Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Rudy Giuliani says that 9/11 was, in some ways, the greatest day of his life

Days before the 21st anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, Rudy Giuliani appeared on Newsmax to discuss what it was like to serve as Mayor of New York City during that time. Looking back at the events that transpired after two planes flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, Giuliani describes his feelings as “complex.”

“I guess the best way to describe it is it was the worst day of my life and in some ways, you know, the greatest day of my life in terms of my city, my country, my family,” Giuliani says.

“It was the worst foreign attack on this country since the war of 1812,” Giuliani continued. “It was a complete surprise. It was an attack on completely innocent people and I watched it first-hand.”

Describing the first “shocking incident” the former mayor witnessed after the attacks, Giuliani recalls seeing a man jump 101 floors from one of the towers.

“I was transfixed by it,” Giuliani says. “All the things that go through your head — why is he doing it? How did he make that choice? Oh my God, can I stop it . . . can I grab him? And then all of a sudden he hit the ground and I watched what happened to his body, which I will not describe.”


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


 Giuliani recalls feeling the need to throw out any pre-conceived emergency plans and trudge forward based on instincts alone, and then praying to God that they all hopefully made the right decisions.

“The thing that sticks with me always is the image of the people coming in in the morning to work,” Giuliani says. “From people delivering bagels, to people opening up their complicated computer programs, to people just opening little stores. Completely innocent people having nothing to do with the insanity of this attack.”

What the full interview segment below:

Neil LaBute talks “House of Darkness,” his modern take on “Dracula” that flips the power dynamic

Neil LaBute‘s debut film, “In the Company of Men,” 25 years ago, was rife with toxic male behavior as two male coworkers set out to “ruin” a female colleague. His latest film, “House of Darkness” may be the flipside of that narrative as Hap (Justin Long) never quite seems to have much control while on a date with Mina (Kate Bosworth), despite what he thinks.

“What if I take what looks like a meet cute and pull that over into the horror world?”

The couple have only just met at a bar earlier that evening. Hap has “gallantly” driven Mina home — of course, with the expectation of sleeping with her. (Hap expresses it more crudely when gloating over the phone to a buddy about his planned evening.) But don’t think Mina isn’t aware of Hap’s intentions. She asks Hap quite pointedly if he is honest (he admits he’s a fibber), and, also, if he is married (he grudgingly admits he is legally separated). Hap’s discomfort only increases as Mina’s sister, Lucy (Gia Crovatin), walks in on them just after Mina has unbuckled Hap’s trousers. Act Two features an extended dialogue between Lucy and Hap that also does not bode well for him.

LaBute’s talky film is a slow burn that may signpost where it is going, but the leads keep things interesting because Long is chatty and obsequious, while Bosworth maintains both composure and an allure. “House of Darkness” is ultimately a genre exercise (it’s inspired by Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”) that plays out in, well, an old, dark house. (The electricity goes out shortly after Hap and Mina arrive, so much of the atmospheric first act is illuminated by a fireplace and candlelight.) 

The filmmaker talked with Salon about his new film, the power dynamics between his characters, and his career as a whole.

You’ve long been writing plays and making features and shorts about the interplay between men and women. What did you feel you still need to say about gender roles and male and female dynamics with “House of Darkness?”

Now, it’s looking to find new ways to do that. How does that fit that into genre? What if I take what looks like a meet cute and pull that over into the horror world? It’s always been fascinating to me in terms of what I’ve viewed as a person and what I’ve tried to create as well. Men and women, and women and women, and men and men, those dynamics between people are endlessly watchable and fascinating. Eric Rohmer culled that world for 40 years and I think I’ve seen them all. What made him interested in that? Or Claude Chabrol go after the dynamics and filter them through thrillers? We like what we like. I’ve been enamored of it as a person, and as a filmmaker and a playwright. I keep going to that well because that well is interesting and I keep finding something in the well. It hasn’t gone dry yet — unless you disagree.

What I love about your films in general, and this film in particular, is how the language is often used as a weapon. Hap accuses Mina of “putting words in his mouth” when he is just careless about what he says, or how he expresses himself. Mina does “say what she means” and wonders why Hap doesn’t. Is this film a cautionary tale about using your words? He is as sloppy as she is precise.

That’s part of it. Part of the dynamic is looking at what if this was flipped? If a woman gave a guy a ride home, would she even get out of the car, and go into that place? The luxury of feeling in control a guy has often in his life is something that doesn’t get examined. Filtering it through this fable — here’s a dark and stormy night and he drives a woman home, and he is self-professed “a good guy,” and makes claims, “Oh, should I even come in?”

But he’s pushing further and further even when red flags are going off, and the lights go out, he still feels that he is in control. That dynamic of power that is rooted in a person simply from gender, because of genre, you can flip it in a way that would be much harder than if they are two regular people just off the street. They turn out to be not exactly that. So, we were about to ask, “What happens when someone feels fear for the first time, and realize what they said is going to get them in trouble?” What he says and what he means and what is the truth and what is the lie. That was fun to play with in a film that increasingly gets more like horror as you go along. 

Hap is an unreliable narrator. But it’s Justin Long, so I don’t know that I believe him. I want to, but I’m not sure . . .

It’s funny casting him because even if people don’t know his name, they go, “I like that guy. He’s funny.” They want to give him the chance to believe him. He gets away with a lot as an actor and as a character that other actors may not have gotten away with.

House of DarknessJustin Long as Hap Jackson in “House of Darkness” (Saban Films)

His performance is really specific. He just digs himself deeper into this grave and just cannot read the room. It’s cringy and funny and almost too much. I’m not sure who I’m rooting for. 

By the end of the film, I’m curious what the percentage of people will be, “Yeah, I’m OK with all of this.” It will be interesting to see what people think. Kate [Bosworth] on the other side of the couch, is so precise and still and in control in how she makes her moves and uses silence.

There is a morality at work, or at play, here, with Mina and Lucy questioning — and perhaps judging — Hap about his guilt, or his needing validation. Is it adultery if he is married, but legally separated? What can you say about developing the characters? 

“What happens when someone feels fear for the first time, and realize what they said is going to get them in trouble?”

The women talked about that in a way. We tried to keep, not distance, between the actors, but in terms of Justin keeping his cards closer to his vest in terms of how he felt about the character. The women, because they were sisters, they are approaching things in a different away. Would Mina let him go if only he said the right things? Is there a mission — do we have an obligation to take out the worst people, rather than just anybody? That was fun to talk about, but not necessarily in the script. It was fun for the actors to have that ammo in their heads without everything be written down.

You are putting a genre spin on the seduction here. There are a few moments of non-verbal violence that may be jarring for viewers. I think your films are emotionally violent. This is more physical.

We owed ourselves to build towards that and have a payoff in that world. It’s much more about creating the tension and asking people to wait and have that burn be very slow and build. It is a completely different set of rules and tools when you try to stretch out and create — in almost real time — something palpable that feels like fear or dread. That takes a whole different approach, especially if you want actors to be in the same frame, and not do it through editing. Some of it is on the page, some is you are building in room, some is from the source material and what [the inspiration] is doing. For me, it was more about if those weird sisters were around, what would they be doing? What do they do for fun? Is this fun? Those ideas when into the script.  

“House of Darkness” is very theatrical, given that it’s set in one location, and has only two or three characters, mostly talking. You use space well to isolate the characters and create emotion. How did you develop the film’s visual style?

It would be fun to see if you could drag it on to the stage, and how it would play out. In these situations, the ability to get close, but in a theater, you are at a fixed distance from the actors unless they come closer to you. Film is able to overwhelm you in a way that theater can’t, even though it is a live experience. With the same mechanics, how different an experience would it be? When you can see things in a movie house, it’s an overwhelming in the best way as opposed to watching it on your phone, which doesn’t transport you in the same way. 

I appreciate that you are a storyteller, like Lucy. And I suspect you are a game player like Mina. Are you a fibber like Hap? How much of yourself is in these characters?

I am all of them, sure, yeah. Do I see myself as any one of them? No. But you want to believe in the course of what you are writing, that you are making a character where you think, “I see a piece of me in that.” Whether is it the good one, or the bad one, or one in between. I’m capable of all those beats — maybe not the last three or four, but everything up to that is fair game.

It’s been 25 years since your breakout film, “In the Company of Men,” yet somehow you will probably most be identified with your remake of “The Wicker Man,” which has developed, pun intended, a cult following. You’ve taken risks but you’ve also made films that are clearly by Neil LaBute if folks don’t see the credits. What observations do you have about your career?

There was a moment along the way several films in where you make a decision: Are you going to write or direct everything, or be open to directing other people’s stuff, or adapt stuff? I took a road that said I am open to attempting stuff that I find interesting, and I’ll write as much as I can write, but there are other scripts that I am going to stumble onto. When I first saw “Nurse Betty,” that was a script I didn’t want to give up. I didn’t write it, I did a lot of writing on it, but it was a choice to direct that or write my own thing. I’ve adapted stuff, I’ve remade stuff, I’ve done originals and it’s allowed me to create some kind of serpentine career that has been my own.

What is interesting is that over the years, and it may be why I watch all your film, but I don’t always like the characters you write. 

Nor do I! But that doesn’t mean that they don’t pop out. 


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


What do you look for when you create your work?

I don’t question it too much. If I’m adapting or someone is paying me to do something in a certain way, that’s a particular kind of job. But when I have a story, or get an idea, and it feels sound after I’ve taken it for a spin a few times, and say, “Does this work for me? Is this really interesting?” I don’t ask why these people show up, I figure, they are there, and I want to be true to them and tell their story, so I go off and do it. I supposed if I was an honest-to-goodness therapist, I’d spend more time wondering why than I do about the how and the what. If it feels like they are worth creating, then I put them on the page and sometime bring them to the stage or the screen. 

“See How They Run” is in theaters Sept. 9. Watch a trailer via YouTube.

Juul’s woes come full circle: E-cigarette maker must pay $438.5 million

E-cigarette manufacturer Juul suffered a major financial blow on Tuesday after they tentatively agreed to pay $438.5 million as a way of settling an investigation into its controversial marketing practices — a significant sum for a company whose 2021 net earnings were $2.475 billion, according to their financial filings. In the process, Juul has potentially put an end to an investigation that involved almost three dozen states. It has been a long and winding journey for the embattled company, which has raised eyebrows in recent years for doing things like buying an entire issue of a scientific journal and allegedly targeting young people with its advertisements.

The latter practice is what forced Juul to agree to the nine-figure settlement paid out to a number of U.S. states, as studies have repeatedly shown that e-cigarettes have become a preferred method of smoking nicotine among young people. Indeed, a recent peer-reviewed research study estimated that between $130 million and $650 million of Juul’s net 2018 revenue came from youth.

According to a 2021 report by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), roughly 2.55 million American teenagers — or roughly 1 out of every 11 (9.3%) — currently use a nicotine product; “current” is defined here as meaning they had used the product within 30 days. This includes 2.06 million high school students, or 13.4% of all high schoolers, and 470,000 middle school students (4%).

E-cigarettes were, by overwhelming numbers, the preferred method for consuming nicotine, with 2.06 million middle schoolers and high schoolers (7.6%) saying that they smoke by vaping. By contrast, only 410,000 (1.5%) said they preferred cigarettes.


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


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that, since 2014, e-cigarettes have remained the most frequently used tobacco product among young people. There is also circumstantial evidence that e-cigarettes’ multitude of flavors has helped the product gain traction: as of 2021, 85.8% of high school students and 79.2% of middle school students who consumed e-cigarettes within 30 days did so with a flavored version.

A 2022 meta-analysis of existing scholarship concluded that “the use of e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention for smoking cessation may lead to permanent nicotine dependence.”

“The first thing is that e-cigarettes almost always contain nicotine,” Robert Schwartz, a professor at the University of Toronto and Executive Director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, told Salon. He explained that nicotine products are “very highly addictive,” adding that “the research has demonstrated very clearly that young people who vape nicotine become dependent on that nicotine.”

He explicitly linked this to e-cigarette marketing campaigns, which he said were indeed analogous to those of Big Tobacco years ago.

“A lot of the same kinds of approaches have been taken,” Schwartz pointed out. “It’s about lifestyle. Juul in its early promotions to young people promoted it as cool. It’s the ‘thing to do,’ and using all kinds of colors and appealing images of young people themselves using the vaping products, they clearly have adopted tobacco tactics.”

As the recent tentative settlement makes clear, the popularity of e-cigarettes like Juul among young people is precisely what put the company in its current predicament. When the company was first proposed in 2004 (under the name Ploom), its founders described it as “the rational future of smoking.” By 2007 the company was off the ground, and was valued by PitchBook at roughly $3 million in February 2008. In 2015, the original founders, Adam Bowen and James Monsees, sold the Ploom brand and vaporizer line to a Japanese tobacco company named JTI, and by June 1st of that same year, JTI officially launched the Juul.

2016 was perhaps the climactic year for the Juul, with sales rising by 600% as the product took off, becoming a cultural touchstone among millennials and Generation Z. By November 2017, Juul products had captured one-third of the e-cigarette market — and with that success came heightened scrutiny for the advertising campaigns that made them appear cool and attractive to young people. Scott Gottlieb, who at the time was FDA commissioner, launched an “undercover blitz” against Juul in April 2018, with the stated goal of ending the sale of tobacco products to young people. In the largest coordinated enforcement effort in the history of the agency, the FDA sent more than 1,300 warning letters and fines to retailers accused of targeting minors with their tobacco products.

“A lot of the same kinds of approaches have been taken,” Schwartz pointed out. “It’s about lifestyle. Juul in its early promotions to young people promoted it as cool. It’s the ‘thing to do,’ and using all kinds of colors and appealing images of young people themselves using the vaping products, they clearly have adopted tobacco tactics.”

Yet despite this negative publicity — as well as increased heat from the FDA and bans on Juul products in municipalities from San Francisco to Israel — Juul continued to prosper. In 2019, however, the House of Representatives joined the FDA in investigating Juul’s marketing practices as well as a recent decision by tobacco company Altria to purchase 35% of the company. Before the end of the year, other nations like China and India had also stopped selling Juul products or banned them altogether. By 2021, Altria and Juul argued that the company was worth anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion — and it had been valued at $38 billion only two years earlier. In June 2022, the FDA finally dropped the hammer and ruled that Juul could neither sell nor distribute its e-cigarettes in the United States.

Although proponents of e-cigarettes claim that they can be a tool for smoking cessation, the scientific evidence strongly suggests this is not the case. A 2022 meta-analysis of existing scholarship concluded that “the use of e-cigarettes as a therapeutic intervention for smoking cessation may lead to permanent nicotine dependence.” Similarly, a 2022 study in the British Medical Journal about e-vaping in 2017 found that “on average, using e-cigarettes for cessation in 2017 did not improve successful quitting or prevent relapse.”

Diet can influence mood, behavior and more — a neuroscientist explains

During the long seafaring voyages of the 15th and 16th centuries, a period known as the Age of Discovery, sailors reported experiencing visions of sublime foods and verdant fields. The discovery that these were nothing more than hallucinations after months at sea was agonizing. Some sailors wept in longing; others threw themselves overboard.

The cure for these harrowing mirages turned out to be not a concoction of complex chemicals, as once suspected, but rather the simple antidote of lemon juice. These sailors suffered from scurvy, a disease caused by a deficiency of vitamin C, an essential micronutrient that people acquire from eating fruits and vegetables.

Vitamin C is important for the production and release of neurotransmitters, the chemical messengers of the brain. In its absence, brain cells do not communicate effectively with one another, which can lead to hallucinations.

As this famous example of early explorers illustrates, there is an intimate connection between food and the brain, one that researchers like me are working to unravel. As a scientist who studies the neuroscience of nutrition at the University of Michigan, I am primarily interested in how components of food and their breakdown products can alter the genetic instructions that control our physiology.

Beyond that, my research is also focused on understanding how food can influence our thoughts, moods and behaviors. While we can’t yet prevent or treat brain conditions with diet, researchers like me are learning a great deal about the role that nutrition plays in the everyday brain processes that make us who we are.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a delicate balance of nutrients is key for brain health: Deficiencies or excesses in vitamins, sugars, fats and amino acids can influence brain and behavior in either negative or positive ways.

Vitamins and mineral deficiencies

As with vitamin C, deficits in other vitamins and minerals can also precipitate nutritional diseases that adversely impact the brain in humans. For example, low dietary levels of vitamin B3/niacin – typically found in meat and fish – cause pellagra, a disease in which people develop dementia.

Niacin is essential to turn food into energy and building blocks, protect the genetic blueprint from environmental damage and control how much of certain gene products are made. In the absence of these critical processes, brain cells, also known as neurons, malfunction and die prematurely, leading to dementia.

In animal models, decreasing or blocking the production of niacin in the brain promotes neuronal damage and cell death. Conversely, enhancing niacin levels has been shown to mitigate the effects of neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and Parkinson’s. Observational studies in humans suggest that sufficient levels of niacin may protect against these diseases, but the results are still inconclusive.

Interestingly, niacin deficiency caused by consumption of excessive amounts of alcohol can lead to similar effects as those found with pellagra.

Another example of how a nutrient deficiency affects brain function can be found in the element iodine, which, like niacin, must be acquired from one’s diet. Iodine, which is present in seafood and seaweed, is an essential building block for thyroid hormones – signaling molecules that are important for many aspects of human biology, including development, metabolism, appetite and sleep. Low iodine levels prevent the production of adequate amounts of thyroid hormones, impairing these essential physiological processes.

Iodine is particularly important to the developing human brain; before table salt was supplemented with this mineral in the 1920s, iodine deficiency was a major cause of cognitive disability worldwide. The introduction of iodized salt is thought to have contributed to the gradual rise in IQ scores in the past century.

