeth, Queen of Scots.

These were her plans. As the primary architect of Operation Unicorn, the code name for her funeral procedures in the event she died at Balmoral, she wanted to pay tribute to Scotland and her Scottish heritage — and to strengthen the ties of the 300-year-old union that has been in grave danger of fraying.

For nearly two decades, one of the most intense debates in British politics has centered on Scottish independence, with increasing numbers of Scots favoring a break from the United Kingdom. When the issue was put on the ballot in 2014, voters opposed independence by a greater-than-expected margin of nearly 11 percent. This was supposed to be a once-in-a-generation vote. However, the Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who heads the Scottish National Party, has been clamoring for another referendum, but recent surveys have showed stark divisions. A June poll commissioned by the Scotsman showed results on a knife’s edge. After undecided respondents were removed, 51 percent opposed independence, while 49 percent supported it. But crucially, 10 percent of those surveyed were undecided — a significant portion who could, of course, sway any result.

In her 70-year reign, perhaps the closest the Queen ever came to wading into politics was on behalf of the union. At her Silver Jubilee in 1977, against the rumblings of nationalist sentiment in Scotland and Wales, she urged her subjects “to remind ourselves of the benefits which union has conferred.” A generation later, on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum, Elizabeth attended church at Crathie Kirk on the edge of Balmoral where a well-wisher mentioned the looming vote. “I hope people will think very carefully about the future,” she replied, a statement vague enough to remain within the bounds of her role as constitutional (and non-political) monarch but that was widely interpreted as an implicit endorsement of the Remain position. When then-Prime Minister David Cameron telephoned the Queen with the results, he divulged that she “purred down the line” from Balmoral.

Her response should not have come as a surprise: What monarch, after all, wishes for the breakup of their kingdom? But for the Queen, the Scottish issue was always a personal one. She was, after all, half Scottish herself via her mother, who was born and raised at Glamis Castle in Angus. The young Elizabeth spent long stretches of her childhood summers there and at Balmoral, where over the years she has been known to venture in nearby Ballater and to walk the moors, sometimes unrecognized by passing (American) tourists. There was a reason why, in the tumultuous days following Diana, Princess of Wales’s death in 1997, she chose to not return to London and to keep her grandsons, Princes William and Harry, secluded from the prying eyes of the press and public — an unpopular decision at the time that looks loving and humane in retrospect.

For centuries, the deaths of monarchs have marked moments for Britain to reflect on its past and think about the future. We cannot know what effects the Scottish rituals held in the wake of Elizabeth’s passing might have on opinions about Scottish independence — whether the unionist sentiment concentrated in the Scottish borders, the Highlands and in Edinburgh will trickle down to Dundee or Glasgow, or at least to the undecided ten percent. Perhaps it could portend something more complicated, with nationalists continuing to reject political union but insisting on retaining the union of the crowns.

Two days before her death, the Queen received Liz Truss in the drawing room at Balmoral and invited her to form a government, a meeting that commentators have pointed to as constituting Elizabeth’s final act as monarch. But while her audience with Truss might have been the Queen’s final public duty, it was not her final act as sovereign. This was her death itself, and where she had decided it would be: at Balmoral, the place where her family has said she was the happiest. In the face of the recurring “episodic mobility problems” that were confirmed by Buckingham Palace at various points over the past year, as well as dramatic weight loss and obvious infirmity, the Queen was determined to see Balmoral once again, and she insisted on continuing her long tradition of spending the summer in the highlands rather than remaining at Windsor Castle. A chunk of her royal heart belonged to Scotland, and there is no other place Elizabeth the Steadfast would have wanted to die than Balmoral, either for herself or for the Union she held so dear.

A newly-discovered pair of antibodies appears to “neutralize” delta and omicron COVID variants

One of the challenges of fighting COVID-19 is that vaccines and booster shots, while effective in protecting most people against severe infections, are often ineffective in those with weakened immune systems. In August, however, researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel claimed to have identified a pair of antibodies that neutralize every known strain of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. In the process, they may have taken a step toward altogether obviating the need for booster shots to fight new strains as they evolve.

According to an August article published in the journal Communications Biology, a pair of antibodies — TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 — could play a crucial role in halting the infection process. If you picture the SARS-CoV-2 virus as a sphere surrounded by spikes, then the antibodies are Y-shaped molecules which fight that sphere and spikes at targeted points. TAU-1109 and TAU-2310 seem to choose an area of the viral spike sphere that is very different from where most of the antibodies choose to go.

This made them less effective at fighting the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, but more so when it comes to the pervasive strains circulating today — including the omicron strain.

“According to our findings, the effectiveness of the first antibody, TAU-1109, in neutralizing the Omicron strain is 92%, and in neutralizing the Delta strain, 90%,” Dr. Natalia Freund of Tel Aviv University, the lead researcher behind the study, explained in a press statement. “The second antibody, TAU-2310, neutralizes the Omicron variant with an efficacy of 84%, and the Delta variant with an efficacy of 97%.”

In the process, they may have taken a step toward altogether obviating the need for booster shots to fight new strains as they evolve.

The researchers argue that technologies developed from their discovery could render repeated booster vaccinations unnecessary and offer a means of strengthening immunity within at-risk populations. At the same time, as the authors of the study point out, there is an ongoing need for research into antibodies that human beings produce as they encounter the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

“As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 continue to emerge, it is important to assess the cross-neutralizing capabilities of antibodies naturally elicited during wild type SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the authors explain. 


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


Scientists and medical experts said the study was performed with rigor. Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, told Salon by email that this was “a well-done study with appropriate conclusions drawn from the study results.” Dr. William Haseltine, a biologist renowned for his work in confronting the HIV/AIDS epidemic, told Salon that it “seems like a credible study, one of many such describing neutralizing antibodies and mappng them to their binding sites.”

Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, helped place the new study in a broader immunological context. Antibodies are the part of the immune system that deals with the lesser threats to our health, she clarified.

“To put it simply, antibodies protect us from mild infections but cellular immunity (T and B cells) protect us from severe disease,” Gandhi wrote to Salon. “The variants have tended to have a high degree of mutation in the spike protein, which binds to the host cell receptor (called the ACE2 receptor). This study verifies that monoclonal antibodies directed towards the ACE2 binding site are more affected by viral mutations than monoclonal antibodies that bind to regions outside the receptor binding site.”

In a sense, this new development means that the part of the immune system which deals with lesser threats can be harnessed, as scientists realize those two aforementioned antibodies have been fighting the SARS-CoV-2 virus in a distinctive way.

“Simply put, this means that antibodies the body generates directed against other parts of the virus beyond the site that binds to our host cell receptor work better against variants,” Gandhi explained.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, concluded that the study points the development of disease-fighting technology in a promising direction. At the same time, more research needs to be done.

“We do need a lot more research to better understand biological markers that can be used to diagnose and help with prognosis for vaccinated and unvaccinated people who get infected with SARS-CoV–2,” Benjamin explained.

“Better check Bedminster”: Video shows Trump boarding plane with boxes after feds asked for docs

Two prominent Trump critics speculated that he could still have copies of classified documents stashed away at other locations even after the FBI searched his Mar-a-Lago estate last month.

In a video resurfaced on social media, former President Donald Trump appears to be boarding a private jet as his aides load nine storage boxes onto the aircraft prior to his flight from Palm Beach, Florida, to his Bedminster, N.J., golf club.

The footage, which was originally filmed for the Daily Mail, reemerged on social media after prosecutors warned last week that Trump’s team did not return all of the classified records removed from the White House at the end of his presidency. 

Former FBI agent Peter Strzok took to Twitter to note that the footage was recorded on May 9, 2021, three days after the National Archives and Records Administration informed Trump’s team that material was missing and may be at Mar-a-Lago. 

Strzok, who served as the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, compared pictures of the cardboard boxes in the video to a picture of the boxes released by the Department of Justice during its raid of Mar-A-Lago, suggesting that the type or brand of boxes are similar. 

The FBI recovered at least 325 unique classified documents during its search of Mar-A-Lago, including some marked “top secret” and other material so sensitive that the counterintelligence personnel conducting the review required additional clearances before being able to review them.

“The mere fact they were top secret FBI documents, they only should have been stored, processed, handled in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility and Mar-a-Lago clearly was not,” said Javed Ali, associate professor of practice at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan and a former senior counterterrorism official at the Department of Homeland Security.


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


Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen previously suggested that Trump may be keeping additional records at Bedminster and other locations after the DOJ suggested Trump’s team may have concealed or moved top-secret files.

“I believe #Trump has copies, potentially other documents as well, at other locations including his children’s homes, Weisselberg’s florida home, Bedminster, NJ golf course, Fifth Avenue apartment, etc…” Cohen tweeted.

Prosecutors have warned that Trump’s failure to return classified material poses a potential national security risk that needs investigation, according to Reuters.

The documents can “provide an insight into what the US government knows about a threat or an adversary,” which is sensitive information that should be protected, Ali said. 

During its Mar-a-Lago search, the FBI found 48 empty folders labeled as classified and another 42 which indicated they should be returned to a staff secretary or military aide. The Justice Department has suggested that there could be additional classified records that were removed from the White House that they have not yet located. 

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who is a Trump appointee, granted his request for a special master and ordered prosecutors to pause reviewing recovered records until a special master is appointed to review the material. 

Some critics have called for the FBI to search other Trump properties for classified materials, but without enough evidence, investigators cannot obtain a warrant to conduct a search. 

Angry Republicans are plotting revenge against Kevin McCarthy: “He’s dead to me”

According to a report from Politico, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s attempts to line up a collection of GOP House candidates who will be loyal to him is creating dissension in the ranks of the candidates he passed over — and he may have a rebellion among the ranks if Republicans take the House in November.