Ketogenic diet for epilepsy

Not all dietary deficiencies are detrimental to the brain. In fact, studies show that people with drug-resistant epilepsy – a condition in which brain cells fire uncontrollably – can reduce the number of seizures by adopting an ultralow-carbohydrate regimen, known as a ketogenic diet, in which 80% to 90% of calories are obtained from fat.

Carbohydrates are the preferred energy source for the body. When they are not available – either because of fasting or because of a ketogenic diet – cells obtain fuel by breaking down fats into compounds called ketones. Utilization of ketones for energy leads to profound shifts in metabolism and physiology, including the levels of hormones circulating in the body, the amount of neurotransmitters produced by the brain and the types of bacteria living in the gut.

Researchers think that these diet-dependent changes, especially the higher production of brain chemicals that can quiet down neurons and decrease levels of inflammatory molecules, may play a role in the ketogenic diet’s ability to lower the number of seizures. These changes may also explain the benefits of a ketogenic state – either through diet or fasting – on cognitive function and mood.


Some foods can negatively affect your memory and mood.

Sugar, saturated fats and ultraprocessed foods

Excess levels of some nutrients can also have detrimental effects on the brain. In humans and animal models, elevated consumption of refined sugars and saturated fats – a combination commonly found in ultraprocessed foods – promotes eating by desensitizing the brain to the hormonal signals known to regulate satiety.

Interestingly, a diet high in these foods also desensitizes the taste system, making animals and humans perceive food as less sweet. These sensory alterations may affect food choice as well as the reward we get from food. For example, research shows that people’s responses to ice cream in brain areas important for taste and reward are dulled when they eat it every day for two weeks. Some researchers think this decrease in food reward signals may enhance cravings for even more fatty and sugary foods, similar to the way smokers crave cigarettes.

High-fat and processed-food diets are also associated with lower cognitive function and memory in humans and animal models as well as a higher incidence of neurodegenerative diseases. However, researchers still don’t know if these effects are due to these foods or to the weight gain and insulin resistance that develop with long-term consumption of these diets.

Time scales

This brings us to a critical aspect of the effect of diet on the brain: time. Some foods can influence brain function and behavior acutely – such as over hours or days – while others take weeks, months or even years to have an effect. For instance, eating a slice of cake rapidly shifts the fat-burning, ketogenic metabolism of an individual with drug-resistant epilepsy into a carbohydrate-burning metabolism, increasing the risk of seizures. In contrast, it takes weeks of sugar consumption for taste and the brain’s reward pathways to change, and months of vitamin C deficiency to develop scurvy. Finally, when it comes to diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, risk is influenced by years of dietary exposures in combination with other genetic or lifestyle factors such as smoking.

In the end, the relationship between food and the brain is a bit like the delicate Goldilocks: We need not too little, not too much but just enough of each nutrient.

Monica Dus, Associate Professor of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan

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

Biden’s speech worked: Nearly 6 in 10 Americans agree MAGA is a threat to democracy

Last week, President Joe Biden gave a speech warning that “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Since then, Republicans have been performing umbrage. This, in turn, led to a great deal of media worrying about whether Biden’s speech was “divisive” or could backfire by recasting the fight to save democracy in “partisan” terms. There was reason to be worried. Americans tend to distrust politicians, viewing their public proclamations as political noise better dismissed than taken seriously. But in this case, it appears Biden’s choice to give the speech worked to focus voter attention on the very real threat to democracy posed by Trump and the MAGA movement. 

Biden gave his speech right before Labor Day weekend and then Reuters/Ipsos polled Americans after the holiday. What they found was a solid 58% of respondents agreed with Biden that Trump and his movement are undermining democracy. Interestingly, 59% also agreed that the speech was “divisive,” showing that all the media handwringing was influencing people’s responses. Clearly, a lot of respondents are of the belief that they are smart enough to see the truth in Biden’s words but worry that other Americans are not. Still, Biden accomplished what he set out to do. Americans are listening, paying attention, and really beginning to believe the threat to democracy is real


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


It would be an overstatement to suggest Biden caused Americans to wake up to the threats with a single speech. He was helped by a summer-long news cycle that provided the evidence for his claim so that by the time he made it, voters were ready to listen.

First, there were the dramatic congressional hearings of the January 6 committee, which laid out a persuasive case that Trump deliberately incited the Capitol riot in an effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The hearings had barely faded from the news when the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago in an effort to recover classified documents that Trump had illegally taken. The following drip-drip of news stories showing the lengths Trump went to in order to conceal his possession of the documents and prevent the government from taking them back has only underscored the public sense that he’s up to something sinister. Meanwhile, Trump has been engaged in an unsubtle effort to provoke the same kind of MAGA devotees who stormed the Capitol to take some kind of violent action against the FBI on his behalf. Already, there was one well-publicized terrorist attack, which ended pathetically but made it much harder to ignore the impact Trump’s inciting language has on his followers. Often, discussions defining fascism or authoritarianism get bogged down by academic nit-picking that most people struggle to follow, but political violence is an unmistakable warning sign most Americans understand quite well.

That’s likely why Biden focused on that aspect in his speech, as well as in an earlier one where he argued that the embrace of political violence rendered MAGA a “semi-fascist” movement. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., made a similar point on “Face the Nation” on Sunday, calling political violence one of the “hallmarks of fascism.” 

All of this together sends a clear and compelling message to voters: Trump is lawless and violent. He puts his own will to power ahead of democracy and rule of law.

Even before Biden gave his speech, fears about the future of democracy had risen to the top of the polls listing Americans’ main concerns. While a lot of that is driven by Republicans repeating Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election, polling also shows that Democratic voters are increasingly worried that the American system is failing. That’s a big swing from even a few months ago when the concern was that Democratic voters had been lulled by Biden’s win into complacency. 

Biden’s choice to give the speech worked to focus voter attention on the very real threat to democracy posed by Trump and the MAGA movement

All of this evidence laid the groundwork, but Biden’s speech likely still helped galvanize voter opinion. This goes back to a popular political concept from Barack Obama’s presidency: the idea of a “permission structure.” The premise is that there are ideas or choices some people feel attracted to, but they are held back by social fears. In this case, people see all the evidence of a growing authoritarian threat but fear that saying so out loud will register as hyperbolic. By giving this speech — and refusing to back down or apologize when Republicans complained about it — Biden sent a signal that it’s okay to give voice to those nagging concerns. 


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


There’s a reason that the leading GOP talking points about January 6 have centered on minimizing the horrors of the day by calling the insurrectionists “peaceful protesters.” They’re leveraging the “it can’t happen here” myth to pressure people into ignoring the evidence of their eyes and ears. That’s why it was so effective for Biden to argue that “we must be honest with each other and with ourselves” and that we “do ourselves no favor to pretend” that democracy isn’t under threat. He was directly rebutting the GOP’s main rhetorical strategy. 

Of course, it helps significantly that, as David Frum wrote in the Atlantic, Trump was provoked by Biden’s speech into a “monstrously self-involved meltdown.” Just this week, Trump went to a Pennsylvania rally where he gave a lengthy speech raving about the FBI raid instead of promoting the statewide GOP candidates, as he was supposed to do. He’s also gone back to dangling out the promise of pardons for the insurrectionists, recasting those who were convicted of crimes as heroes instead of the “few bad apples” narrative the GOP establishment prefers. Taking pride in January 6 only ends up reinforcing Biden’s message: Trump is dangerous and a threat to democracy. 

During his speech, Biden offered an off-ramp to Republicans who may not like Trump but fear what it means to buck their own party. “Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology,” Biden insisted, characterizing those who aren’t MAGA as “mainstream Republicans.”

That’s why it was so effective for Biden to argue that “we must be honest with each other and with ourselves” and that we “do ourselves no favor to pretend” that democracy isn’t under threat.

This part of the speech has been criticized, including by Salon’s Chauncey DeVega, and for good reason. It simply isn’t true that Trump sits outside of the mainstream of his party. He’s the favorite to win the 2024 nomination because most Republican voters like and support him. Polling shows, time and again, that most Republican voters even sign off on the Big Lie, either believing Trump’s lies about the 2020 election or playing along with the Big Lie because they see it as a road to power. 

Still, Biden is betting that a significant chunk of Republicans are harboring doubts about Trump. The polling suggests this suspicion has some merit. One out of four Republicans polled by Reuters agreed that Trump and MAGA are a threat to democracy. True, that’s only a minority of Republicans and far from the “mainstream” of the party. But Republicans still need those voters to win elections.  If they start to lose some of those folks because of Trump, it could go a long way towards weakening Trump’s power and derailing the MAGA movement. 


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


That quarter of Republicans is right to worry. Tucker Carlson of Fox News may put out propaganda videos casting authoritarian leaders like Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in a beatific light, pretending they preside over harmonious utopias. In reality, however, authoritarian societies are often marked by social strife and government incompetence, especially as political leaders tend to be more interested in lining their own pockets than serving their constituents. The ever-looming threat of political violence has already become a reality in the U.S., but there really is no telling how bad things could get if things further devolve.

Until recently, however, this threat has been so abstract that it’s been hard for Democrats to really convince the public that it’s real. That shifted over the summer and likely will shift some more as the January 6 committee reconvenes for fall hearings. Biden warned Americans that “equality and democracy are under assault.” Americans, it appears, are finally listening. 

The $18,000 breast biopsy: When having insurance costs you a bundle

When Dani Yuengling felt a lump in her right breast last summer, she tried to ignore it.

She was 35, the same age her mother had been when she received a breast cancer diagnosis in 1997. The disease eventually killed Yuengling’s mom in 2017.

“It was the hardest experience, seeing her suffer,” said Yuengling, who lives in Conway, South Carolina.

After a mammogram confirmed the lump needed further investigation, Yuengling scheduled a breast biopsy for Valentine’s Day this year at Grand Strand Medical Center in Myrtle Beach.

Among many concerns she had ahead of that appointment — the first being a potential cancer diagnosis — Yuengling needed to know how much the biopsy would cost. She has a $6,000 annual deductible — the amount her health plan requires she pay before its contribution kicks in — and she wasn’t close to hitting that. Whatever the procedure cost, Yuengling knew she’d be on the hook for most of it.

But the hospital wouldn’t give her a price. She was told her providers wouldn’t know what type of biopsy needle they needed until the procedure was underway and that would impact the price.

The hospital’s online “Patient Payment Estimator” showed Yuengling an uninsured patient would owe about $1,400 for the procedure.

“That’s fine. No big deal,” she thought to herself, confident it would be cheaper for her because she did have insurance. A Google search indicated it could be closer to $3,000, but Yuengling thought that price seemed reasonable, too. She wasn’t fretting too much about money as she underwent the procedure.

It soon brought the good news that she didn’t have cancer.

Then the bill came.

The Patient: Dani Yuengling, now 36, who is covered by Cigna through her employer, a human resources contractor for the Mayo Clinic.

Medical Service: An ultrasound-guided breast biopsy.

Service Provider: Grand Strand Medical Center, a 403-bed, for-profit hospital in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. It is one of 182 hospitals owned by Nashville-based HCA Healthcare, which generated $58.7 billion in revenue last year.

Total Bill: $17,979 for the procedure, including lab work, pharmacy charges, and sterile supplies. Cigna’s in-network negotiated rate was $8,424.14, of which the insurance company paid the hospital $3,254.47. Yuengling was billed $5,169.67, the balance of her deductible.

What Gives: It’s not uncommon for uninsured patients — or any patient willing to pay a cash price — to be charged far less for a procedure than patients with health insurance. For the nearly 30% of American workers with high-deductible plans, like Yuengling, that means using insurance can lead to a far bigger expense than if they had been uninsured or just pulled out a credit card to pay in advance.

Ge Bai, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, recently published research on this topic and said hospitals in the U.S. often set their cash prices lower than the prices they charge to treat commercially insured patients.

“We can very confidently say this is very common,” said Bai, who advised that all patients, regardless of their insurance status, inquire about the cash price before undergoing a procedure. “It should be a norm.”

Grand Strand charged Yuengling’s insurance an extraordinarily high price for her procedure. By comparison, according to the federal government’s website, Medicare patients who need an ultrasound-guided biopsy similar to the one Yuengling received would pay only about $300 — their required 20% coinsurance for outpatient care. Medicare would pay the hospital the remainder of the bill, about $1,200. The hospital expected more than five times the Medicare price from Yuengling and her insurer.

Patients in Conway with private health insurance who are treated at other hospitals also typically are charged less than what Yuengling paid for the same procedure — on average about $3,500, according to Fair Health Consumer, an organization that analyzes health insurance claims.

And uninsured patients who pay cash prices and need an ultrasound-guided breast biopsy at the nearby Conway Medical Center are likely to owe even less — about $2,100, according to Allyson Floyd, a spokesperson for the hospital.

Meanwhile, Grand Strand Medical Center spokesperson Caroline Preusser blamed “a glitch” involving the hospital’s online calculator for the inaccurate information Yuengling received and said the correct estimate for the cash price for a breast biopsy at the hospital is between $8,000 and $11,500 “depending on the exact procedure and equipment used.”

The hospital removed certain procedures from the payment estimator until they can be corrected, Preusser wrote. She did not say how long that would take.

Resolution: Yuengling tried disputing the charges with the hospital. She called the billing department and was offered a 36% discount, lowering the amount she needed to pay to $3,306.29. Grand Strand Medical Center allows patients to set up payment plans, but Yuengling decided to charge the full amount to a credit card because she wanted the whole thing to go away.

“I could not sleep. It was driving me crazy. I was having migraines. I was sick to my stomach,” she said. “I hate having debt. I didn’t want to think about it. Obviously, that didn’t work because I’m still thinking about it.”

She said she requested on multiple occasions to speak to the hospital’s patient advocate and was eventually connected with an outside company, Parallon, which conducted an audit of her bill. She eventually received a letter dated May 26 from the hospital’s Revenue Integrity Department. It stated: “After a review of the charges in question and your medical record, the following was identified; The charges on your account were appropriate.”

“I don’t know why I actually expected a different outcome,” she said.

The hospital has requested that Yuengling return for a follow-up appointment related to the biopsy. She has refused.

Harlow Sumerford, a spokesperson for HCA Healthcare, told KHN in an email that the hospital system apologizes for any confusion caused by the payment estimator “and we are working to fix the issue.”

The Takeaway: With a family history of breast cancer, Yuengling was right to follow up with her doctor after feeling a lump. After failing to get a clear answer on her costs from Grand Strand Medical Center, she could have taken an additional step to explore what other hospitals in the area charge. Although her physician referred her to Grand Strand, she was not obligated to use that hospital. She could have saved a significant amount of money by opting to undergo the procedure elsewhere.

Furthermore, patients like Yuengling who have a high-deductible insurance plan should consider paying cash prices for certain procedures and not involving their insurance company at all.

Jacqueline Fox, a health care attorney and a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, said she isn’t aware of any law that would prohibit a patient from doing that. After all, she pointed out, patients with health insurance pay cash prices for prescription medications all the time. It stands to reason they could do the same for medical procedures.

But some facilities make this difficult. Grand Strand Medical Center, for example, offers “self-pay” patients an “uninsured discount,” but that discount is limited to people who have “no third party payer source of payment or do not qualify for Medicaid, Charity or any other discount program the facility offers,” according to the hospital’s website. Only patients confirmed to have no health insurance are offered information about the discount.

In some cases, paying a cash price for a procedure might not make financial sense in the long run because none of it would be applied toward the deductible. Patients might save money on one procedure but end up paying their full deductible if unexpected medical expenses mount later during the calendar year.

Insured patients should reach out to their health plan for a good-faith estimate before a procedure. Under the No Surprises Act, health plans are supposed to give members an idea of their total out-of-pocket costs upon request. Ask for an “Advanced Explanation of Benefits,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, though she points out this part of the law isn’t being enforced yet.

The No Surprises Act also allows patients to file complaints with the federal government regarding their medical bills — whether or not they carry health insurance.

Yuengling filed her complaint in June.

Stephanie O’Neill contributed the audio portrait with this article.


Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KHN and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Not like udder milk: Synthetic dairy milk made without cows may be coming to a supermarket near you

The global dairy industry is changing. Among the disruptions is competition from food alternatives not produced using animals – including potential challenges posed by synthetic milk.

Synthetic milk does not require cows or other animals. It can have the same biochemical make up as animal milk, but is grown using an emerging biotechnology technique know as “precision fermentation” that produces biomass cultured from cells.

More than 80% of the world’s population regularly consume dairy products. There have been increasing calls to move beyond animal-based food systems to more sustainable forms of food production.

Synthetic milks offer dairy milk without concerns such as methane emissions or animal welfare. But it must overcome many challenges and pitfalls to become a fair, sustainable and viable alternative to animal-based milk.

Not a sci-fi fantasy

My recent research examined megatrends in the global dairy sector. Plant-based milks and, potentially, synthetic milks, emerged as a key disruption.

Unlike synthetic meat – which can struggle to match the complexity and texture of animal meat – synthetic milk is touted as having the same taste, look and feel as normal dairy milk.

Synthetic milk is not a sci-fi fantasy; it already exists. In the US, for example, the Perfect Day company supplies animal-free protein made from microflora, which is then used to make ice cream, protein powder and milk.

In Australia, start-up company Eden Brew has been developing synthetic milk at Werribee in Victoria. The company is targeting consumers increasingly concerned about climate change and, in particular, the contribution of methane from dairy cows.

CSIRO reportedly developed the technology behind the Eden Brew product. The process starts with yeast and uses “precision fermentation” to produce the same proteins found in cow milk.