With Republicans expected to assume House control — albeit by a smaller margin than was previously expected — McCarthy has reportedly been suppressing those who oppose his leadership and putting his finger on the scale to boost his hand-selected candidates.

Case in point, a highly contested seat representing New Hampshire where one of the potential candidates is furious that McCarthy from California is butting in.

As Politico’s Ally Mutnick and Olivia Beavers wrote, “Outside spending in New Hampshire’s Republican House primaries on behalf of Matt Mowers, a former aide to Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., and Keene Mayor George Hansel, has enraged the other GOP contenders. As Mowers and Hansel get heavy support from outside PACs in the final stretch of the campaign, conservative rivals are furious over what they allege is a leadership-backed campaign to help McCarthy slide into the House’s top role next year after a GOP takeover.”

That has Bob Burns, who is challenging Hansel, vowing revenge on McCarthy should he win the primary and then the November general election, supplanting Rep. Annie Kuster, D-N.H.

“He’s dead to me at this point. I’m not going to support him,” Burns told Politico before adding, “And quite frankly if it boils down to it, I may run against him.”

As it stands, the report states, McCarthy has been fairly successful getting his people on the November ballot, with few Republicans on the November ballot stating they will oppose his plan to replace House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“The race to take on Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas grew particularly heated after the McCarthy-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund went in to boost Mowers over his top competitor Karoline Leavitt, a Gen Z former Donald Trump communications official backed by House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas,” Politico reports. “The specter of McCarthy’s speakership dominated the closing remarks of a WMUR debate last week, when a third candidate noted ‘swamp rat Kevin McCarthy is spending $2 million’ to elect Mowers and accused Leavitt of obfuscating her position on a potential vote for speaker.”

“I am the only candidate in this race that the establishment is viciously attacking. They’re spending millions and millions of dollars to slow down my momentum,” Leavitt complained before refusing to say she would support McCarthy by telling reporters, “I’m not beholden to anyone in D.C.”

For his part, Mowers is pleading innocence on any deal-making with the House Minority Leader, telling reporters, “He and I haven’t talked about it. I think he’s done a good job as minority leader. But we’ll have that conversation in due time.”

You can read more here.

Plaintiff in Florida GOP primary loser Laura Loomer fraud lawsuit drops out: “I’m not going to lie”

When hard-right socially conservative Rep. Daniel Webster defeated MAGA Republican Laura Loomer by 7 percent in a GOP congressional primary on August 23, she responded by refusing to concede and claimed, without evidence, that the election was stolen from her. There was no proof that any type of voter fraud occurred in that primary, but that didn’t stop a group of Loomer supporters from filing a lawsuit on her behalf. And according to Daily Beast reporter Will Sommer, one of the Republicans listed in the lawsuit as a plaintiff, Theresa Rinaldi, has demanded that her name be removed from it.

Webster is far from a moderate. Because of his extreme social conservatism, Democratic firebrand and former Rep. Alan Grayson slammed him as “Taliban Dan” when they ran against one another in the 2010 midterms (Grayson lost). But 12 years later, ironically, Loomer lambasted Webster for not being far enough to the right and attacked him as a RINO: Republican In Name Only.

When Loomer lost to Webster, she declared, on Election Night, “I’m not conceding.” And her supporters, believing her unsubstantiated voter fraud claims, filed a lawsuit. But Rinaldi, Sommer reports, wants no part of it.

“Now, in the latest blow to Republican attempts to prove voter fraud, one of the five supposed plaintiffs listed on the lawsuit told The Daily Beast she had no idea her name was going on the case and doesn’t think malfeasance occurred in the election,” Sommer reports in an article published by the Beast on September 12. “Theresa Rinaldi, of Orange County, cast her vote for Loomer, but says she was added to the lawsuit without her knowledge or permission.”

According to Rinaldi, she spoke to John Pierce — a right-wing lawyer in the lawsuit — on the phone, but he never told her she would be listed as a plaintiff.

Rinaldi told the Beast, “I want my name off of that, because I did not witness any voter fraud…. I felt like he was tricking me in that phone conversation, I really did.”

David Towns, a reporter for Florida’s Villages-News.com, named Rinaldi as one of the plaintiffs in an article published on September 9. And seeing her name in that article, according to Rinaldi, came as a surprise.

Rinaldi told the Beast, “When I saw the article, I just about fainted.” And she says that when she spoke to Pierce on Saturday, September 10 — the day after Towns’ Villages-News.com article was published — she told him, “Why did you put my name down? I’m not going to lie.”

Pierce’s clients, according to Sommer, have ranged from Kenosha, Wisconsin shooter Kyle Rittenhouse to a “bevy of Capitol riot defendants.”

Rinaldi said of Loomer, “If she’s going to sue, then let her sue.”