CSIRO says these proteins give milk many of its key properties and contribute to its creamy texture and frothing ability. Minerals, sugars, fats and flavors are added to the protein base to create the final product.

Towards a new food system?

Also in Australia, the All G Foods company this month raised A$25 million to accelerate production of its synthetic milk. Within seven years, the company wants its synthetic milk to be cheaper than cow milk.

If the synthetic milk industry can achieve this cost aim across the board, the potential to disrupt the dairy industry is high. It could steer humanity further away from traditional animal agriculture towards radically different food systems.

A 2019 report into the future of dairy found that by 2030, the US precision fermentation industry will create at least 700,000 jobs.

And if synthetic milk can replace dairy as an ingredient in the industrial food processing sector, this could present significant challenges for companies that produce milk powder for the ingredient market.

Some traditional dairy companies are jumping on the bandwagon. For example, Australian dairy co-operative Norco is backing the Eden Brew project, and New Zealand dairy cooperative Fonterra last week announced a joint venture to develop and commercialize “fermentation-derived proteins with dairy-like properties”.

Synthetic milk: the whey forward?

The synthetic milk industry must grow exponentially before it becomes a sizeable threat to animal-based dairy milk. This will require a lot of capital and investment in research and development, as well as new manufacturing infrastructure such as fermentation tanks and bioreactors.

Production of conventional animal milk in the Global South now outstrips that of the Global North, largely due to rapid growth across Asia. Certainly, the traditional dairy industry is not going away any time soon.

And synthetic milk is not a panacea. While the technology has huge potential for environmental and animal welfare gains, it comes with challenges and potential downsides.

For example, alternative proteins do not necessarily challenge the corporatization or homogenization of conventional industrial agriculture. This means big synthetic milk producers might push out low-tech or small-scale dairy – and alternative dairy – systems.

What’s more, synthetic milk could further displace many people from the global dairy sector. If traditional dairy co-ops in Australia and New Zealand are moving into synthetic milk, for example, where does this leave dairy farmers?

As synthetic milk gains ground in coming years, we must guard against replicating existing inequities in the current food system.

And the traditional dairy sector must recognize it’s on the cusp of pivotal change. In the face of multiple threats, it should maximize the social benefits of both animal-based dairy and minimize its contribution to climate change.

Milena Bojovic, PhD Candidate, Macquarie University

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

In the hospital, with no staff in sight

The brown UPS truck blocked my driveway. A sweaty man in his 40s with spiky, disheveled hair climbed out of the back of the cargo area and trudged toward my house with three packages — two of them arriving a day early. I didn’t know what to do other than salute the guy, Army-style — back straight, eye contact, hand at hairline — through the window, where I watched. He nodded and shot a peace sign back. 

This was in 2020, during the height of the pandemic when essential workers were our lifelines. Politicians, community leaders, me and everyone in general paid homage to our glorious essential workers, from doctors and nurses to restaurant crews, trash collectors and delivery drivers. They were the ones risking their lives to make sure we were healthy, had full bellies, our neighborhoods were clean and, sure, also got our packages; you know, with all the Lysol, bleach, whatever hand sanitizer was available, and all of that assemble-it-yourself lawn furniture for the countless outdoor events we would go on to have as we tried to figure out the coronavirus and what it was. Two and a half years later, it seems like many of these roles are now going unfilled, prompting many to ask: Where did they go? 

My dad fell down last week and hurt himself severely. He was rushed to the ER and admitted. My wife and sister, who both made their way down to check on him, came back saying the same thing. The parking garage at the hospital was weirdly unattended. It was hard to find his room because they didn’t see any staff members on the main floor. The nurses’ station looked like a ghost town. They saw patients, but hardly any staff.

An understaffed hospital during a pandemic, alongside the return and possible rise of other serious viruses? Now?

In a Department of Health and Human Services issue brief, the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation‘s office (ASPE) keyed in on some possible reasons why my father’s hospital was so empty: 

The COVID-19 pandemic has put extreme stress on the health care workforce in the United States, leading to workforce shortages as well as increased health care worker burnout, exhaustion, and trauma. These pandemic-related challenges have taken place in a context of significant pre-existing workforce shortages and maldistribution, as well as in a workforce where burnout, stress, and mental health problems (including an ongoing risk of post-traumatic stress disorder) were already significant problems.”

“I woke up in the middle of the night, really having to go,” Dad told me on a phone call. “So I was pressing that damn buzzer over and over and over again, until I finally got up and tried to take myself to the bathroom.” 

My dad had a simple choice: empty his bowels into his bed and shorts, or escort himself to the restroom. He chose the latter. He fell again, hurting himself even more. This would have been a simple task to assist him with if only the hospital was properly staffed.

The nurses’ station looked like a ghost town. They saw patients, but hardly any staff.

The health care staffing issue isn’t confined to hospitals. The pharmacist at the CVS where I get medicine was alone in the back hustling recently, filling bottles with small colored pills, answering phones and doing other admin work because he said there were no entry level technicians available. Baltimore City Public Schools began the school year with nearly 800 teaching positions needing to be filled.

And it’s not just health care. Those early packages I saluted the UPS delivery driver for are not coming a day early anymore, let alone on schedule. My local post office has never recovered from 2020. They’re still backed up. The shelves at my local grocery store are often bare, and there’s always a pop star concert-length line at the registers and self-checkout stations. My car is in the shop and it’s going to take three months to be fixed, the insurance adjuster assigned to my case is so overworked that he couldn’t even sign off on the repairs because he is still dealing with cases from two months ago, Ubers seem to be always 15-20 minutes away instead of five, which used to be the norm.

All of my friends who are small business owners­­ are hiring each and every week. A recent survey by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) found that almost half of small business owners said they still can’t fill open jobs, a nearly record-high percentage in the survey’s more than 40-year history: “Overall, 64% of owners reported hiring or trying to hire in July. Of those trying to hire, 91% of owners reported few or no qualified applicants for the positions they were trying to fill. Thirty percent of owners reported few qualified applicants for their open positions and 27% reported none.”

Tens of millions of Americans contracted some from of COVID-19 over the past two years. Many of the people who are missing from the workforce can’t clock in because they are dealing with after effects of long COVID, which comes with work-prohibiting symptoms like brain fog, fatigue, dizziness, lost of sleep and shortness of breath. The Brookings Institution recently released data that paints a clear picture of the impact long COVID is having on our workforce: 

  • Around 16 million working-age Americans (those aged 18 to 65) have long Covid today. 
  • Of those, 2 to 4 million are out of work due to long Covid. 
  • The annual cost of those lost wages alone is around $170 billion a year (and potentially as high as $230 billion). 

The slowdown in production is not just associated with employment. In conversations with my art friends, I’m learning many of them have not been the same since 2020, too. 

Why create all of this work in a world that might not be here?

“I could crank out 6-10,000 quality words a week,” my friend Aaron, a writer based in the DC area, told me about his writing habits before the pandemic started. “And now, I don’t want to s**t. I’m literally sitting around the house all day, trying to figure out brand new ways of how not to do s**t.” 

Aaron described his lack of ambition and ability or desire to create as a form of COVID mental fatigue. Why create all of this work in a world that might not be here? Why go outside when everything is empty? Since there’s a new plague every week, and so much death in the news, I should get high instead of trying to be productive? 

I’m fortunate. Neither long COVID nor mental fatigue has stopped me from wanting to work. As matter a of fact, writing and creating, along with tapping in with my family, have been the only things keeping me sane during these difficult times. But I’ve also observed that the collective energy doesn’t seem to be the same as it was for events like readings and book talks. 

“The crowd is solid, it’s like I said,” I said to my friend and mentee, Koni, while sitting backstage at the venue for the hometown Baltimore launch of my newest book, “Black Boy Smile.” “We are starting in in about 30.” 

“OK, bet,” he replied. “Hold like four seats for me.” 

I peaked at the thin crowd. “I don’t that would be necessary.” 

Back in April 2020, Koni — who is also from Baltimore — and I were scheduled to appear on stage to promote our books and local work in the school system. Two hundred people RSVPd in the first two days. That number quickly turned to 400, so the organizer even moved us to a bigger venue. But of course, COVID canceled the event. But those event crowds weren’t unusual then. In February 2020, I appeared in conversation with New York Times columnist David Brooks at the Enoch Pratt Library in front of 1,300 people. I wasn’t fazed because standing room only was the norm for my Baltimore events. Even back in 2016, as a brand new, no-name writer, 300 eager people showed up for the launch of my first book, “The Beast Side.” And now, at the height of my career, seven years later, I was preparing to read from my newest work in front of a modest 40.

“This is an excellent turn out,” the bookseller said, as we prepared to begin. “Biggest crowd in a while. Congrats to you.” 

“You do stand up now?” I asked. 

“Not being funny, dude,” the seller replied. “People just haven’t been coming out.” 

I had fun with the small crowd­­. The pressure was off. It was more intimate, and gave me the opportunity to talk directly to the audience while trying out new essays and jokes. People freely talked about how drained they were from COVID —  COVID coverage, catching COVID, COVID deaths, COVID deniers and getting used to life with COVID. I shared my fears and frustrations with the new normal as well. I had forgotten how good it felt to be in community. People want community. And maybe one of the good things that has come out of the pandemic is a deeper commitment to valuing community — even over money — in America, the capital of capitalism.

And why not? Hard-working people have been busting their humps year in and year out with little to no advancement opportunity. We flick on our TV screens­ or open up our phones every day to see that our country has yet again ignored the biggest issues of our times, like reparations and abolishing all student debt, but magically has found a way to give a billion dollars to aid this nation or that. There’s always, always money for war. Turn the channel and see congressional clowns, especially Republicans, argue aimlessly, acting as if they can’t define nuance and don’t know what reaching across the aisle means, even if it’s for the betterment of the people they are supposed to be representing. And while all this fussing and bickering and ignoring and giving billions of dollars to other nations is happening, the rich are still getting richer. They’re buying bigger pools and private jets, flying to space while the poor stay poor and can’t see past being poor.

People are tired. They’re tired of working, tired of being lied to, tired of not advancing, and it’s showing.

If we hadn’t already figured it out, those of us who were fortunate enough to work from home during the pandemic learned that the American dream doesn’t exist for most. That is what came from sitting in the house. We sat and watched over a million of our fellow Americans die from a virus and we don’t get an official day of mourning or anything except the invitation to go back to work and chase money that probably won’t even help us advance. 

We saw how the whole idea of American social mobility is one of the greatest lies ever told. COVID opened many eyes to that, showing Americans that putting in all those long hours just isn’t worth it. People are tired. They’re tired of working, tired of being lied to, tired of not advancing, and it’s showing. Can we blame people for quitting the demanding, “essential” jobs in search of something else? But we do need them. Essential is essential. So what could be done? 

The fact that my dad is staying in an understaffed hospital where he landed on the floor because his call was ignored is beyond scary to me. Our current worker shortage should prompt corporations and institutions to try something radically different­­, like paying real competitive wages over feeding greedy executives money they will never be able to spend. The bare minimum is no longer acceptable. Our workers are telling and showing us what a country without labor looks like. We should listen. 

Community and school gardens don’t magically sprout bountiful benefits

While it is widely understood that community and and school gardening have innumerable health, well-being and educational benefits, it’s important to realize these benefits don’t magically appear when gardens take root.

Over the past six years, I’ve worked closely with educators, community workers, activists and community members in Tio’tia:ke/Montréal as we created, funded and sustained gardens and garden teams at schools and community organizations.

We set up adult education internships to provide practical gardening and teaching support to explore the extent to which gardens act as forums where people address social and environmental justice. Some participants experienced barriers to employment, food insecurity and homelessness.

This research and community work demonstrated how critical it is to advocate for broader social, urban and educational structural changes to support community garden work — and to understand the importance of having realistic expectations about what people can accomplish in and through gardens.

Who do benefits reach?

In Tio’tia:ke/Montréal, community gardening unfolds in many different ways that might include gardening efforts at community-based organizations and city-run gardens.

There are significant wait lists to access a garden plot in the city, exacerbated by community gardens being historically reserved for property-owning individuals.

According to the mayor of Montréal, “for many people, community gardens are more than just a hobby. They allow them to feed their families and to obtain fresh produce at a low cost.”

Such statements obscure more complex issues around who controls and accesses community gardens and deeper entrenched social inequities relating to land rights in a capitalist settler-colonial society that privileges ownership, whiteness and hierarchical modes of relating.

Relationship to food insecurity

My findings contest claims that suggest community gardening is inherently an activity that reduces under-served communities’ food insecurity.

Reflecting on my efforts to grow food for organizations that work with people experiencing food insecurity, as part of a project called “Gardening for Food Security,” I cannot claim gardening helped to alleviate the concerns of people experiencing food insecurity in any quantifiable way.

This is despite producing an immense amount of food harvested on a weekly/bi-weekly basis from late June to early November in 2018 and 2019.

Although the gardens were thriving, the organization never reduced their food order to Montréal’s largest food bank. This may be because while participants ate from the garden harvest, their reliance upon it did not reduce their need for other food. The Gardening for Food Security project did, however, modestly support a food bank and a once-a-week meal service.

Mixed effects for communities, individuals

As we gardened and invested in gardens for different social, educational and environmental reasons in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods, we contributed to increasing land values in a process described as green gentrification.

Despite these critical observations, some benefits of the project included:

  • offering relevant paid employment for young adults experiencing barriers to employment, food insecurity and homelessness;
  • providing mentorship and opportunities for under-served young adults and students to express themselves (through art, photography, music, film, gardening);
  • facilitating partnerships between schools and organizations with mandates of social and environmental justice for mutual benefit;
  • acquiring prolonged financial, learning and human resource support to educators, learners, community workers and community members, while developing ethical relationships and collaborating to accomplish shared objectives.

The latter three types of benefits are difficult to quantify to funders.


Video created in collaboration with some ‘Gardening for Food Security’ team members with music by one team member, Sven ‘7ven’ Creese.

Problems with schools gardens

Gardening as part of environmental education is not mandatory core curriculum in Québec. School gardening often occurs outside of formal class time, during lunch hour or after school. Taken together, organizing gardening experiences for students within most public schools adds additional labor to already overworked and under-supported educators.

For gardening to be relevant and add educational value for both teachers and learners, gardens need to be incorporated into each core curricular area (French, English, Math and so on) and not only used before or after school hours and during lunchtime.

Many of my teacher collaborators stated that they are fully committed and interested in creating garden-based learning experiences for their students. But securing permissions translates to administrative labor. This can detract from arranging other important aspects of garden creation like establishing funding, building relationships with collaborators or drawing curricular connections and so on.

Small community change

Tio’tia:ke/Montréal, like many Canadian cities, has a long winter and a short intense summer. For school gardens to work, the planning and administrative labor and permissions for a spring garden need to happen early in the school year to account for inevitable delays.

If educators or outside parties wish to support school gardens with funding and labor, I strongly recommend that students lead the creation, development and importantly the evaluation of the garden as a project.

When gardens are prematurely celebrated for producing anticipated outcomes such as health and well-being and food security, without a larger acknowledgement of how these complex issues are affected by systemic barriers, much can be lost.

This includes the well-being of teachers who invest immense labor in something they believe in with limited institutional support, and affordable spaces for people to live who get dispossessed of their homes, communities and networks through green gentrification.

No easy solutions

There are no easy solutions to the social and environmental problems of school, community gardening or greening.

Often, teachers and community members want and need a garden, but they are more in need of: financial support, teaching support, human resource support, more time, fewer students, curricular freedom, relevant professional development and land that isn’t part of a bigger capitalist system of private ownership or tied up in red tape.

Even small community change takes time and needs ongoing collective effort.

Mitchell McLarnon, Assistant Professor, Adult Education, Concordia University

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

Trump’s MAGA judge can’t save him: Legal woes pile up even after favorable “special master” ruling

The week began as one of Donald Trump’s best weeks in ages. His hand-picked federal judge came through for him and issued an extremely broad injunction against the government investigation into all the stolen secret government documents he was storing at Mar-a-Lago and decreed that a “special master” be appointed to look through all of it to determine if any of Trump’s alleged “privileges” had been trampled since she apparently believes he’s is entitled to special protections. Her reasoning may have been panned by every credible legal expert in the country but that’s just the sort of reaction that would make Trump’s followers respect her more.

Unfortunately for Trump, that was the last bit of good news that he got this week.

First, his most zealous defender and former campaign manager, Steve Bannon, already awaiting sentencing for his contempt conviction, was indicted in New York on fraud charges for bilking Trump’s followers out of millions in that phony “Build the Wall” scam. You’ll recall that he was already indicted on federal charges for the same crime but Trump pardoned him on his last day in office. Sadly for him, that pardon doesn’t apply to state charges.

As I have written before, Bannon will no doubt fashion himself as the MAGA Luther King and write his War Room manifesto that he’ll sell to the same chumps who gave him money for that ridiculous wall. His cri de cœur as he was being led to the courtroom on Thursday gives a taste of what they can expect:

Trump hasn’t had anything to say about this but he may be wondering if Bannon might have a few things to say about the insurrection plotting in the days before January 6 once it sinks in that he could be doing time at Riker’s Island.

On the same day as Bannon’s surrender, reports surfaced of an impaneled federal grand jury looking into Trump’s post-election fundraising. Several of Trump’s associates affiliated with his Save America PAC were subpoenaed this week including some of the people involved in a different crime the Department of Justice (DOJ) is already investigating:

The subpoenas sought information about communications with a range of people, many of them lawyers who were also listed on earlier subpoenas that focused on the fake elector plan. Among the lawyers appearing as subjects of interest on both sets of subpoenas were Jenna Ellis, who was part of Mr. Trump’s initial legal team after the election, and Kenneth Chesebro, a Wisconsin-based lawyer who helped devise the fake elector scheme.