Upset by New York Times exposé on Hasidic schools? That’s what GOP wants for all American kids

Over the weekend, New York Times reporters Eliza Shapiro and Brian Rosenthal published a carefully reported exposé about the private school system run by the Hasidic Jewish community in New York. For decades, this insular community — which largely separates itself from the wider world, including a large majority of Jewish people — has operated its own piecemeal system of religious schools or yeshivas whose goal is “to educate children in Jewish law, prayer and tradition — and to wall them off from the secular world.” Students at these gender-segregated schools spend most of their classroom time on religious instruction, leaving them with very little basic education in science, math, history or other skills necessary in the modern world. The inevitable outcome, Shapiro and Rosenthal report, is that many are trapped “in a cycle of joblessness and dependency.” At one school mentioned in the article, more than 1,000 students took New York State’s standardized reading and math test, and not a single one passed. 

Despite these failures, however, Shapiro and Rosenthal write that the schools “have found ways of tapping into enormous sums of government money, collecting more than $1 billion in the past four years alone.”

In the social-media enclave of people who care about New York politics, this story got tons of attention, with people expressing understandable concern about misuse of government funds and children being denied the right to an education that is supposed to be guaranteed by the state. Outside the New York area, however, there probably wasn’t much public interest. On its surface, this feels like a local not a national problem: The Hasidic community is relatively small (perhaps 200,000 people in all) and the schools in question are only found in Brooklyn and the northern New York suburbs. 


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


Nonetheless, Americans across the country should pay close attention to this story, and should consider its national implications. The same political pressures and flaws in the educational system that allowed this problem to fester in New York are being exploited across the country by conservative activists, nearly all of whom are Christian rather than Jewish. Worse yet, these Christian activists aren’t just interested in keeping their own kids away from secular education. They have grander ambitions, and would like to gut the education system as we know it, to make sure that no one’s kids can enjoy the right to a free, robust public education. 

As Salon’s Kathryn Joyce has documented in considerable detail, a well-organized and well-funded far-right movement has been working diligently, and with much red-state success, to funnel kids out of public schools and towards “alternative” curricula that are focused less on education and more on propagandistic indoctrination toward both a Christian nationalist viewpoint and a highly selective and overtly ideological view of American history.

This strategy is multifaceted. Its most evident public face is the well-funded campaign to demonize public schools with risible and false claims that kids are being “groomed” for pedophilia and indoctrinated to “hate themselves” for being white with “critical race theory.” Groups like Moms for Liberty and the Proud Boys create localized moral panics with lurid tales of supposed pornographic books in school libraries or claims that teachers are somehow trying to “turn” kids trans or queer. Ambitious politicians like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis have made waging war on public schools central to their agenda. 

Under the guise of “school choice,” parents are encouraged to pull kids out of public schools in favor of religion-inflected homeschooling or charter schools based in right-wing propaganda. Through a series of lawsuits and political pressure campaigns, increasing amounts of taxpayer funds have been redirected from public schools towards these private or semi-private ventures, where kids are subject to “lessons” about how most great thinkers have been white men or that LGBTQ identities can be “outgrown.” Earlier this year, this movement got a big assist from the Supreme Court, which ruled that taxpayer funds can go directly to schools that explicitly teach right-wing Christian theology, even if they exclude LGBTQ or non-Christian students. 

The end goal of all this is no secret: Defund and decimate public schools so much that the only remaining forms of education are private schools (or privately managed charters), where the price of learning basic literacy is a truckload of religious indoctrination and falsified American history. The leaders of the movement aren’t coy about this. Christopher Rufo, who was the front man for instigating national panics over “critical race theory” and “grooming” in public schools, often gives speeches crowing about how much damage he’s doing to the public education system. 


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


Because the movement is diffuse and focused on local and state politics, it’s sometimes hard to get a bird’s-eye view of how successful it has been. But there can be no doubt that this war on public education has now become mainstream within the Republican Party, and not just because Donald Trump made Betsy DeVos, one of the nation’s most prominent anti-education activists, his education secretary. In Florida, far-right candidates won numerous school board races this summer, gaining power to continue chipping away at the public school system. The war on teachers across the country has been so successful that many states face a catastrophic teacher shortage. Republicans are taking full advantage of all this, using the shortage as an excuse to strip away requirements that teachers have any real training in education, or even a college degree

After all, educational qualifications don’t matter if the goal of schooling is indoctrination instead of real learning. Larry Arnn, the president of Hillsdale College — base camp for the Christian right’s war on public schools — made that view clear in a recently leaked video of his meeting with Republican Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee. In it, Arnn argues that “you don’t have to be an expert to educate a child,” adding that “basically anybody can do it.” He characterized the current system of public education as “enslavement” and said it “destroys generations of people” to educate them through public schools, with their state-mandated minimum standards and educational requirements on teachers. 

As Shapiro and Rosenthal document in their exposé of Hasidic schools, many teachers in that system “earn as little as $15 an hour” and are “hired off Craigslist or ads on lamp posts.” The same logic that Arnn used is also in action here. Actually educating students to grow into independent-minded and capable adults is hard work. But if you abandon that goal entirely, it becomes a lot easier — and cheaper — to find people to fill these positions. 

As many defensive conservatives are pointing out on social media in response to the Times story, the controversy about Hasidic schools is unfolding in a state and city entirely controlled by Democrats. But that’s not really the “gotcha” they think it is. On the contrary, it shows how dangerous and corrosive the misleading rhetoric about “parents’ rights” and “school choice” really is. Elected officials in New York who should know better have openly ignored state laws guaranteeing a child’s right to an education by allowing these underperforming schools to flourish with no real oversight or intervention. In states like Tennessee and Florida, where Republican leaders are ideologically on board with the anti-education agenda, such rhetoric has even more power. And because it’s adopted by much larger Christian groups, the damage has a chance to spread a lot further. 

The real issue here is not “parents’ rights” but children’s rights. In most cases, the parents’-rights gambit is rhetorical sleight-of-hand meant to distract people from what’s really going on, which is adults depriving vulnerable children of the resources they need to grow into healthy adults. Book bans, “don’t say gay” laws, crackdowns on school newspapers and right-wing takeovers of school boards: It all serves the same purpose. For all the talk about “liberty” and “choice” that anti-education activists engage in, the end goal here is to limit the freedom of thought, and the freedom of life choices, that kids can have as adults. 

Trump fans weaponize records requests to “overwhelm” election workers and “destabilize” midterms

Election officials across the U.S. are facing what many believe appears to be a coordinated effort to overwhelm their offices just as employees are mailing out absentee ballots and preparing for the 2022 midterms—and critics say the deluge of requests hitting election offices is the work of prominent supporters of former President Donald Trump.

As The Washington Post reported Sunday, election workers in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and other states have spent much of their time in recent weeks fielding requests for an array of documents related to the 2020 election, which Trump continues to claim was fraudulent.

Although many counties have published electronic images of all ballots cast in 2020, election offices are receiving demands for documents including poll books, spoiled ballots, remade ballots, voter registration applications, and cast vote records—a record of everything scanned by voting machines, which high-profile election deniers say could help identify ballots that they baselessly claim were switched from votes for Trump to President Joe Biden.

Election workers are bound by law to respond to records requests, which government watchdogs agree serve a vital purpose in ensuring a transparent, fair democratic system.

“They should not be used to harass or overwhelm a system as these coordinated requests from Trump supporters to local election offices appear intended to do,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), on Monday.

Workers in the Bureau of Elections in Michigan has spent roughly 600 hours processing public records requests this year, while the midterm elections require that they hire poll workers, send out ballots to absentee voters and members of the military, secure polling locations, and make other preparations for voting, which starts as early as late September in some states.

Officials in Wisconsin told The Post that monthly records requests are coming in four times more frequently than in 2020, and the election office in Brunswick County, North Carolina has received 10 to 15 since mid-August.

In Maricopa County, Arizona, workers have fielded an unprecedented amount of requests for cast vote records. Trump backer Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow, called on supporters to request the records at an event in August, according to the voting rights news organization Votebeat.

“In 2021, 11 requests came in for the cast vote record,” reported Votebeat last week. “In 2022, up through August 25, the county has gotten more than 90, with more coming in every day.” 

In Brunswick County, one official told The Post, a request for absentee ballot envelopes sent a worker to an off-site warehouse for an entire day, cutting down on time to dedicate to setting up polling locations.

Some of the requests have included admissions that the constituent is acting at the urging of Lindell and other Trump supporters, according to The Post. Many also include identical language, including threats to sue election bureaus their their “involvement in the fraudulent elections that will soon be proven to have taken place since 2017.”

Matt Crain of the Colorado County Clerks Association told The Post that Trump supporters appear to be waging “a denial-of-service attack on local government,” rendering election offices unable to perform their usual work of organizing the election that’s set to take place in just eight weeks.

Election officials in dozens of counties across nearly two dozen states have been inundated with the requests.

“It is happening all over the country,” tweeted Sara Tindall Ghazal, a state election board member in Georgia. “County officials are drowning. And in some cases, when the requester does not like the response they get, they become belligerent and threatening.”

The apparently coordinated attack on election offices comes as election workers face other forms of harassment following the 2020 election, with 1 in 5 saying earlier this year that they planned to quit due to the threats.

The barrage of requests is straining an already “overloaded system,” said Leslie Proll, senior director of the voting rights program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Trump lawyers claim he has the “extraordinary” power to declare all documents “personal records”

Donald Trump’s attorneys conceded that he does not own his presidential records in their latest court filing, while also suggesting he declared those documents to be his personal papers.