A lot of money has flowed through this so-called political PAC, virtually none of it going to candidates or political causes. It’s unclear what connections there are between two different grand jury investigations but let’s just say this New York Times report reads like one of those early Woodward and Bernstein stories during Watergate: “follow the money.”

Thursday ended with the DOJ’s response to Trump’s favorite judge’s injunction. Widely acclaimed, it was a very deft bit of lawyering. The department lawyers patiently pointed out that her split-the-baby injunction, in which she allowed the Director of National Intelligence to continue its investigation of national security damage from the stolen documents but barred the DOJ from doing any further criminal investigation, is unworkable. The offices of the DNI, CIA, NSA etc have no domestic investigatory powers, which is as it should be. They must rely on the FBI to do that work, which is why it is also part of the intelligence community. As a result, the investigation into the damage that may have been caused by this serious breach is currently at a standstill.


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


Rather than fight the entire order, the DOJ simply asked the judge to allow them to access the 100 classified documents that were found in various areas of Trump’s beach club, arguing correctly that these documents belong to the government, not Donald Trump, and cannot possibly have any kind of attorney-client privilege. The government agreed to “make available to [Trump] copies of all unclassified documents recovered during the search — both personal records and government records — and that the government will return [Trump]’s personal items that were not commingled with classified records and thus are of likely diminished evidentiary value,” taking his whining about his personal medical records and tax documents off the table. Since the judge cited those items as her reason for blocking the DOJ from access to all documents this should allay her concerns as well.

It will be interesting to see if Trump’s lawyers make the case that he magically declassified all those documents with a Vulcan mind-meld when he was still president as his minions have been saying all over television ever since the search. If they don’t I think we can put that silly idea to bed. If they do, we are dealing with a whole other level of misconduct.

It is very clear that this is a serious national security investigation, not a “storage” issue or even a Presidential Records Act issue. And the government seems to be equally serious about the evidence pointing to blatant obstruction of justice. The DOJ, following procedure, asked the judge to allow them to access the classified documents immediately and also indicated that they plan to appeal her original ruling so all of this will be aired out in due course. Most lawyers who are following this case closely believe that it is going to be very difficult for the appeals court to uphold her feeble reasoning. Of course, you never know.

Finally, on Friday morning a federal judge issued a scathing dismissal of Trump’s sprawling lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, Rod Rosenstein and former FBI official Peter Strzok. Calling the lawsuit “devoid of facts” and “premised on nonsense legal claims,” Judge Donald Middlebrooks accused Trump and his lawyers of judge shopping before calling his complaint frivolous. 

“At its core, the problem with Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is that Plaintiff is…seeking to flaunt a two-hundred-page political manifesto outlining his grievances against those that have opposed him, and this Court is not the appropriate forum.”

Trump himself has not intelligibly addressed this latest state of affairs but he has been emitting periodic primal screams as events unfold. On Thursday he posted this on his social media platform:

So now the FBI & Biden Department of “justice” leakers are going to spend Millions of Dollars, & vast amounts of Time & Energy, to appeal the Order on the “Raid of Mar-a-Lago Document Hoax,” by a brilliant and courageous Judge whose words of wisdom rang true throughout our Nation, instead of fighting the record setting corruption and crime that is taking place before their very eyes. They SPIED on my Campaign, lied to FISA COURT, told Facebook “quiet,” preside over worst CRIME WAVE ever!!

…..They leak, lie, plant fake evidence, allow the spying on my campaign, deceive the FISA Court, RAID and Break-into my home, lose documents, and then they ask me, as the 45th President of the United States, to trust them. Look at the I.G. Reports on Comey, McCabe, and others. Things are safer in the middle of Central Park!

They would be safer in Central Park because Donald Trump doesn’t live there, an easy target of all of America’s adversaries who know he has all the common sense of a bath mat.

He seems upset. And he should be. It’s possible that he will escape any accountability for his actions. Lord knows it wouldn’t be the first time. Trump has been playing fast and loose with national security since the 2016 campaign but this time he doesn’t have the power of the presidency to protect him. Now we’re going to see if the courts will step in to do his dirty work.

Joe Biden’s historic speech was too damn nice: No hand of friendship to fascists

Joe Biden may be too damn nice for his own good — and for the nation’s. Biden’s kindness and generosity of spirit, not to mention his patience, reasonableness and belief in the better angels of America’s nature may lead to the downfall of democracy.

Last Thursday in Philadelphia, Biden delivered a careful, statesmanlike and truly historic speech warning the American people that the Republican Party and the “conservative” movement have been taken over by Donald Trump and his MAGA-fascist followers. For an American president to issue such a warning is virtually without precedent: Matters are that dire.

Speaking in front of Independence Hall, Biden spoke of the “flame of liberty that was lit here…. A flame that lit our way through abolition, the Civil War, suffrage, the Great Depression, world wars, civil rights.” After insisting that the “sacred flame still burns,” Biden shifted his tone dramatically:

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic…. MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself. MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

America, Biden said, was “at an inflection point” and must choose “to build a future or obsess about the past, to be a nation of hope and unity and optimism or a nation of fear, division and of darkness.” It was impossible, he said, to be “pro-insurrectionist and pro-American,” calling for the rejection of “political violence” and a willingness to accept “the results of free and fair elections” rather than seeing politics as “total war.” 

This was remarkable truth-telling, yet at crucial moments the president was simply too generous toward those who refuse to respect democracy or the rule of law:

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans. But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.

That mixed diagnosis is overly hopeful. In fact, today’s Republicans are not “semi-fascists,” as the president has said, but actual fascists, increasingly allied with a global authoritarian movement.

The examples are numerous: Today’s Republican Party is organized around the Great Leader principle and a political personality cult. It has officially embraced Trump’s Big Lie and a range of related conspiracy theories and assaults on truth. It endorses or condones political violence, including terrorism and an attempted coup. It blends fake populism and extreme nationalism and white supremacy. It rejects the core democratic principles of freedom of the press and free speech. It is deeply hostile to nonwhites, Muslims, immigrants, LGBTQ people, feminists, progressives of all kinds and other groups deemed to be “un-American”.

It is engaged in what it understands as an existential revolutionary struggle to destroy multiracial pluralistic democracy and return the country to a fictional golden age when “people like them” ruled uncontested over virtually all aspects of American society. Toward that end, it rejects the rule of law, truth, reason and human decency, and is clearly willing to use corrupt and unrestrained power to achieve its goals.


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


Joe Biden did not speak those truths without qualifications or exceptions. Instead, he tried to create a political off-ramp, offering the Republican-fascists the hand of unity and the promise of shared “American values.” Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic explores the advantages and pitfalls of this approach, observing that “in a culture as noisy as ours … [m]oderate language gets drowned out.” Biden, she writes, took “the risky and genuinely brave decision to use emotional language in defense of our rules-based political system”:

The speech he gave [in Philadelphia] was indeed lit and orchestrated to evoke drama. It was also meant to evoke strong feelings of patriotism, unity and connection. Biden referenced American history — “We, the people, have burning inside of each of us the flame of liberty that was lit here at Independence Hall” — as well as American pride. He contrasted Trump’s dark, apocalyptic worldview with his own: “I see a different America, an America with an unlimited future, an America that’s about to take off.” …

The language of his speech presumed that, in making an emotional appeal in favor of liberal democracy, he was still speaking to a decisive majority of the country. That’s why he kept using the expression we the people, a phrase that of course references the Constitution, but also expresses a sense of unity — a unity that should, in principle, still include people with a huge range of political tastes and views.  “We the people,” he said, “accept the results of free and fair elections.” We, the people “see politics, not as total war, but mediation of our differences.” And once again: “We the people,” Biden said “have burning inside of each of us the flame of liberty that was lit here at Independence Hall.”

That sentence assumes that the 17th-century ideas that were debated in Philadelphia in the 18th-century still mean something to the citizens who live by them today. Biden clearly believes they do. The future of liberal democracy in America depends on whether or not he is right.  

There is great potential danger in Biden’s approach: The Republican-fascists only seek to destroy him, along with the Democratic Party and the progress won by the New Deal, the Great Society and the civil and human rights struggles of the 1960s and beyond.

These threats are not hyperbolic or metaphorical; they are literal. Like other fascist movements, the MAGA Republicans do not want “compromise” or “bridge building” with their political opponents. They understand politics as a zero-sum contest where the only thing that counts is total victory, to be won by any means and at any cost.

Biden is extending the hand of friendship to sworn enemies who have not earned it and actually despise him and the Democratic Party. There can be no negotiation or compromise with fascism or with those tainted by it. Those people must be totally defeated and driven out of politics, government and public life. 

As “Never Trumper” and former Republican strategist Steve Schmidt recently wrote on Twitter, the MAGA movement “must be crushed to save America.” He continued:

Trump’s rhetoric is becoming more overtly extreme and is filled with promises of violence and revenge. He means every word. … The American people must end this madness. The American people must rise up against the coward politicians who have gone off the rails and vandalized the American Republic to sate Trump and protect themselves from his ire. The fall campaign is underway and the choice is here.

Biden’s impulses toward generosity and healing are admirable human qualities, but at this moment he should deploy realpolitik strategies and a far more forceful approach. If Republicans regain control of Congress after the midterms, they have promised to impeach President Biden for imaginary offenses, and will do everything possible to reverse the legislative gains of his administration.

In response to Biden’s speech in Philadelphia, too many in the American mainstream news media have continued with their routine of normalizing the Republican fascists and their allies. Instead of engaging in unapologetic pro-democracy journalism and advocacy, the usual suspects have defaulted to obsolete conceptions of “balance” and “fairness,” depicting Biden’s careful and generous truth-telling as overly “partisan” or “divisive.” 

In the worst examples, the media creates space for Republican propagandists to spread their lies and moral inversions, arguing that a critique of fascism is actually the “real” fascism. Joseph Goebbels would be proud; he understood the importance of accusing your opponents of the crimes you have yourself committed.

From this point forward, Biden should drop any qualifiers and speak the bold and direct truth: Today’s Republican Party is infested from top to bottom with fascists and other anti-democratic ideologues and followers. It must be torn down to the ground and fumigated; it is beyond salvation or repair.

If there are still “traditional” or “mainstream” Republicans and “conservatives” who want to defeat Trumpism and other forms of neofascism, they have a clear choice to make. They can denounce and reject Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, the Big Lie, the Jan. 6 coup and any candidates or office-holders who support those things. Very few will do that. If they have ridden this far with Trump and the MAGA movement, they either actively or passively support the fascism, authoritarianism, white supremacy and other anti-human and antisocial values at the core of today’s “conservative” movement. Like other forms of fascism, the MAGAverse has a malignant and deep hold on its followers and acolytes.

At this crucial moment, Democrats cannot let themselves be held hostage to fantasies about “suburban independents” and the “white working class.” Playing defense simply won’t work.

Detractors will assert that such a confrontational strategy will somehow push “reasonable Republicans” and those much-obsessed-about “white working class” and “suburban independent” voters further into the arms of fascism. At this moment, Biden and the Democrats cannot allow themselves to be held hostage to such concerns. Playing defense in the war to protect democracy simply will not work. That strategy has already surrendered too much territory and time to the Republicans over the last few decades. Indeed the country’s democracy crisis and the ascendant fascist movement have been decisively enabled by the Democratic Party’s political weakness and a political consultant class eternally commitment to “normalcy,” “bipartisanship” and “compromise.” 

Now is the time for the Democrats to launch a robust counterattack against the Republican fascists and their forces, and to press whatever advantage they have before that window of opportunity slams shut.

As AP White House correspondent Seung Min Kim recently observed, Biden’s increasingly forceful rhetoric “has emboldened Democrats across the country, rallying the party faithful ahead of the November elections”:

Biden’s increasingly stark warnings about Trump-fueled elements of the Republican Party are making up the core part of his midterm message…. But it’s the blistering statements from Biden about his predecessor and adherents of the “Make America Great Again” philosophy that have given many Democrats a bolt of fresh energy as they campaign to keep control of Congress.

“It’s a particularly strong issue for our base,” said Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, who leads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the official campaign arm of Senate Democrats. “Folks want us, want people to show that there is a clear contrast in the election between where Democrats are and Republicans have been.”…

Biden’s forceful campaign-year posture comes as Democrats are feeling more optimistic about the midterms, when the party controlling the White House has historically faced losses in Congress. A combination of legislative accomplishments, polarizing Republican candidates and voter fury stoked by the overturning of Roe vs. Wade have Democrats feeling they could see smaller losses in the House than initially anticipated, while retaining their barebones majority in the Senate.

Yes, it is certainly refreshing and good that Biden is acting as a president who wants to act in the best interests of the nation and the American people. That offers a much-needed contrast with his predecessor, whose decision-making was based on narrow personal and partisan interests that in practice meant treating all those outside the MAGAverse as enemies to be punished and suppressed.

But in trying to save American democracy, President Biden must accept the harsh reality that tens of millions of Americans are now enemies of democracy, if not outright fascists. Many are also de facto white supremacists who view multiracial democracy as something dangerous that must be destroyed. Trump and the larger fascist movement empowered those Americans to be their worst possible selves and not their best. Those people were not cajoled or tricked or coerced into supporting Trump’s movement. It was an active choice, often a passionate and enthusiastic one. MAGA followers have agency; they have not been brainwashed.

If Biden truly believes what he said in Philadelphia, he must face these truths and speak them forcefully and often. Biden must also use said truths to rally supporters of democracy to defeat Trump and the MAGA Republican movement. Anything less amounts to surrender, and will reduce the president’s historic speech to empty words, spoken on the road to defeat and a new American fascist nightmare.

Election officials preparing for worst-case scenarios: Violence around the midterms

Election officials across the country are concerned with potential violence and other disruptions compromising this November’s midterm elections. Some are even quitting their jobs as Donald Trump’s allies continue to push out false claims about voter fraud in the 2020 election. 

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has made $8 million available for local clerks to bolster election security. More than 1,600 election clerks remain in constant fear for their safety, said Michigan Department of State spokesperson Angela Benander in a statement on Thursday. 

“I am concerned about people being disruptive,” said Sommer Foster, co-executive director of Michigan Voices. “I’m concerned about people trying to intimidate voters. I’m concerned about dis- and misinformation. It’s something that we see a lot in Michigan, and so we are doing what we can to make sure that we have systems in place to fight against that.”

Foster, who works with partners on issues like election protection, voter suppression and educating voters about their rights, witnessed election clerks in 2020 being unfairly “maligned” and “attacked.” The harassment was so stressful, Foster continued, that one former Republican election official in a suburb outside Detroit simply quit his job .

“It’s a huge loss,” Foster said. “This was somebody who was dedicated to making sure that voters had their rights protected. We are hearing incidents of clerks being called out by name [by] some of these folks that are still telling lies about the 2020 election.”

Almost half (47%) of top elected and appointed local officials in Michigan reported being harassed in the last few years due to their position in local government, according to a University of Michigan survey.

Efforts by Trump allies to overturn the last presidential election have persisted, even close to two years after the fact, and false claims about the supposedly stolen election have created safety concerns for administrators across the country. One in six elec­tion offi­cials have exper­i­enced threats and 77% say that they feel those threats have increased in recent years, according to a Brennan Center poll released earlier this year. 

Death threats, racist and gender-based attacks are reportedly forcing election workers to hire personal security, leave their homes and in some cases even resign from their positions. 

In one rural Texas county, the entire elections staff quit just 70 days before the midterm elections, PBS reported. For the last 10 months, local leaders in Georgia’s biggest county have been unable to hire a permanent director to run the Department of Registration and Elections. 

Following the 2020 election, Anissa Herrera, the elections administrator for Gillespie County, Texas, received a number of death threats from far-right sources against her staff, which led to numerous resignations.

Such experiences have become so commonplace that election clerks consider it a part of their job, said Anthony Gutierrez, executive director of Common Cause Texas.

“These election administrators keep saying that they report things to law enforcement or local DAs and nothing happens, like nobody’s being prosecuted,” Gutierrez said. 

Common Cause, which does election protection work, is also looking at potential ways to hold people who attack election workers accountable. What has complicated that task, Gutierrez and others say, is that numerous people in leadership positions keep casting doubt on the way elections are administered. 

Last year, Texas Secretary of State John Scott claimed that a “full forensic audit” of the 2020 general election was necessary to restore Texas voters’ trust in the state’s election systems. (Trump easily carried the state.) Scott also briefly represented Trump in a legal challenge to the 2020 results in Pennsylvania.


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


For an elected state official to embrace that narrative, Gutierrez said, “really perpetuates this feeling that the people running our elections are doing something wrong, or trying to rig the elections. Just naturally, that’s going to create an environment where you’re asking for some kind of violence to happen.”

In many key battleground states, supporters of Trump’s false election claims are running for secretary of state — a position that in most states gives them the power to oversee elections — and are continuing to sow doubt about the way elections are administered. 

Jim Marchant, the Republican secretary of state nominee in Nevada, has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and has said he would not have certified its results if he were in office. Arizona state Rep. Mark Finchem, the GOP nominee for secretary of state has called for the arrest of incumbent Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, and has proposed giving the state legislature the power to accept or reject election results. In Colorado, Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters (a failed secretary of state candidate) is now under indictment on felony and misdemeanor charges related to tampering with voting equipment. And in Michigan, GOP candidate Kristina Karamo, a prominent election denier, signed onto a lawsuit in the Michigan Supreme Court challenging the 2020 election. (She also faces unrelated allegations by her ex-husband that she threatened to kill their entire family during an altercation.) 