The former president’s attorneys downplayed the national security risks of keeping top-secret government records at Mar-a-Lago and said there’s no evidence they had been improperly shared, but his legal team conceded those documents didn’t actually belong to him, reported The Guardian.

“A former President has an unfettered right of access to his Presidential records even though he may not ‘own’ them,” the filing reads. “Thus, contrary to the premise behind the Government’s ‘criminal’ investigation, the determination of whether a former President timely provided documents to the National Archives and Records Administration is a civil matter governed by the [Presidential Records Act].”

Trump’s attorneys responded to a Department of Justice motion asking District Court judge Aileen Cannon to give the government access to classified materials seized in the search, and they suggested that he may have declassified or designated some of those items as personal records.

“The PRA accords any President extraordinary discretion to categorize all his or her records as either Presidential or personal records, and established case law provides for very limited judicial oversight over such categorization,” the filing reads. “The PRA further contains no provision authorizing or allowing for any criminal enforcement. Rather, disputes regarding the disposition of any Presidential record are to be resolved between such President and the National Archives and Records Administration.”

“Thus, at best, the Government might ultimately be able to establish certain Presidential records should be returned to NARA,” the filing adds. “What is clear regarding all of the seized materials is that they belong with either President Trump … or with NARA, but not with the Department of Justice.”

“Something weird is going on”: Speculation swirls as Trump abruptly flies to DC still in golf shoes

YouTuber Andrew Leyden was on his way to catch a glimpse of President Joe Biden’s scheduled visit to the Pentagon on Sunday evening when he received word from independent aircraft trackers that former President Donald Trump’s private Cessna Citation II jet had taken off from Morristown Municipal Airport in New Jersey and landed at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia in what appears to be an unannounced trip to the nation’s capital.

Leyden redirected his car to Dulles and recorded Trump’s plane taxiing just after it touched down. A motorcade was waiting for his arrival.

After some luggage was unloaded, a bedraggled Trump disembarked down the stairs. Curiously, he was still wearing golf shoes and carrying a hat, as if he was abruptly taken off his course in Bedminster. What is also unusual is that Trump has not uttered a word on his fake Twitter app Truth Social.

The footage caught the attention of author Allison Gill, the owner of the popular Twitter account Mueller, She Wrote.

“Something weird is going on,” she tweeted. “No one – and I mean no one – knows why Donald has arrived in DC tonight, looking disheveled in golf clothes. It could be something totally inconsequential, but something tells me it’s not.”

Gill was not alone. Ex-federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner was also intrigued.

“I’d settle for a negotiated self-surrender to be arraigned,” he wrote. “Probably too much to hope for.”

Gill agreed.

“That’s actually what I’m thinking here. But I feel like I’m being dramatic,” she replied.

Wajahat Ali of The Daily Beast expressed skepticism about that.

“Dude will never self-surrender,” he said.

Gill was unsure.

“For a deal he might. But this is so weird. No one knows what he’s doing there,” she stressed.

But there were other ideas too. User Jet Maier wondered if the Federal Bureau of Investigation was preparing to execute another search warrant, only this time at Trump International Golf Club in Sterling.

“If he’s going to his golf course, he may have gotten word it’s being searched, or going to be, and rushed there, post haste,” they speculated.

“That is actually a really reasonable explanation,” responded Gill.

Twitter user John Gavin, meanwhile, suggested that Trump could be in town for medical reasons.

“Walter Reed?” he asked, referring to Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.

Gill doubted it.

“Donald would not fly out of state to go to Walter Reed,” she opined. “If he were going to the hospital, he would go to the nearest hospital and receive treatment there. The government reimburses the hospital when government folk need emergency treatment.”

Gill then conceded that “it could be something totally boring. It’s just weird no one knows.”

More reactions here.

Watch below or at this link.

The heat wave crushing the West is a preview of farmworkers’ hot future

A scorching heat wave is beginning in California. In the San Joaquin Valley, temperatures are expected to stay above 105 degrees for eight days, endangering the 200,000-plus farmworkers who pick the valley’s tomatoes, strawberries, and other crops. On Tuesday, the temperature could soar to 112 degrees in parts of this vast, 8-million-acre swath of California that grows much of the nation’s fruit and vegetables.

As Civil Eats has reported, the consequences of this heat can be deadly. Farmworkers, who are a majority migrant and Spanish-speaking workforce, die of heat-related causes at a rate of 20 times more than other professions.

In 2004, a worker in the valley died from heat stroke after he spent 10 hours picking grapes in 105-degree weather, prompting California to enact the first heat standard in the nation. It requires employers to provide water and shade when temperatures climb above 80 degrees. Fatal heat-related illnesses have decreased since, according to the state’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration, though a recent investigation found understaffing makes it hard to enforce heat protocols, and deaths have continued. At the national level, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration is in the initial stages of creating a federal heat injury and illness prevention.

As climate change drives more extreme heat in California, Angel Santiago Fernandez-Bou, a postdoctoral scholar in environmental systems at University of California, Merced, says extended heat waves like the one coming up will only increase.