Supporters of Trump’s false election claims are running for secretary of state in several battleground states, while continuing to sow doubt about how elections are administered.

In some counties, staffers are receiving special training aimed to ensure the election process runs smoothly.  In Arizona, the secretary of state’s office hosted tabletop exercises for county election officials and law enforcement agents meant to prepare them for worst-case scenarios, said Sophia Solis, deputy communications director for the office, in an email to Salon.

In 2020, every county in Arizona was assigned a “threat liaison officer” to help prepare for and investigate any threats that might arise, Solis said. Staffers for the secretary of state have also met with county sheriffs to discuss what constitutes harassment or threats at polling locations, and to provide guidance on how to deal with such scenarios. 

State Voices, which partners with various other organizations in pro-democracy work, is also preparing for the upcoming midterms by partnering with Common Cause to create trainings for volunteers in how to handle disruptions at polling locations. 

In 2020, State Voices trained community members in Pennsylvania, Colorado and Ohio to support voters and report any issues to the election protection hotline. Elena Langworthy, the group’s deputy director of policy, said the planning and preparation seemed to work. “We had a plan in place to deal with anything that arose that was more on the side of physical violence and intimidation,” she said, “and luckily we didn’t see a [significant] number of physical incidents occur.” 

But there is still no solution to the shortage of election workers in many counties, which Foster of Michigan Voices directly attributes to the ongoing wave of angry threats. These workers “just want to provide a service to their communities,” Foster said, “and they’re being unfairly attacked.”

Will America see a major renewal of the middle class? We know it can be done

It’s easy to get lost in despair and outrage over the state of affairs in America. Women and queer people are being forced back into the kitchen and closet, climate change is killing scores of Americans every week, our schools and public areas are under constant assault by armed Republican gangs and GOP-sanctioned mass shooters. Over the past decade more than a million American lives have been lost to “deaths of despair” as a result of our 40-year experiment with Reagan’s neoliberalism.

And it’s not just domestic bad news coming out of the GOP’s open opposition to democracy. After Trump betrayed Ukraine, Russia attacked them; China is openly threatening a similar sort of war against Taiwan. There’s lots to be concerned about.

Nonetheless, I’m hopeful right now. I believe we’re on the cusp of a new “great turning” of American history, a replay of the crisis into which President Franklin D. Roosevelt stepped four generations ago, while revisiting many of the same solutions.  And, ironically, it’s all coming about for for many of the same reasons.

In 1933, the United States was in the worst moments of its second greatest crisis of all time, eclipsed, in danger to the nation, only by the Civil War which had ended four generations previously:

  • Climate change caused by human activity — particularly deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices — was driving farmers off their land while throwing up hundred-mile-long dust clouds from the Midwest to New York City. (My old friend Dennis Weaver wrote heartbreakingly in his autobiography “All the World’s a Stage” [I wrote the foreword] about his family’s escape in their broken-down 1930s car from Oklahoma’s Dust Bowl to Oregon so they could pick strawberries, he as a migrant farm-worker child.) 
  • Food prices were skyrocketing relative to income; homelessness was epidemic; entire regions of the nation were being depopulated as crime, fear and despair stalked our nation.
  • The three previous Republican presidents had cut taxes on the morbidly rich from 91 percent down to 25 percent and deregulated Wall Street, throwing the nation into a depression so severe that fully a third of the country was unemployed and people were literally starving. The stock market had crashed to lows with a speed not seen in living memory; every bank in America had collapsed, the final few hundred just in the week before the new president was sworn in.
  • The nation was still reeling from a world war and a flu pandemic that had killed millions. Parents despaired that their children would never reach the standard of living they’d enjoyed; well over half the country was living in poverty.
  • The morbidly rich had literally never done so well; the preceding decade was called the “Roaring 20s” because wealthy people were lighting their cigars with $1,000 bills, while speculators and industrialists were in a wild competition over who could throw the most gaudy, expensive and wasteful parties.
  • Meanwhile, when working people tried to organize unions, local police, right-wing “militia” gangs and private security people would attack with dogs, chains and live ammunition. Because there were no laws protecting the right to unionize, working people across the nation were routinely murdered for the crime of demanding a living wage.
  • Minorities — from racial minorities to gays to Jews — fared even worse than working white people. Lynching had made a comeback, the Klan and hundreds of “white citizen” organizations and “citizens’ militias” were on the rise, and few prosecutors in the nation would try to hold anybody to account. Local and state ordinances only protected wealthy white men, and as there were no federal laws against murder or depriving people of their civil rights, even federal courts turned a blind eye to the spreading violence.
  • Fascists were rallying in American cities and rural areas, wearing swastika armbands and sporting Confederate flags, preaching a new form of government that had already taken over Italy and was on the verge of seizing complete control of Germany and Spain. So many Republican politicians had taken to the floor of the U.S. House and Senate to praise Adolf Hitler and his new German fascism that the nation’s bestselling author, Rex Stout, compiled their speeches into a book titled “The Illustrious Dunderheads.” (My father gave me a first edition copy for my birthday five decades ago.)
  • Across the Atlantic and Pacific the world was rattled by talk of war. Japan was undergoing a massive rearmament and talking loudly about war with China; Mussolini and Hitler were publicly imagining a world without democracies where, in an echo of Tacitus, unitary fascist world leadership would bring about “a thousand years of peace.”

Into this maelstrom a new president stepped up to the microphone on the balcony of the Capitol and spoke:

“This is pre-eminently the time to speak the truth,” he told the nation, “the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great nation will endure, as it has endured, will revive and will prosper.

“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself: nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyses needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

This was no happy-talk speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt at his inauguration. In the next sentence he acknowledged the multiple crises facing America:

[Stock] Values have shrunk to fantastic levels: taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.

More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return.

Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

And yet in that moment FDR galvanized the nation. 

On March 19, 1933, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Anne McCormick wrote a full-page article for the New York Times Magazine titled: “The Nation Renews Its Faith: Out of the Swift Succession of Events That Has Marked Two Weeks of the New Deal, This Fact Stands Out: That the Confidence of the People in Government Has Been Re-established.”

“One reason for the present meekness of both Houses,” McCormick wrote, “is that every member is practically buried under avalanches of telegrams and letters from constituents. These messages come to Democrats and Republicans alike. Sometimes profane, always imperative, they are mostly variations of a single order: Support the President: give him anything he wants.”

The people had seen the disastrous consequences of Republican rule, and rose, united, to reject it and support the new Democratic president. 

The result was the creation of the first more-than-50-percent-of-the-people middle class in world history and a major leap forward for American — and worldwide — democracy.


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


If my analysis of today’s conditions is correct, we’re at a similar hinge-point of history:

Like in 1933, the morbidly rich are riding high.

Almost exactly like 1933, in fact: This is only the second time in American history when three men have owned more wealth than the bottom half of the nation, when giant corporations fought unionization tooth and nail, and about half of all new income created every year goes straight to the top 1%, and is typically taxed at less than 3%.

Like in 1933, Republicans crashed the economy and presented a united front to sabotage Democratic efforts to rebuild it.

In 1933, three men owned more wealth than the entire bottom half of the nation, and half of all new income went to the top 1%. That’s true again in 2022, for only the second time in American history.

Republicans have fully revealed their true economic agenda, and twice in the past two decades we’ve watched them give multi-trillion-dollar tax-cut and deregulation gifts from the public purse to their billionaire owners while driving our economy straight into the ditch. The Bush Crash of 2008 and the Trump Crash of 2020 are analogous to the Republican Great Depression of 1929.

Like in 1933, women are at the forefront of progressive change.

While women got the vote in 1920, they first participated in a measurably big way in the election of 1932 that kicked the GOP out of federal office and set the stage for the New Deal. Women then were outraged that Republicans had thrown their families into poverty, hunger and homelessness. Women today are outraged that Republicans want to seize control of their bodies and their lives.

Like in 1933, climate change is changing the face of America and influencing our politics.

Deforestation and unsustainable agricultural practices during the decades of the Industrial Revolution led to the Dust Bowl, which wiped out family farms and produced dust storms that shut down or nearly shut down entire cities (including New York). Americans demanded action, and FDR delivered with the Civilian Conservation Corps, putting Americans to work planting millions of trees across the country and ending the Dust Bowl.

Today, 50 years of lies from the criminal fossil fuel industry and the billionaires it created have stalled initiatives that could have prevented or softened the impact of global warming. 

The result is drought, floods and forest fires like never before seen in the memory of modern humans. Americans want action and the GOP continues to claim there’s no such thing as global warming or, if there is, we shouldn’t do anything to stop it.

Even as the fossil fuel industry continues to fund lies about climate change, fully 66 to 80 percent of Americans now want “major climate mitigation strategies.” And Democrats — without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate — just delivered the largest climate bill in the history of America.

Like in 1933, working people are rising up against employers who deny them the right to unionize.

Firing, beating and even killing strikers and union organizers was widespread during the Republican Roaring ’20s; today most of the anti-union activities are done by giant law firms with the blessing of dozens of 5-4 anti-union Supreme Court decisions between 1970 and today, nearly every one objected to by Democratic nominees to the court.

While workers aren’t being killed in the streets like in the ’20s, giant profitable corporate employers shutting down stores and firing union organizers while giving their CEOs tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation are driving a similar working-class rage across the country. Gallup notes: “The National Labor Relations Board reported a 57% increase in union election petitions filed during the first six months of fiscal year 2021.”

Labor unions today are enjoying a resurgence in popularity not seen since the 1950s. Gallup reports that 71 percent of Americans approve of unions, and 40 percent of unionized workers describe their unions as “very important” to them. 

Like in 1933, religious hustlers and televangelists are preying on low-income Americans while making themselves rich and grasping for political power.

Giant profitable corporations shutting down stores while giving their CEOs millions in compensation are driving working-class rage across the country — and a resurgence of labor unions.

Radio came into its own in a big way in the 1920s, and by 1933 was dominated by hard-right religious figures supporting Republican politicians. Billy Sunday, Sister Aimee McPherson, and Father Charles Coughlin (who briefly supported and then turned on FDR) dominated the American airwaves, preaching fascism, racism and worker exploitation to every part of America, just like right-wing hate radio hosts and televangelists do today on over 1,500 radio stations from coast to coast.

In 1925, right-wingers successfully prosecuted Tennessee high school biology teacher John Scopes for teaching evolution. Today, right-wingers — again citing “values” and religion — are threatening to prosecute high school teachers for informing schoolchildren about America’s true racial history, climate change and the simple reality that some people are gay or trans and have been throughout human history.

Like in 1933, right-wing rhetoric is driving an explosion of attacks on people of color.

That year, which saw the inauguration of FDR and the beginning of the end of the Republican dominance of American politics (for the next two generations), also saw a 350 percent increase in lynching in America over just the previous year. Roosevelt took the victims’ side, calling for civil rights legislation. As History.com notes:

The Great Depression impacted African Americans for decades to come. It spurred the rise of African-American activism, which laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. The popularity of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal program also saw African Americans switch their political allegiances to become a core part of the Democratic Party’s voting bloc.

Today we’re seeing a newly revived and broadened civil rights movement, as killer cops, discriminatory employers and brutal, racist white supremacist gangs are being held to account in ways unimaginable just 20 years ago. While Republicans and right-wing media continue to demonize minorities and call for everything from giant walls to Muslim bans, groups representing race, religion and gender identity interests are collaborating under the banner of the Democratic Party.

Like in 1933, a Democratic president is calling out fat cats and fascists in the GOP while uniting Americans in a great project to rebuild our nation.

FDR railed against the men he called the “economic royalists,” saying:

For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. … There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. …

It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. 

And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the minuteman.

President Biden is calling out the same people, those who use their great wealth to oppress workers while promoting what Biden calls “semi-fascism”:

Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal.

Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic. …

And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.

They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

Between the obscene excesses of the GOP — from gifting billionaires with trillions of tax dollars to using hate as a political weapon to fighting forward progress on climate, voting rights and rebuilding the middle class — and the united front Democrats are now offering, change is in the air.

Inflation is down, gas prices are normalizing and even former Republicans are disgusted by Trump’s treasonous behavior and his followers’ support and rationalization of it. 

Women and young people, in particular, are registering to vote in record numbers and on my talk radio show I’m sensing electricity in the air.

Between the obscene excesses of the GOP and the united front Democrats are now offering, change is in the air.

We just saw four special elections for seats in the House of Representatives, and in every one Democratic candidates outperformed Biden’s 2020 vote in those same districts. A ballot initiative in Kansas to outlaw abortion was soundly defeated in that red state, as Democratic candidates are integrating criticism of Republican support for the Dobbs decision into their campaigns.

Republicans are running scared, frantically scrubbing their websites of any mention of their extremist anti-abortion positions and deleting references to their climate denial and embrace of billionaires.

While we can never discount the impact of billions of right-wing dollars authorized by the Supreme Court’s corrupt Citizens United decision, or the ability of Republican-controlled swing states to suppress or even refuse to count or acknowledge the vote, this all still points to a positive, 1933-like political trend this fall.

And if Democrats can pull it off again, four or five generations after FDR did, it may well signal a second repudiation of Republican trickle-down style economics and a second major renewal of the American middle class. 

This election may well be the turning point when Reaganomics and neoliberalism are finally rejected and America gets back on track to work for its people rather than just its billionaires.

Congress speaks out in the wake of Queen Elizabeth’s death

As Britain weeps, America mourns. Flags across the nation’s capital – from the White House to the people’s House of Representatives – are now flying at half-staff as they honor the life and legacy of Queen Elizabeth II.

Even if the idea of a monarch is antithetical to the American spirit, the queen maintained a special place in the hearts of American political leaders from Harry Truman, whom she met in 1951, through President Joe Biden. Her loss is being felt by lawmakers of all stripes.

“It’s sad. I know it was expected, but it’s very sad,” John Kennedy (R-LA) told reporters at the Capitol minutes after the news broke. “America weeps for our friends in the UK.”

The Louisiana senator spent a brief stint on the other side of the pond in the seventies when the young lawyer spent a year studying at Oxford. The queen’s stature has always stuck with him.

“I spent a little time there, and the queen brings stability even when things are very divisive. And when I was there, unions were very strong and there were strikes every other week. UK was in the process of reexamining its place in the world. Its world power had been waning economically and militarily, and so there was some instability,” Kennedy remembered. “But the queen, she just represented stability.”

Besides graduating with honors in his Bachelor of Civil Law program at Oxford, Kennedy also got to know some of his classmates. While British politics have heated up in recent years, Kennedy remembers the queen, for the most part, rose above the mudslinging.

“I don’t know what it’s like now – I mean, I’ve visited but I certainly haven’t lived there in a while – but nobody ever criticized the queen,” Kennedy remembered. “This was before [the death of Princess] Diana, of course, but I didn’t hear a single – even cynical, college kids – you never heard them make jokes about the queen or be critical in any way.”

On the other side of the aisle, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer joined Kennedy and his other colleagues in honoring the legacy of a titan. He took to the Senate floor shortly after learning the news.

“It is a marvel to think that in the same year of Her Majesty’s coronation, Harry Truman was still in the White House. The world was still coming out of the shadow of the Second World War, entering a bold, uncertain, uncharted future,” Schumer said.

The leader also recounted that Queen Elizabeth was the first British Monarch to be specially invited to speak to both chambers of Congress, which he said strengthened the bond between the two nations because America doesn’t have royalty. We have Congress.

There have been seismic shifts in culture and technology over Schumer’s four decades in Congress, but that sweeping span of time pales in comparison to the queen’s seven decades wearing the crown.

“Her reign saw the dawn of the atomic age, the age of the internet, the fall of the Soviet Union, an unprecedented global pandemic,” Schumer remembered. “She didn’t just witness the great turns of history, she helped shape them over the seven decades – seven decades – of her reign.”

Even in today’s hyper-partisan Washington, the queen maintained respect across the great political divide.

“It’s just bittersweet,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Raw Story as he exited the Capitol. “The combination of longevity, impeccable character, and steadfast leadership during war and peace will be hard to – I don’t think we’ll ever see that again.”

The loss of her, Graham argued, will be felt across the globe.

“It’s a sad day for the British people and really, I think, for the world at large to lose somebody that seemed to be sort of a Rock of Gibraltar,” Graham said.

As the news broke, the Senate was wrapping up its short Labor Day work week, which meant senators rushed to cast their last vote and then sprinted to awaiting cars destined for the nearest airport or open road. After Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) wrapped up a private conversation with a colleague on the Senate steps, he darted to the passenger side door of an awaiting SUV.

“I’ve got nothing. Nothing,” Manchin said as I approached him. “I’m not talking.”

“Death of the queen though, any reaction?” I pressed.

“Oh my God. That’s awful,” Manchin replied, as he paused momentarily to reflect. “Only queen I’ve ever known.”

Even with all the soaring remembrances pouring out of Capitol Hill, this is America – a monarchy-free zone since 1776. Our rebellious ancestors severed ties with the heavy-handed British crown of their day. A few decades later they came back looking for blood during the War of 1812. Red coat donning British soldiers again trampled on hard-won American soil, including when they stormed the Capitol and sacked White House – which forced President James Madison and First Lady Dolly Madison to flee to neighboring Maryland – in 1814.

Through it all, America has maintained its independence and democratic principles, even as subsequent generations of political leaders maintained our unique, monarch-free republic. While the queen was surely beloved here, all the trappings of her reign – hereditary aristocracy, scepters, crowns, and jewels – remain antithetical to the American way.

That may explain why one of America’s most well-known recent populist politicians initially shrugged off the news.

“Any reaction to the death of the queen?” I asked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

“No,” Sanders replied.

The Vermont senator, his signature frizzy gray hair, unkempt as usual, took a few more steps across the Capitol grounds before he softly, almost to himself, offered one final thought: “I liked her.”

Several injured during shooting at Uvalde Memorial Park

The Uvalde Police Department is asking residents to stay away from Uvalde Memorial Park due to an active crime scene.

“The Uvalde Police Department is currently investigating a shooting with injured victims,” the department posted to Facebook.

KSAT-TV reported, “Two juveniles are hospitalized after being shot at Uvalde Memorial Park Thursday evening, according to Uvalde police.”

Both victims were transported via helicopter to a San Antonio hospital.

“Police said they’re looking for a juvenile suspect in connection with the shooting and they do know his name, though it hasn’t been released publicly,” the network reported.

Memorial Park, on Main Street, features a basketball court, playground equipment and a skate park, among other amenities.

CBS news correspondent Lilia Luciano reported she was at the park.

“An area has been cordoned off and there is some police presence here,” Luciano reported. “I’m seeing a car with the door open and a backpack on the ground. Police are interviewing possible witnesses.”

CNN’s Shimon Prokupecz reported there is “no current threat in Uvalde.”

“No current threat in Uvalde. Certainly scary for the community and parents of Robb Elementary victims who were in a meeting at the civic center when the shooting happened nearby,” he explained. “The mayor says at least 2 people were shot.”

The Texas Department of Public Safety also weighed in.

“We are working with the Uvalde Police Department and Sheriff’s Office following a suspected gang related shooting at Memorial Park,” Texas DPS reported. “This information is preliminary, as the situation develops we will work with local law enforcement to provide updates.”

This is a developing story…

“This is where WW III starts”: “The Grab” filmmaker on the urgent scarcity created by the powerful

According to the stunning new documentary, “The Grab,” the purchase of Smithfield Foods and the war in Ukraine are examples of how other countries are gaining control of food and water as a means of seizing power. 

“There are people capitalizing on the scarcity and looking to grab up what is left for themselves at the expense of other people.”

Director Gabriela Cowperthwaite’s alarming film, which is receiving its World Premiere at the Toronto Film Festival, follows Nate Halverson, from the Center for Investigative Reporting, and presents a series of case studies that show the human cost of hidden deals that consolidate control of food and water. One infuriating example is how Saudi Arabia has invested in farmland in La Paz County, Arizona where there are no regulations for pumping water. As such, the Saudis “drink the milkshake” of the residents by sucking the water dry to grow hay to ship back to the Middle East to feed their own cows (and people). Meanwhile, the residents of La Paz County are seeing their wells run dry.

Nebraska farmers are moving to Russia to help with a rodeo, one of Putin’s aims. In Zambia, it is colonization all over again as farmers are being displaced by private military companies investing in Africa to mine their land, an untapped resource. Climate change is also a factor impacting the geopolitics of food and water. 

Cowperthwaite’s film plays out like a thriller as it involves Halverson getting a cache of secret emails — dubbed “The Trove” — that connect some of the dots. He and his investigative team is also denied entry into Zambia, and interviews with possible whistleblowers are canceled. But they persist, following the money and making contacts to show the horrific ramifications of what happens as countries start to use food as a weapon. 

“The Grab” does, however, end with some hopeful options. Cowperthwaite spoke with Salon about making her new documentary. 

Nate says he was looking into pigs and seven years later, he was connecting it to technology that makes people invisible. How did you find this story, how long did you work on the film, and did you have any idea where it would lead?

I worked on it for six years. It was a little convoluted. I came on board a year after the Smithfield pigs story Nate reported on. He was starting to see different versions of food and water scarcity bear themselves out across the globe. The Center for Investigative Reporting introduced the topic to me as a look at impending starvation. That was the lens they were using. I began by asking questions, and Nate had done so much research he was answering them at the ready. There was a moment when I realized this isn’t an existential environmental story, where the world is heading into this void; this is human agency. There are people capitalizing on the scarcity and looking to grab up what is left for themselves at the expense of other people. It’s a story almost more about equality than food and water scarcity disaster. 

Can you talk about the case studies you present in the film? What decisions did you make about what examples to include? 

What keeps Nate and me up at night, especially Nate, because he’s been reporting on this for so long, is what we didn’t include. I felt the Arizona story was so strong because it was so accessible and clear. There are people who don’t have a ton of money seeing that their wells are dry and not understanding why. They go to meetings and ask questions, and what they are starting to learn is another country is tapping the aquifer at a fast rate to feed their cows in Saudi Arabia.

“I wanted to start with food and water and depleting aquifers, and what was mind-boggling to me was the world conflict element – how this leads to war.”

It was such a clear, socioeconomic example. It’s easy when you have enough money and power to pull one over on an entire community. That is not to say it was done on purpose, or purposely insidious, but look how easy it to grab what’s underneath [the earth] without anyone knowing what is happening. That was startling.

There were other stories that were good. One hit the edit floor really late. The GERD, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, which is, geopolitically, one of the most fragile areas in the world where all superpowers will have to get involved if something happens there. If Ethiopia dams off the Nile, that water won’t get to Egypt as plentifully. That will starve Egyptians and hurt their farmers. That is happening in real time right now. Every country is worried and thinking about this.

This is where World War III starts. It’s so complicated and there are so many players. It was tough to include because it’s convoluted, and I only have 90 minutes. I have to deliver information in bouillon cubes and keep it digestible and hold [viewers’] interest. I have to be super responsible and not overload them. There was enough information to make a series. 

“People would ghost us … when they realized the scope of what we were trying to do, they would cancel interviews or just not call back.”

Nate talks about telling the story right and on a massive scale. What can you say about creating the narrative which takes all kinds of turns, from including a segment on the Great Famine in China, which is historical, as well as interest groups that prey on depleting resources in Africa and Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine? 

I wanted this to be a geopolitical thriller. I didn’t want this to feel completely pedantic or that we had all the answers. I wanted audiences to feel that they were part of the investigative reporting that was unfolding before them in the same way that it was unfolding before us. That is an exciting narrative in general. There is something important about audiences feeling they are uncovering it with you. We’re not smarter than anyone watching this. Nate is unearthing things because it’s his job. People should feel they have a front row seat to this journey, and that helps keep everyone attention through some dense and intense information. That helped drive the narrative trajectory.

People follow what we did in real time. I wanted to start with food and water and depleting aquifers, and what was mind-boggling to me was the world conflict element – how this leads to war. It can be a zero-sum game. When the powerful have more themselves, others have less. Hungry people rise up, and this is bad for the world — not just that country. It becomes an international crisis. When populations starving across the globe affects us at our doorstep. That brings disease, refugees, bare shelves in the grocery store, and prices going up. We will have to get involved. It’s an international security issue. That was the portal of interest into guns, invisibility cloaks, defense, and how this whole issue is pushed into the conflict space.

Edward Hargroves, of Goldcrest Farm Trust, gives an interesting pair of interviews. Some interviewees are very forthcoming. You get access to meetings and in some cases, you run into roadblocks. What can you say about coordinating the people and meetings and stories you filmed?

Nobody knows this more than a reporter, but that was one of the biggest challenges by far. People would ghost us when they realized we were butting up against very powerful people. When they realized the scope of what we were trying to do, they would cancel interviews or just not call back. Everybody realizes the stakes here. We didn’t leave too many stones unturned when it came to unearth the powerful entities who are trying to grab up the final arable land left on the planet. That’s why it took six years. Potential interviewees were running from us. They said, “I can talk about my area, but I don’t want to go there.” There are hornet’s nests people don’t want to poke. My previous documentary, “Blackfish” was a David vs. Goliath story that focused on one corporation. This film, we have a lot of Goliaths.

You also call out folks like Erik Prince, who probably wouldn’t talk with you for the film. Are there dangers in exposing the connections you do with the Saudi Prince or with Putin? 

Another thing that took a long time and was a variable in this film taking six years, was how airtight the information had to be. There is no room for us to be slipping or not reporting out every single fact. Nate and his team combed through every word. Going after the trove of emails, we were trying to figure out a pretty specific thing who is grabbing up arable land, where they are doing it, and how. I was never privy to the entire thing. We were very disciplined and surgical about it. We didn’t mine for anything that wasn’t germane to the film. It’s reporting discipline exercised by the team, especially Nate, and we were able to create a document we can stand by. Legal went over it and over it. I have never had a documentary this combed over by legal, but it was incredibly important to get the facts right. It took a while.

“The Grab” does offer some calls to action. What is the possible impact your film will have to foment change? 

The main one is arming everyone with information. Do you understand more now about how the world works? Did it feed your brain even a little bit? The hardest thing is that part of it. With “Blackfish,” it was just don’t go to SeaWorld. The first part of “The Grab” is scope. The U.S. has zero water strategy, and no one is looking at it as a National Security issue, or rewriting water laws that are centuries old made at a time when we had fewer people and thought we had resources that were limitless. Any time people see legislation tackling the water issue, please read it and get involved. The other thing is the entire food system needs to be rewritten, we need regenerative agriculture and understand this system differently. Not buy food that is out of season. All this stuff we heard before, but I hope now it has bigger context and makes more sense.


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


The biggie is that when people ask, “What they can do?” They are asking, “What can I do without having to change what I’m doing or how I live?” Inertia is so much stronger. Stopping your own personal lifestyle train is so difficult for some reason. If you ask, “What can I do without having to change how I live?” then my answer is, “Nothing.”

Everyone has to change a little bit. You have to think about what’s right for you and what can you do. If there’s one thing you can do, please do it to the best of your ability and shout it from the rooftops. If you see someone wasting food and it feels like a gut punch, then say something and have that be your thing and do it to the fullest extent. Because you will send a message. The little changes we each have to make. We can’t have the conversation at all about what can we do if we don’t 100% engage in eating less. If we do that, it’s a no-brainer. Those things help the environment and allow us to not use up our resources as fast.

“The Grab” is about stopping powerful entities from grabbing up what’s left for themselves. That has to be legislation and holding power and corporations accountable. Making sure the government develops a water strategy. Those are the bigger ideas that need to be floated out there and we need to support them. If that legislation comes forward, I’m hoping the film gives context to be able to sign on to that legislation and realize that it’s important and it 100% affects you.

Trump says King Charles III will be a “great and wonderful king”

Former President Donald Trump has emerged from the virtual crowd of online well-wishers to weigh in on the passing of Queen Elizabeth II and wish her successor, King Charles III, the best of luck. 

“King Charles III, who I have gotten to know well, will be a great and wonderful king. He dearly loves the United Kingdom and all that it represents to the World. He will prove to be an inspiration to everyone. Queen Elizabeth has been, and will be from above, very proud of King Charles III,” Trump said on Truth Social.

Trump’s full Truth Social statement on the queen’s passing, which came hours after a rant against the Lincoln Project in which he referred to the members of the American political action committee as “perverts and lowlifes,” can be seen below:

“Melania and I are deeply saddened to learn of the loss of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Together with our family and fellow Americans, we send our sincere condolences to the Royal Family and the people of the United Kingdom during this time of great sorrow and grief. Queen Elizabeth’s historic and remarkable reign left a tremendous legacy of peace and prosperity for Great Britain. Her leadership and enduring diplomacy secured and advanced alliances with the United States and countries around the world. However, she will always be remembered for her faithfulness to her country and her unwavering devotion to her fellow countrymen and women. Melania and I will always cherish our time together with the Queen, and never forget Her Majesty’s generous friendship, great wisdom, and wonderful sense of humor. What a grand and beautiful lady she was—there was nobody like her! Our thoughts and prayers will remain with the great people of the United Kingdom as you honor her most meaningful life and exceptional service to the people. May God bless the Queen, may she reign forever in our hearts, and may God hold her and Prince Philip in abiding care.”

During Trump’s most recent visit with the Royal Family in 2019, he and Melania attended a state banquet at Buckingham Palace. Giving a toast at that banquet, Queen Elizabeth said “Visits by American presidents always remind us of the close and lasting relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States,” according to Fox News

Coverage of Trump’s time with the royals pointed out that although most of the festivities went off as planned, apart from that time he made then Prince Charles wait an hour for tea, a few breaks in normal protocol were noticed in an earlier visit that took place the previous year.

A video shared by The Guardian shows that Trump shirked expected etiquette by walking in front of the queen, which is a no-no.


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


“He met Queen Elizabeth and he immediately embarrassed himself by breaking royal protocol and wandering aimlessly in front of her,” Seth Meyers said during a segment of his late-night show that aired after Trump’s first royal visit. “The Queen just disappeared behind Trump. It’s like a royal eclipse; the only thing missing was Trump staring directly at it!”

Notably, the Trumps were also late for tea during their 2018 visit during which Prince Charles and Prince William were absent.

“This business of Prince Charles and Prince William not being there for the Trump visit was a snub. They simply refused to attend,” a source familiar with the planning of Trump and first lady Melania Trump’s meeting with Queen Elizabeth II told the Times, as reported in earlier Salon coverage. 

See video via ABC of the Trump family meeting Queen Elizabeth II for the first time in 2018.

“You have to outwork everybody”: Mo Amer on his Netflix immigrant comedy about hustling in Houston

Comedian Mo Amer’s new critically acclaimed Netflix show, “Mo,” is unlike any other TV show that has come before it. “Mo” marks the first time American audiences get an honest glimpse into the life of a Palestinian American family living in Houston, complete with all laughs, heartaches, struggles and joys that it entails. I spoke to Amer — who I have known for years — on “Salon Talks” about his groundbreaking new show. 

Amer is not new to sharing the lives of Palestinian Americans with audiences. It has been a staple of his stand-up routine that has been showcased in two Netflix specials. But “Mo,” co-created by Ramy Youssef, the star and creator of Hulu’s “Ramy,” gives the audience more than that. We learn about the dreams of Mo’s family that are inspired from his own challenges — from losing his father at a young age, to immigrating from the Middle East to Texas, to navigating the asylum system for over 20 years in desperate search of becoming a U.S. citizen.

The eight episodes of this semi-autobiographical comedy also gives viewers insight into the life of undocumented immigrants and the precarious life of those waiting for asylum to be granted. We see the hustle required to survive, the pitfalls of being preyed upon when you can’t go to the police, and more. And like the melting pot experience that defines the life of immigrants and their children, “Mo” intersects with other immigrant communities, such as with his Mexican-American girlfriend Maria, played by Teresa Ruiz.

There’s something else the show depicts that is so much part of the American experience: the love of their culture and their love of their adopted new home. In “Mo’s” case, we see it with his pride of being both Palestinian and a Houstonian. And on a personal note, also being of Palestinian heritage, “Mo” is more than a Netflix show — it’s a source of pride for our community in finally seeing the story of a people that has long been demonized shared with Americans in a beautiful, funny and heartfelt mosaic. Watch my interview with Mo Amer here or read a Q&A of our conversation below.

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

“Mo” has gotten incredible reviews, congratulations. I’d love for you to share your story for those who don’t know a lot about you. You were born in Kuwait, but you’re Palestinian. How did your family get from what was then Palestine, to Kuwait and then ultimately, how did they pick the United States of America?

My father was a telecommunications engineer. And just like if you were in the states and you lived in Texas and your dad gets a job in New York, you moved to New York. And this was the case before I was born. My father ended up getting a job with a Kuwaiti oil company and the rest is history. He was really a brilliant man, really, just ahead of his time, as far as electronics was concerned, and just tech is concerned. I understand he was part of the team that built the first radio station in Kuwait. He’s the one who helped with his team create wireless communication from rigs.

He always had telephones since the ’60s, like a cell phone, which he held over his shoulder from my mom and was surrounded by electronics constantly. He was so fascinated about how they worked and how they operated. And that’s how we ended up in Texas. Then when the Gulf War happened and then you realize you’re displaced people and you don’t belong. You don’t know where you belong. You’re constantly looking for a new home, and we just ended up naturally in Houston, Texas.

“Mo” is not just about the Palestinian experience. There’s a lot of Arabic and there’s also a lot of Spanish because your girlfriend, the love of your life, is Mexican American. It truly resonates as the immigrant experience, but also the undocumented immigrant experience. How important was it for you to share that story that’s really never been told either?

The whole idea of the show is to be as grounded, as real as possible. Yes, the show is about belonging. This is about a refugee family’s displacement and generational trauma. How do we tap into that most authentic way

“Every time I felt any kind of fear, I knew immediately that was the road that we needed to travel on.”

possible? And that’s all that really the focus was. And then you have this backdrop of Houston, which so incredibly diverse. It’s one of the most diverse cities in America. I think it’s like 80 languages spoken in my suburb alone and has never been depicted on television before ever. There’s never been a narrative sitcom coming out of Houston.

Being grounded and being honest from my own story made it more believable and relatable. Every time I felt any kind of fear about some kind of subject that’s deeply personal to me, I knew immediately that was the road that we needed to travel on. And it was so hard to just push through my own feelings because, man, feelings can be really strong and can deter you from doing something that you should. And in this case, I really made sure to lean into it, although it was scary.

“Ramy” fans may remember you from that show. When I interviewed Ramy Youssef, who’s also the co-creator of your show, during the first season of “Ramy,” he said something I’ll never forget. He said, “Mo’s a great comic. But he’s actually a better actor.” In this show, your acting is very natural, very honest and vulnerable. Is this something you’ve been studying on the side?

I did not do any of that. I really study Robert De Niro. He’s of my favorite actors of all time, so just I study him crazy and I just see how he picks certain facial expressions or eyebrow movements or hand gestures, especially his comedy. There’s one scene where our director goes, “Give me a Robert De Niro moment.” Acting for me is just being in the moment, being present for your partner that’s there and being very natural and organic about it. I don’t know how to explain it.