He co-authored a report released earlier this year that predicts the annual temperature in the valley will increase 4 to 5 degrees by mid-century, and up to 8 degrees by the end of the century. On a day when Merced was set to hit 107 degrees, Civil Eats spoke with Fernandez-Bou about what this means for farmworkers and agriculture in California.

How will more extreme heat in the San Joaquin Valley impact workers who work in the fields?

Historically, here in the valley, there have been four or five days of extreme heat, and the projection is that by the end of the century, there will be 15 times more, so there will be two months of extreme heat.

You will see a big impact on farmworkers because no one will be able to work under those conditions, and with the law restricting farmworkers exposure to extreme heat, it will make it more challenging to rely on farm work as a profession. It would be inhumane to be working in such extreme heat.

I don’t want to speak for farmworkers, but I can give you an idea of the things I’ve heard. One of the main problems that farmworkers have is language barriers. It limits them to access information that is essential, such as standards to protect them against extreme heat. There are many grassroots organizations that are trying to reach out to farmworkers to tell them they have rights, that their employers have to implement those standards for them. That’s really good, and while obviously no one wants to work in extreme heat, some have to work because they have no other option; they do it because they need to.

Can you speak to how heat will also change the ability to grow certain crops and could alter agriculture as we know it in the San Joaquin Valley? 

Heat destroys a lot of crops. But in terms of farm work, I think crops that rely on a lot of farmworkers will be effected. For example, raisins. In the San Joaquin Valley, raisin production is going down because there  aren’t enough farmworkers to pick up the raisins when they need to be picked up.

Farmworker scarcity is due to several factors, but definitely extreme heat is discouraging for anyone. For context, raisin farms require a lot of specialized farm work, maybe 30 or 40 people for 100 acres. The truth is that no child dreams of becoming a farmworker, and professional farmworkers are going to become more and more scarce.

I’ve heard of farmers losing whole yields because they couldn’t find farmworkers to pick up raisins before a sandstorm. Then the sand covered all the raisins, the sand grains got inside the wrinkles of the raisins and they’re not edible anymore. Raisins may be a crop that disappears from California.

Can you talk about how warming winters will impact agriculture in the valley? 

If there’s a lack of cool or chill hours, the trees don’t rest during the winter, and they may not produce enough yield. For example, pistachios have female and male trees, and if they don’t have enough chill hours, the pollen is not released when the flower opens and then there’s no pollination of the pistachios.

Pistachios are hearty trees. They can be watered with very low-quality water. They are resistant to drought, and they can be planted in soil that’s very bad for many other crops. But they need about 800 to 1,000 chill hours. There are regions of the San Joaquin Valley where the heat is increasing so much that maybe one day, they won’t be able to be grow pistachios because of a lack of chill hours.

They can’t plant almonds (in place of pistachios) either because while almonds cansurvive with few chill hours, the soil has too many salts and almonds are very sensitive to water quality. So, this is a conundrum because farmers won’t be able to plant pistachios or almonds (in these rapidly warming regions). Those are crops that produce the highest revenues in the San Joaquin Valley.

By the nature of their job, farmworkers are at highest risk for heat-related harm, but can you talk about how extreme heat touches entire communities?

People in rural, disadvantaged communities don’t have the means to pay for air conditioning which is a big problem. It makes them less resilient to extreme heat. And at the same time, they cannot open the windows because they have extremely poor air quality around them because of conventional agriculture. We have talked to people living in rural communities, who are not working on the fields, but near the fields, who told us their nose bleeds when the nearby orchards are sprayed with pesticides.

Dust is a major problem, too, because it often carries pesticides that are in the soil, and it can trigger asthma and even Valley Fever. Also, fracking and heavy transportation [in rural, disadvantaged communities] affect air quality.

And if it’s a hot night, they don’t rest and they go to work more tired, and this is a cumulative problem. If you spend one day in the heat, it’s bad, but if you spend a week in extreme heat, it’s much, much, much worse.

What can be done now to prepare for this very hot future?

This year was very hot, and last year was really, really hot, and 2020 was the hottest year on record, tied with 2016. We are seeing extreme heat all over the United States.

We need to worry about what’s happening tomorrow. I think increasing mechanization could help. The manual labor in extreme conditions is very dangerous. These farmworkers can be trained to operate the robots or be the ones who operate the machinery.

And I think one of the most important things to incentivize is agricultural sustainability, especially regenerative agriculture. Regenerative agriculture contributes to healthier soils that can hold more water, more carbon, and access more nutrients for plants and food, while preventing aridification.