In the last episode, you talk about the weight of the world being on you. You say, “Look mom, this isn’t working out. We’re not getting asylum, and I got to do all this stuff.” And she says back,”What did we do when our family lost our land in Palestine? Did we sit around and cry? When we got driven out of Kuwait, did we sit around and cry? No, we carry on. That’s what Palestinians do. We carry on.” And it resonated so much with me because I’ve always thought about how as a half Palestinian, I’ve been born into struggle. And I have it lucky. I live in New Jersey and New York. I have cousins who live in the West Bank under occupation. That line really hit home. What about that inspires you, is it being Palestinian? 

You have to push forward and it comes with this immigrant mentality where you have to outwork everybody. Just different people that come from disadvantaged communities, like Michael Jordan is a great example. He just came from nothing. Had to outwork everyone to become the greatest basketball player of all time. He spent the time in the gym and that was the big motivation for him to be great.

For me, my motivation was that early on in my career in the late ’90s, people were telling me like, “Oh man, you’re so talented. If only you weren’t Palestinian.” Just straight casual

“It comes with this immigrant mentality where you have to outwork everybody.”

racism. Just like, “Maybe you change your name.” Like, “Whoa, whoa. You want me to erase my lineage? F**k. That can’t happen.” So it was just about being patient and understanding that this was going to be a true marathon.

The best thing you can do for yourself is just be prepared for when you get the ball gets passed to you, you can nail that jumper and win the game. And that’s just been my mantra forever. If I’m going to do stand-up, I’m going to go up more than anybody else. And if it takes time to be great at it, then that’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to outwork you. That’s worked very well for me. That’s the only way to do it.

This idea of others telling you don’t talk about being Palestinian. I’ve heard that from other Palestinian-American actors who’ve been told that. Was there any pushback at Netflix?

No. My writing room was really mixed, really diverse. Harris Danow, who was an EP on the show, he’s Jewish, he comes from a Jewish background. It was very important for me to have healthy dialogue in the show with my own writers. Nobody ever gave me any issues regarding anything I did in my show. It was about finding the right spacing and being in integrity for the story. It wasn’t about any outside anything. It was really pleasant to finally be in that space.

We’re highly paranoid people. I’m just looking around like, “Is this for real, is this really happening?” And it was just such a wonderful thing to be able to tell an honest, grounded experience and having Aba and Nazeer as this Jewish Zionist character with Nazeer, who is a Palestine Christian character and having Palestine Christians also seeing was very important to me and having them be friends, but also being able to have spirited discussions where they can yell at each other and be mad at each other and then be like, “Hey, you want some sugar with your tea?” Be that compassionate also. 

That rings true from what I’ve heard from my grandmother, from my own mother, these type of experiences that exist. During the Holocaust, one of the most devastating things that’s happened in history, Jews were fleeing and going to Muslim countries and seeking asylum effectively in those countries and refuge in those countries. They were embraced and loved and looked after and cared after.

We have a long-standing tradition of working together, being deeply rooted in our faith and aligned that way. I don’t really buy into that and I think it’s all just fabricated to separate us. The show is about humanizing it all and bringing it all back to what I believe to be the real reality of it and our own instincts of wanting to be close to each other.

The characters in “Mo” also have their own individual stories. Your brother Sameer is intriguing.

He’s inspired off of my real brother who has severe OCD that he takes medication for. He definitely has some social awkwardness that we can’t really pinpoint 100% where it comes from. He has different other medical issues, and mental health is just something that’s never really talked about in a really productive way in America, much less within families sometimes, and specifically Arab families, where it’s suppressed in a way or just, you just deal with it and never really directly address it. We have defined his character as somebody who’s autistic.

In the show, you address undocumented immigrants and people getting preyed upon. How important was that to show that undocumented immigrants are struggling and hustling to make it and then there’s people who prey on them because they can’t go to the police.

And lawyers too. That was another thing too, like to have someone within your own community take advantage. That happens all the time. That really happened to us. This attorney claimed that he was an immigration specialist and my mom hired him and he stole $5,000 from us. 

The judge actually fired him in the middle of our asylum case. He was like, “This man’s going to get you deported.” And he just reamed him in front of the whole court in front of everyone and fired him, which was very nice of the judge. He could have deported us. He could have just been like, “Well, what are you going to do? You f**ked up and you’re deported.” It could have happened, but we were very fortunate that the judge didn’t do that. 

It was just really important to show, not only the systematic problem that we have in immigration, but also that being an asylum refugee in America essentially forces you to do things that are criminally adjacent. To absolutely survive and function essentially forces you to do things in an illegal manner, which is mind-blowing in a country where just constantly complaining about crime and things like that when you don’t have the legal space to create opportunity for them to have the legal job, much less trying to just feel like part of society and feel accepted.

My dad passed away a little over 20 years ago, and I wish he was alive to see “Mo” because it’s not something you see on American TV, seeing Palestinians in a slice of life, being happy, dancing and not even a hint of terrorism. The olive oil that you carried around. Olive oil is part of Palestinian life. The olive tree is a big part of your show is such an important symbol to Palestinians. Can you share a little bit about what it means to Palestinians that people don’t understand that?

We get shipments every six months from our olive farms back home. Olive oil is a big part of our life. We basically drink it. Having unfiltered pure olive oil not only has cultural significance, but also religious as well and medicinal

“Olive oil is a big part of our life. We basically drink it.”

significance to us. So for Muslims definitely. And it just culturally is whether you’re Christian or Muslim, it has the same kind of play as well. And then you have the destruction of olive trees that happens to Palestinians and the uprooting in Palestinian trees and homes.

I was just kind of playing into that, but also a symbol of peace as well, extending an olive branch of peace. So it’s really just a great way, as such a phenomenal layer of sophistication to the whole series and depth that couldn’t really achieve with anything else.

Also to have the parody of the Mexican American experience in Texas and what they must feel that this used to be Mexico and what it was like for them. In the end, you do have Mexico, you can still go back to a country where you feel like you belong to that being the big difference. But there’s just so many parallels with the wall that’s being built in Mexico and the wall that exists in Palestine. It’s just great commentary on separating people doesn’t really work and it’s never worked in human history and it’s time to work together and create some kind of dialogue and understand without being overtly political, which I don’t really like.

Is there any word from Netflix on a second season? 

Not yet. I mean, I stepped into this very confidently. I’m like I want everything to be in the first season. Well it’s impossible. The story’s so rich, the experiences are so wide that it’s impossible to have everything in. There’s so much to unearth. I mean we barely started scratching the surface and I look forward to the opportunity, but it feels good so far. It feels good that we’re trending in the right direction.

“Funny Girl” gives Lea Michele a stage to poke fun at those literacy rumors

The audience at Lea Michele’s opening night as Fanny Brice in the Broadway revival of “Funny Girl” brought as much drama as the musical performance playing out onstage.

The boisterous crowd included Ryan Murphy, creator of the long-running series “Glee,” which starred Michele; actors Jonathan Groff, Drew Barrymore and Zachary Quinto; New York governor Kathleen Hochul; and filming TikTok-ers. Thunderous applause and cheers interrupted multiple songs. One Vulture writer counted four standing ovations in the first act alone. 

Applause and raucous laughter came for one line in particular, where Michele as showgirl Fanny says, “I haven’t read many books.” It’s not the line and show which got such a reaction, but rather Michele’s history and reputation.

Salon digs into the story of Michele’s literacy rumors, and why not everyone in the packed audience may have been hoping for her continued Broadway success.

“Sorry Not Sorry” and “One More Thing”

In 2017, hosts Jaye Hunt and Robert Ackerman discussed former “Glee” co-star Naya Rivera‘s, memoir “Sorry Not Sorry” on their podcast, “One More Thing.” Rivera, who died tragically in 2020 and left behind a young son, had written of feuds, partying and hook-ups among the cast. 

She also related incidents where a female “Glee” actor displayed behavior that distressed the young granddaughter of the legendary Tim Conway, who guest-starred on the show. Rivera wrote, “He’d even brought his granddaughter to the set because she was such a ‘Glee’ fan, and she ended up crying because she couldn’t understand why someone was such a b**** to her grandpa!”

The book alleged that actor Michele refused to improvise, as suggested by Conway, instead insisting they stick to the script she had memorized. Tensions were high on set because of it. Hunt and Ackerman wondered what Michele thought of the memoir and her place in it. As Ackerman told Jezebel, “Maybe she can’t read so she can’t read the book.”

Child star life

As preposterous as the idea sounded, Hunt and Ackerman laid out a surprisingly in-depth amount of evidence for Michele supposedly being unable to read, hinging on the fact that Michele was a child star. She started performing on Broadway at the age of eight, as Young Cosette in “Les Misérables.” A role in the original Broadway cast of “Ragtime” soon followed. She next played the role of Wendla Bergmann in the musical “Spring Awakening,” originating the part from early workshops to Off-Broadway to Broadway in 2006.

During this time, according to the illiteracy theorists, Michelle didn’t have time to attend school. That much is sort of true: Michele was homeschooled while in “Ragtime” and later turned down a spot at New York University to continue working.  

The youngest of performers often must give up certain aspects of childhood, such as attending a regular school with their peers. USA TODAY, in an article about the challenges and pressures of child actors, interviewed Lucia Scarano Forte, an actor and former set teacher: “She recalls toddlers being on non-union film sets until 2 a.m. barely awake, and being taught their lines by frustrated parents. Or of parents quitting jobs, pulling kids out of schools, and relocating to Los Angeles to pursue that ephemeral dream of fame and fortune.”

The article also interviewed Tia Mowry, who as a teenager starred on “Sister, Sister” with her twin, Tamera. “You miss out on a lot of things,” Mowry told USA TODAY.

Career patterns

Some of Michele’s career decisions may have also fueled the illiteracy fire. Offered the part of Éponine in “Les Misérables,” a different role than she had played in the show before, Michele chose to stick with “Spring Awakening.” She stayed in the show for years, an unusually long amount of time for theater actors who often depart after much shorter engagements. Some suggested that she already knew the part in “Spring Awakening” and did not want to have to learn the lines and songs for another.

A similar reasoning was ascribed to the fact that Michele has worked with Murphy repeatedly, as Murphy would allegedly read her lines to her and for “Glee,” provide her songs on recorded demos, not written sheet music.

Not only that, Michele’s assistants are apparently seen using her phone more than she does, while her social media captions sometimes consist solely of emojis, according to these rumors.

Addressing the rumors

For years, Michele did not dignify the rumors (or memes) of her illiteracy with a response. But in a 2022 interview with The New York Times, conducted shortly after she was offered the role in “Funny Girl,” abruptly replacing Beanie Feldstein, she did. Addressing what the reporter describes as “a bizarre rumor,” Michele told The New York Times, “I went to ‘Glee’ every single day; I knew my lines every single day . . . And then there’s a rumor online that I can’t read or write? It’s sad. It really is. I think often if I were a man, a lot of this wouldn’t be the case.”

Misogyny and double standards may play a part in the persistence of the rumor, but so may the abusive behavior Michele is alleged to have displayed over the years. Rivera’s book, where she wrote that Michele blamed Rivera repeatedly until finally not speaking to Rivera during Season 6 of “Glee,” was only the beginning.

“Glee” actor Heather Morris has since come forward about bullying from Michele on set. In 2020, Samantha Marie Ware, Alex Newell and Amber Riley all spoke openly about Michelle’s alleged racial microaggressions, including Ware’s claim that Michele threatened to “s**** in my wig.” Ware also said Michele made her life “a living hell.”


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


In The New York Times interview, Michele addressed the claims of past racist and abusive behaviors in a way which managed to be both vague and ableist, blaming her “pursuit of perfectionism” on the creation of “blind spots.” And as Vulture pointed out, not everyone in the vocal Broadway crowd at Michele’s “Funny Girl” debut may have been on the star’s side. Some seemed to buy a ticket hoping to see an alleged bully, reader or not, fail.

 

Justice Department leans in on Trump’s special master request for documents

The United States Department of Justice on Thursday filed a response to Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon’s Monday ruling that granted former President Donald Trump’s request for a special master to determine whether the trove of classified documents that were seized during the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s search warrant execution at Trump’s unsecured Mar-a-Lago estate on August 8th are covered by executive privilege, which Trump has claimed in his lawsuit against the FBI.

Cannon, whom Trump appointed, additionally required the Justice Department to pause its probe into how and why Trump had a foreign country’s above-top-secret nuclear capabilities hoarded in his beach house.

The Justice Department asked Cannon “to stay the part of her order that halted the investigation and would require showing classified docs to special master, and says will appeal if she doesn’t do that,” New York Times national security and legal reporter Charlie Savage tweeted along with a copy of the motion. DOJ is “willing to let a master be appointed and see the unclassified docs,” Savage explained.

The Justice Department in its answer unambiguously emphasized the stakes surrounding what is contained within the materials that were in Trump’s possession.

“The government and the public would suffer irreparable harm absent a stay. This Court correctly recognized the government’s vital interest in conducting a national security risk assessment of the possible unauthorized disclosure of the classified records and any harm that may have resulted,” it wrote.

“But the review and assessment on their own are not sufficient to address and fully mitigate any national security risks presented. The Intelligence Community’s review and assessment cannot be readily segregated from the Department of Justice’s (‘DOJ’) and Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (‘FBI’) activities in connection with the ongoing criminal investigation, and uncertainty regarding the bounds of the Court’s order and its implications for the activities of the FBI has caused the Intelligence Community, in consultation with DOJ, to pause temporarily this critically important work. Moreover,” DOJ continued, “the government and the public are irreparably injured when a criminal investigation of matters involving risks to national security is enjoined.”

The Justice Department stated that Trump “has not shown that he had standing to seek relief, or that this Court properly exercised its equitable jurisdiction, with regard to the classified records. The classified records are government property over which the Executive Branch has control and in which Plaintiff has no cognizable property interest.”

It noted that “accordingly, even if (as the Court stated) Plaintiff has made ‘a colorable showing of a right to possess at least some of the seized property’ sufficient to establish his standing to request that a special master review records that might potentially belong to him, D.E. 64 at 13, he categorically cannot make that showing with respect to documents marked as classified.”

The Justice Department stressed that “the seized classified records at issue here — each of which the subpoena plainly encompassed — are central” to its “ongoing criminal investigation” into Trump.

It also told Cannon that the declassification power “falls upon the incumbent President, not on any former President, because it is the incumbent President who bears the responsibility to protect and defend the national security of the United States.”

The Justice Department’s final argument was that “Trump himself declined to assert any claim of executive privilege over the classified records at the point when it would have been appropriate to do so.”

Why “diamond rain” could be normal weather across the universe

Alien weather can get intense. On Neptune and Uranus, for example, the skies rain literal diamonds. Gravitational forces on these ice giants can become so strong, they pressurize carbon into solid crystals — a carbon crystal being, technically, what diamond is — which then rain down towards the core of the planet.

Diamond rain might seem like an exotic weather phenomenon, but new research suggests it’s far more common in the universe than we might think. Indeed, exoplanets, or alien worlds outside our solar system, may be literally swimming with diamonds.

Now, a new study published in Science Advances sheds light on the astrochemical processes that create diamond rain — or “carbon sedimentation,” scientifically speaking — and found that this blingy phenomenon may be more common than previously thought. What’s more, humans could take a page from this bizarre alien weather and develop technology inspired by diamond rain that could be applied to modern electronics and medicine, which could improve quantum computers, drug delivery and much more.

“We have a preconceived notion that diamonds are so unique. They’re hard to come by on the Earth’s surface,” Arianna Gleason, one of the study authors, told Salon. “But in the larger cosmos, what we’re finding is that the constituent components — carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, the sort of simple molecules — are so abundant, especially in these gas giants in exoplanets, that the volume over which they exist at these extreme conditions is enormous.”

 Gleason is a physicist at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), a 2-mile-long particle accelerator that features a giant X-ray laser called the Linac Coherent Light Source. This huge machine can create shockwaves with massive amounts of pressure, comparable to what one might see in the depths of Uranus or Neptune. To study what may be happening on these planets, the researchers targeted a chunk of polyethylene terephthalate, a plastic commonly used to make soda bottles and fibers. It contains a good ratio of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, which resembles the chemical makeup of these ice giants.

Indeed, like Jupiter and Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are mostly composed of hydrogen and helium. But unlike Jupiter and Saturn, what makes the latter two different is the core of these planets consists of a dense slushy of water, ammonia and methane — which means they probably smell not unlike the outhouses at Coachella. The addition of these chemicals can make a big difference in how these planets produce diamond rain.

This technique could be used to make nanodiamonds for quantum sensors, which can detect the tiniest variations in magnetic or electrical fields — making it possible to measure viral particles, the inside of a single cell or even the spin of an electron.

To recreate these conditions, the researchers blasted their plastic target with immense pressure, forming nanodiamonds — meaning diamonds smaller than 1 micrometer, which are too small to be seen by the unaided eye. To image them, the team at SLAC also beamed two different types of x-rays to more accurately measure the diamonds, the first time this combo has been used. They repeated the experiment numerous times, not only at SLAC but also at SPring-8, a radiation facility in Harima Science Garden City, Japan. 

It can get extremely hot when conducting such an experiment, with temperatures ranging from 3,500° to 6,000° degrees Kelvin (equivalent to 5,840º to 10,340º Farenheit.) But these conditions did indeed form nanodiamonds, which thanks to using those multiple x-ray types, was confirmed with higher fidelity than previous experiments.

Now, the evidence for diamond rain on such ice giant worlds is much more persuasive, according to another study author, Dominik Kraus, a professor at the University of Rostock in Germany — and it could lead to novel ways of producing nanodiamonds for industrial uses.


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


Previously, Kraus and his colleagues formed nanodiamonds by blasting X-rays at polystyrene, also known as Styrofoam. But by using a different plastic this round, it added oxygen to the mix, which made diamond formation even more likely.

“Visualizing how the oxygen played a role in amplifying and ramping up the diamond formation was really key and unique in this study,” Gleason says.

“It’s pretty strong evidence,” Kraus told Salon. “There are many examples where just studying something out of curiosity has turned into very useful applications in the end.”

 For example, this technique could be used to make nanodiamonds for quantum sensors, which can detect the tiniest variations in magnetic or electrical fields — making it possible to measure viral particles, the inside of a single cell or even the spin of an electron.

“There are probably significant ways you can tune the diamond formation,” Gleason says. “Now that we’ve sort of laid the groundwork — sort of the foundational physics and chemistry study of how would it form at these conditions — now we’ve got this great knob of pressure, temperature and energy deposition that we can tune to hopefully extract more scalable ways of forming nanodiamonds.”

Astronomers have theorized that Neptune and Uranus rain diamonds since the 1980s, but it’s not like scientists could just run out and check. And the last probe to visit either planet was Voyager 2, which buzzed by over 30 years ago.

“That’s kind of the most up-to-date information as to what we have for those two planets,” Kraus says. “If we get a better measurement of gravity and magnetic fields of those planets, then we’ll have much stronger constraints for the planetary interiors.”

Kraus notes that theories about Jupiter’s atmosphere were upended a few years ago when NASA’s Juno mission visited the gas giant. So this may not yet be the final word on diamond rain until we learn more about mysterious interstellar bodies like Neptune.

“I hope that in some years, we get another space probe mission to these ice giants,” Kraus says. “It’s really inspiring. It feels like it goes beyond the little environment here and tries to see more big connections outside our world. If this helps us to bring us new applications on our planet, this is also very nice, but also just to learn what’s out there, to really bring us humans into kind of a new context and to our surroundings.”

Religious employers need not cover PrEP in their health plans, federal judge rules

A federal judge in Fort Worth agreed Wednesday with a group of Christian conservatives that Affordable Care Act requirements to cover HIV prevention drugs violate their religious freedom.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor also agreed that aspects of the federal government’s system for deciding what preventive care is covered by the ACA violates the Constitution.

O’Connor’s ruling could threaten access to sexual and reproductive health care for more than 150 million working Americans who are on employer-sponsored health care plans. It is likely to be appealed by the federal government.

This lawsuit is the latest in a decade of legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, many of which have run through O’Connor’s courtroom. In 2018, O’Connor ruled that the entirety of the ACA was unconstitutional, a decision that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At issue in the class-action lawsuit is a 2020 mandate requiring health care plans to cover HIV prevention medication, known as PrEP, free of charge as preventive care.

In the suit, a group of self-described Christian business owners and employees in Texas argue that the preventive care mandates violate their constitutional right to religious freedom by requiring companies and policyholders to pay for coverage that conflicts with their faith and personal values.

The lawsuit was filed in 2020 by Austin attorney Jonathan Mitchell, the legal mind behind Texas’ civilly enforced six-week abortion ban. In the suit, Mitchell also challenges the entire framework through which the federal government decides what preventive services get covered.

O’Connor threw out several of Mitchell’s arguments but agreed that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s system for deciding what health care services are required to be fully covered under the ACA violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“At a high level, this lawsuit is part of a larger pushback against the government’s ability to regulate,” said Allison Hoffman, a law professor at Penn Carey Law at the University of Pennsylvania. “And then also asking what happens when regulations and religion clash.”

One of the plaintiffs, Dr. Steven Hotze of Katy, often sues the government and elected officials over politically charged issues, including fights with GOP state leaders over emergency COVID-19 orders and an attempt to stop Harris County from expanding voter access.

In the complaint, Hotze said he is unwilling to pay for a health insurance plan for his employees that covers HIV prevention drugs such as Truvada and Descovy, known generally as PrEP, “because these drugs facilitate or encourage homosexual behavior, which is contrary to Dr. Hotze’s sincere religious beliefs.”

PrEP reduces the risk of getting HIV by 99% when taken as recommended, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In spite of the assertions by the Christian group in Texas, the CDC also says that 1 in 5 new cases are in women, not men who have sex with men.

“The virus doesn’t choose who to infect, it can infect anyone,” said Dr. Satish Mocherla, an infectious disease specialist at Legacy Community Health Services in Dallas. “So why a particular demographic is being targeted is a mystery to us.”

And contrary to what the lawsuit asserts, PrEP does not “facilitate or encourage homosexual behavior,” said John Carlo, CEO of Prism Health North Texas and former public health director of Dallas County. “PrEP prevention research shows that its use does not increase risky behaviors or cause people to have more sex or use more intravenous drugs when using it,” Carlo said. “This is well studied.”

The other plaintiffs, including John Kelley, a Tarrant County orthodontist, claim they “do not need or want contraceptive coverage in their health insurance. They do not want or need free sexually-transmitted disease testing covered by their health insurance because they are in monogamous relationships with their respective spouses. And they do not want or need health insurance that covers Truvada or PrEP drugs because neither they nor any of their family members are engaged in behavior that transmits HIV.”

Kelley was previously the named plaintiff in the case, but the name was changed last month “because the media coverage of this case has triggered a wave of threats and cyberbullying” against Kelley, according to a motion.

Wide-reaching consequences

The lawsuit specifically addresses PrEP, but O’Connor’s ruling, which addresses how the federal government can decide what preventive care is covered in employer health care plans, may end up having much more wide-reaching consequences, Hoffman said.

“We’re talking about vaccines, we’re talking about mammograms, we’re talking about basic preventative health care that was being fully covered,” she said. “This is opening the doors to things that the ACA tried to eliminate, in terms of health plans that got to pick and choose what of these services they fully covered.”

The American Medical Association, along with 60 leading medical organizations, issued a statement condemning the lawsuit.

“With an adverse ruling, patients would lose access to vital preventive health care services, such as screening for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, heart disease, diabetes, preeclampsia, and hearing, as well as access to immunizations critical to maintaining a healthy population,” the organizations wrote.

While implementation has not been as universal as hoped, fully funded preventive care through the ACA has been shown to be largely effective at improving health outcomes, reducing health care spending and increasing uptake of these services.

“The idea that an employer can shop a la carte for policy coverage goes against what we have learned over the last decade in the effort to end the HIV epidemic,” said Carlo, the former Dallas County health director. “This takes us into the wrong direction, and we have only just begun to head into the right one.”

At Legacy Community Health Services in Houston, where patients include a large population of those receiving PrEP, the lawsuit has begun to worry those who rely on their insurance to cover their treatment — and those patients are not restricted to members of the LGBTQ community, Mocherla said.

They include hemophiliacs and others who are vulnerable to HIV infection, Mocherla said. The rate of infection since the introduction of pre-exposure prophylaxis has declined in almost every demographic, he said.

Allowing companies to drop free coverage would prevent many of Legacy’s patients from being able to afford the treatment, Mocherla said, and would reverse that historic trend of declining HIV rates.

Shutting down access right now, while “we are on the verge of a breakthrough,” would set back the effort to eradicate the deadly virus by decades, he said.

“Without prevention, how can you cure the disease?” Mocherla said. “It’s just shocking. … And if ending the HIV epidemic is dear to anyone’s heart, we cannot leave prevention aside. And that’s why we are mystified. We are all very dismayed.”

Disclosure: Legacy Community Health Services and Prism Health North Texas have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


The full program is now LIVE for the 2022 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 22-24 in Austin. Explore the schedule of 100+ mind-expanding conversations coming to TribFest, including the inside track on the 2022 elections and the 2023 legislative session, the state of public and higher ed at this stage in the pandemic, why Texas suburbs are booming, why broadband access matters, the legacy of slavery, what really happened in Uvalde and so much more. See the program.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/07/texas-HIV-ACA-lawsuit/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Enjoy your breakfast as Europeans do — slathered in butter and showered in chocolate

One of the best things about Europe is the absolute unabashed acceptance of breakfast as an important meal and an important meal which should usually involve chocolate.

Americans, as nearly every movie and television show ever made will attest, like to half-heartedly take a sip of orange juice while rushing out the door muttering something about already being late. But in the old world, it’s fine to luxuriate with an espresso and a slice of bread slapped with high quality chocolate. These are the people who gave us Nutella, after all. I thank them for that.

While they have not had the same kind of transatlantic success as their hazelnut spread cousin, the Dutch brand De Ruijter’s chocolate sprinkles deserve an equal place of fond esteem in your cupboard. Because you know what makes buttered toast better? Chocolate sprinkles. The Dutch call it hagelslag. Oh, and they invented the sprinkle back in 1913, so I think they know what they’re doing. The word hagelslag, by the way, comes from the pellets’ resemblance to hail, which probably means they’re good for you.

The key to hagelslag’s charm is that it is not like our flavorless domestic sprinkles that, in my opinion, ruin a lot of perfectly good ice cream cones. (You can find other brands of hagelslag out there, but like Nutella, De Ruijter is king.) De Ruijter’s sprinkles are real, perfect little nibs of real, perfect chocolate. The Dutch, who reportedly consume over 30 million pounds of hagelslag a year, also happen to be the fifth happiest people in the world. Coincidence? I don’t think so.


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


Dutch supermarket aisles groan with different varieties of hagelslag— milk chocolate, dark chocolate, white chocolate, fruity (Sprinkles don’t have to be chocolate to be sprinkles!), even a mixed chocolate blend charmingly called “flake party.” And this is not kid food; oh no. When I asked a Dutch colleague recently what her favorite Dutch meal was, her eyes seemed to mist over when she described peanut butter on toast, topped with De Ruijter. Who could argue with a choice like that? Certainly no one from Australia or New Zealand, where the sprinkles are multicolored and the treat called fairy bread is similarly beloved.

You don’t need to go to the Netherlands, or even get some De Ruijter imported to your home (although you wouldn’t be sad if you did either), to experience the pleasure of sprinkle bread. All you need to make any morning a hagelslag morning is freshly buttered bread and a generous grating of your best chocolate. I make mine by grilling the bread in salted butter to give everything an irresistible, near-melted vibe. You can of course leave the bread untoasted, which does help the sprinkles stick better to the butter. Regardless of your method, you will drop a bunch of sprinkles while you eat this exquisite delicacy, and it will be completely worth the flake party that breaks out on your shirt. It might just make you the feel like the fifth happiest person in the world.

***

Inspired by Global Table Adventure

Salted Butter and Chocolate Sprinkles Toast (Hagelslag)
Yields
 1serving 
Prep Time
 5 minutes
Cook Time
 5 minutes

Ingredients

  • 2 slices of white bread 
  • De Ruijter chocolate sprinkles or a bar of your favorite good chocolate
  • 2 tablespoons of salted butter, softened

 

Directions

  1. Melt the butter over medium heat in a large skillet.
  2. Add the bread and toast in the pan for a minute until lightly browned. 
  3. Flip the bread and toast the other side. (You may need to do the slices one at a time.)
  4. Remove bread from pan and cover generously with chocolate sprinkles, or use a vegetable peeler or microplane to create chocolate slivers on top. Eat immediately.

Cook’s Notes

You want real chocolate here, not some waxy decorative stuff, so either seek out European chocolate sprinkles or simply grate your own favorite brand. Regular supermarket sprinkles won’t cut it. 

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

What is listeria? A microbiologist explains the bacterium behind deadly food poisoning outbreak

Bacteria do, and will, end up in food. Everyone eats — intentionally or unintentionally — millions to billions of live microbes every day.

Most are completely harmless, but some can cause serious illnesses in humans. Because of these potential pathogens, there is a long list of foods to avoid, including uncooked eggs, raw fish and unwashed fruits and vegetables, particularly for pregnant women. The foods themselves are not bad, but the same cannot be said for certain bacterial passengers, such as Listeria monocytogenes, or listeria for short.

This particular pathogen has found ways to indiscriminately get into our foods. While deli and dairy foods like cold cuts, cheese, milk and eggs are frequently culprits for causing listeriosis — the general name for listeria-caused infections — fresh vegetables and fruits have also been implicated.

The variety of foods responsible for U.S. listeria outbreaks in the past decade shows just how easily these bacteria get around. Listeria has turned up in hard-boiled eggs, enoki mushrooms, cooked chicken and, in 2021, packaged salad — twice.

Even the frozen aisle is not spared from listeria contamination. Contaminated ice cream in Florida was behind this year’s listeria outbreak, with 25 reported cases spanning 11 states since January 2021, according to an early August 2022 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those who fell ill ranged in age from less than 1 to 92 years old, and 24 of the cases have involved hospitalizations.

How can such a tiny organism bypass extensive disinfection efforts and wreak such havoc? As a microbiologist who has been working with listeria and trying to solve these mysteries, I’d like to share some insider secrets about this unique little pathogen and its strategies of survival inside and outside our bodies.

Farm to table

To prevent consumer exposure to listeria, the food industries follow stringent disinfection and surveillance guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Any detection of listeria triggers a recall of potentially contaminated food products.

Since 2017, there have been over 270 listeria-related food recalls. These are incredibly costly and can sometimes lead to fears in consumers as well as nationwide disruptions in food services. However, the recalls represent one of the few tools that the food industry has to protect consumers from foodborne infections.

Not all listeria strains are created equal. Genetic variations in listeria make a big difference in whether the pathogen ends up being involved in multistate outbreaks or simply hitching a ride harmlessly through our digestive tract. Essentially, based on the different methods used, listeria can be subtyped into different lineages, with some associated with outbreaks more frequently than others.

Researchers are investigating ways to tell these listeria strains apart, distinguishing the less harmful ones from those that are particularly dangerous, or hypervirulent. Being able to accurately identify them can help policymakers assess risks and make economically feasible decisions to improve food safety.

Listeria is an intracellular pathogen. Inside the body, it can grow inside a cell and spread to neighboring cells.

Listeria is tough

Listeria can live in any place where food is grown, packaged, stored, transported, prepared or served. Our research team has even found listeria in organic lettuce harvested from a backyard garden.

Listeria can survive and grow in temperatures as cold as 24 degrees Fahrenheit (-4.4 Celsius) because it has adapted to cold temperatures and developed tricks for overcoming cold stress. Considering the average refrigerator maintains a temperature range of 35 F to 38 F (1.7 C to 3.3 C), even when the food is stored properly at refrigeration temperatures, a harmless few listeria can grow to dangerous levels of contamination over time.

Listeria is also extremely versatile in adapting to and surviving all kinds of disinfection processes. When it grows on surfaces, listeria protects itself with a biofilm structure, a kind of coating that forms a physical and chemical barrier and prevents disinfectants from reaching the bacteria within.

Surviving the harsh conditions outside our body is only the first part of the story. Before even beginning to cause infections, listeria needs to get to the intestines without getting caught and destroyed by the body’s defenses.

Traveling and surviving passage through a human digestive tract is not easy for bacteria. Saliva enzymes can degrade bacterial cell walls. So can stomach acids and bile salts. Antibodies in our digestive tract can recognize and target bacteria for degradation. Moreover, resident gut microbes are strong competitors for the limited amount of space and nutrients in our intestines.

After digestion, the body’s intestinal movement sends traffic one way — out of the body. In order to stick around and cause infections, bacteria have to attach themselves and hang on against the bowel movement while competing for nutrients. Successful pathogens can establish these survival and attachment tasks while undermining our immune defenses.

Listeria that manage to stick around in our intestines can trigger an immune response. In healthy people, that might manifest as minor diarrhea or vomiting that goes away without medical attention.

However, those with compromised immune systems or immune systems temporarily weakened as a result of medication or pregnancy can be more susceptible to severe infections. In the absence of an effective immune system, listeria can invade other tissues and organs by creating an efficient niche for growth.

Listeria in stealth mode

Listeria is what we microbiologists call an intracellular pathogen. In an infected individual, listeria can grow inside a cell and spread to neighboring cells. Hiding inside our cells this way, listeria avoids detection by antibodies or other immune defenses that are designed to detect and destroy threats that exist outside of our cells.

Once in stealth mode, listeria can move into and infect different organs. Wherever it goes, inflammation follows as the body’s immune system tries to go after the bacteria. The inflammation eventually results in collateral damage in nearby tissues.

In fact, deaths from listeria infections are often associated with the more invasive forms of the disease in which the microbes have breached the intestinal barriers and moved to other body parts. Life-threatening illnesses that can result from listeria include meningitis — inflammation around the brain and spinal cord that can occur when these microbes infect the brain — or endocarditis, infection of the heart’s inner lining. And in pregnant individuals, if the pathogen reaches the placenta, it can spread to the fetus and cause stillbirth or miscarriage.

As such, invasive listeria cases often have an alarmingly high hospitalization rate of more than 90% and a fatality rate that can reach 30%.

The scary statistics argue for a proactive and effective infection control to protect vulnerable populations, such as elderly or pregnant individuals, from listeria exposure.

Think, cook and eat

If you have risk factors and want to take extra precautions, maybe turn that unpasteurized cider into a hot, mulled cider to kill the bacteria with boiling and simmering. Eat soft cheeses on foods that get cooked, such as pizzas or grilled sandwiches, instead of eating them cold, straight from the refrigerator. Essentially, use heat to bring out the delicious flavors and eliminate potential listeria contamination in your food.

Ultimately, it’s nearly impossible to live in a completely sterile environment, eating food devoid of all living microorganisms. So enjoy your favorites, but stay up to date with ongoing recalls and follow the expiration guidelines, especially for ready-to-eat food.

Yvonne Sun, Assistant Professor of Microbiology, University of Dayton

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