Regenerative ag can also create habitat for nature and better environmental conditions for everyone by suppressing pesticides. It improves air quality and creates safer work conditions for farmworkers. Regenerative agriculture can help mitigate climate change and its effects.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Donald Trump: Queen Elizabeth’s Yank stepson? He seems to think so

If you were to read Donald Trump’s Truth Social feed over the past few days you would think that he was a member of the British royal family. He’s posted picture after picture of his bumbling state visit to the U.K. a couple of years ago, along with numerous tributes to the late Queen Elizabeth (always in reference to their allegedly close relationship) and even had someone write a saccharine commemorative op-ed for the Daily Mail under his name. It seems sincere enough. It’s clear that he is genuinely smitten with the British monarchy and sees himself as her late majesty’s American stepson.

Normally, American presidents visit Canada as their first foreign visit, for obvious reasons, and also visit Britain early in their term as a mark of the “special relationship.” Trump, as you may recall, broke with all tradition and almost immediately headed off to Saudi Arabia to get feted by the desert kingdom’s royal family in an especially ostentatious and sycophantic display. (The Saudi royals weren’t the first or last to understand that they could wrap Trump around their little fingers with pomp and flattery.)

Theresa May, who was U.K. prime minister at the time (they’ve had four in the last six years), first invited Trump for a state visit in summer 2017. That turned into an immediate brouhaha in Britain, causing significant political damage to May, and the visit never happened. It was widely as unprecedented for a U.S. president to offered such a splashy event in the first year in any case and with an anti-Trump petition reaching more than 1.5 million signatures in Britain, the queen was reportedly in “a very difficult position.”

There had already been large street protests in U.K. cities against Trump’s election and his infamous “Muslim ban.” Nonetheless negotiations for the visit continued until they hit a snag over Trump’s demand to be taken through the streets of London in Queen Elizabeth’s golden Cinderella coach. It had been used for other visiting dignitaries, including Chinese President Xi Jinping (as Trump was no doubt aware) but security people on both sides of the Atlantic did not want this controversial president riding in a little carriage with the aging monarch, with angry protesters lining the streets, and the whole thing was canceled.

Denied a ride in the “Cinderella coach,” Trump didn’t visit Britain till 2018, when he was tormented by the Baby Blimp and managed to insult both Prime Minister Theresa May and the Muslim mayor of London.

In fact, Trump didn’t visit Britain until July of 2018 when he finally met both May and the queen before heading off to his golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, where he could be the master of all he surveyed. This was the visit when Trump dissed May in the papers, saying about her handling of Brexit, “I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree.” Diplomatic, as usual. He tried to make it up to May by holding her hand and declaring that their relationship was at “the highest level of special.”

This was the visit where the famous Trump Baby Blimp was flown over the streets of London, cheered on by tens of thousands of protesters. (It was later acquired by the Museum of London.) He also managed to insult the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, telling the city’s public, “You have a mayor who has done a terrible job in London” and calling him a “stone cold loser.”

Then there was the moment when Trump almost tripped the elderly queen by defying protocol and walking in front of her:

Luckily for him, this notoriously embarrassing visit was immediately eclipsed by what he did at this next stop: That was in Helsinki, where he groveled and scraped before Vladimir Putin in one of the worst foreign policy performances in American history.


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


A year later, the British government apparently felt obligated to offer Trump the state visit he craved, since they’d staged them for both George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He didn’t receive the golden carriage ride but they soothed him with all the pomp and circumstance he has believed he deserved ever since he supposedly sat at his Scottish immigrant mother’s knee watching Queen Elizabeth’s coronation on TV. He just loves that stuff.

Unlike other dignitaries, Trump brought his entire family along for the festivities, spouses included. It’s surprising he didn’t invite all the ex-wives and grandchildren as well. That visit will go down in history as one of the most awkward, uncouth public appearances by a world leader in modern memory. They wore bad dresses and ill-fitting tuxedos and appeared to all the world as the Clampetts of Washington, D.C., even appearing on the famous balcony at Buckingham Palace as if they were preparing to challenge William and Kate for the throne:

Notice Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin taking videos like a tourist from Boca Raton, while various other randos just stand around on the balcony as if they were at Disneyland.

I’m not saying that Americans have any obligation to treat royal property with special reverence, but the president’s entourage should behave with a little class if at all possible. These particular Americans were so over-the-top excited about being pretend-royalty for a day, it was downright uncomfortable to watch.

Trump has been going on and on for days about what a great honor it was to meet the queen and is portraying himself as almost as close with the new king, as if they were old golf buddies or something. He really, truly loves the royal family.

In fact, he has more in common with them than he might realize. Recall that the royals were confronted with the inconvenient fact during World War I that their name was Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, reflecting their true German lineage. That wasn’t a good look in Britain at the time and so they changed the name to the much more English-sounding Windsor. Trump’s paternal ancestors were also German and changed their name,(from Drumpf to Trump) for similar reasons. He is famously proud to have that “German blood,” just like the late queen.

With all that in common, it’s a wonder they haven’t found some leftover dukedom for him, at the very least. Maybe the next time Trump and his good pal King Charlie are on the links, he can put that bug in his ear.