Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Supreme Court ends on a low note: Why we should now be more frightened for their next term

The 2021-2022 Supreme Court term will go down in infamy.

The right-wing majority behaved as if they were kids in a candy store, stuffing their faces with all their favorite goodies knowing there was no one who could stop them and no one who could hold them accountable for having done it. On gun rights, abortion, religion and the environment they took a wrecking ball to the court’s precedents and created bold new tests out of thin air. It was a breath-taking exercise of sheer institutional power — and they’re just getting started.

On the last day of the term, after handing down yet another shocking ruling (hamstringing the government’s ability to deal with climate change), they announced that they plan to take up one of the most hare-brained, right-wing assaults on democracy yet this fall. Surprising even their most cynical critics, the Supreme Court agreed to take up the so-called “Independent State Legislature Doctrine,” a half-baked idea that sprang out of nowhere in the opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and signed by Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in Bush v. Gore. Rehnquist held that since Article II of the Constitution says that states are to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct” a federal court can reverse a state court’s decision regarding state election law if it finds that that the state court disregarded the intent of the state legislature. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a scathing dissent in response, accusing the opinion of displaying “an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed.” He said it would “only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.”

RELATED: Our Fourth of July nightmare: A republic in the tightening grip of minority rule

Rehnquist’s novel idea was pretty much relegated to the ash heap of history except for some far-right judicial gadflies who were apparently chattering about it a Federalist Society cocktail parties for the past couple of decades. Until it reared its ugly head again before the 2020 election when Republicans started litigating their complaints about changes to the voting system due to the pandemic.

In a Wisconsin “shadow docket” case that was vacated by the full court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh weirdly inserted an irrelevant footnote referencing Rehnquist’s idea saying that “the text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws.” A few days later Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas filed a statement in a case in Pennsylvania suggesting that they also believe the Court must reverse a state supreme court that “squarely alters” election law enacted by a state legislature. So that makes four justices who have at least hinted that they are sympathetic to the idea that they are empowered to overrule state courts if they follow their own state constitutions in voting rights and procedures. In fact, it appears that all four are willing to overrule all state actors in favor of the legislature which they deem to be the only authority over election laws. Well, except, of course, for the Supreme Court which reserves for itself the final word.


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


It should come as no surprise then that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up a North Carolina case, Moore v. Harper, that would reinstate gerrymandered congressional maps the state Supreme Court struck down because they “subordinated traditional neutral redistricting criteria in favor of extreme partisan advantage” for the GOP. Apparently, the court wants to dig right into this issue in time for the 2024 election.

What this means in practice is that Moore could potentially put an end to state laws designed to end partisan gerrymandering, including in places like California where they use independent commissions. Even more concerning, closely divided states in which the legislatures are dominated by Republicans with Democratic governors and Democratic majorities on the Supreme Court, could end up being totally at the mercy of state legislatures which could act with total impunity. Governors could not even exercise their normal veto power and the courts would be nothing but potted plants when it comes to elections. With partisan gerrymandering untouchable, those Republican majorities would pretty much be permanent.

J. Michael Luttig, an ultra-conservative former jurist, highly respected among Federalist Society types like the Supreme Court majority, sounded the alarm months ago, calling the Republican attempts to overturn the election in 2020 a “dry run for 2024.” He specifically mentions the Supreme Court’s apparent interest in the Independent State Legislature Doctrine and his analysis of the probable outcome in Moore tracks with other court observers: The three liberals will reject it along with Chief Justice John Roberts while Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh are all onboard. Only Amy Coney Barrett’s vote is unknown and she’s firmly an “originalist” which this court uses as a catch-all rationale for whatever partisan outcome they desire.

Luttig made plain what needs to be done:

Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress’ own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.

It’s possible they’ll be able to do the latter but after what we’ve seen this term it will be a shock if the court does not let loose the hounds of hell on our electoral system by empowering far right, super-gerrymandered legislatures to create election “rules” in federal elections that could conceivably overturn the vote of the majority. That is, after all, what Trump and his legal henchmen were pressuring state officials to do in 2020. Is there any question that they will do it in the future once they have the imprimatur of the Supreme Court?

As a political institution, the Republican Party no longer has any commitment to basic democratic principles. And from what we saw this term, it’s clear that as a legal institution the Supreme Court is no longer committed to them either. This case could literally spell the end of democracy as we’ve known it. 

I can’t believe I pay taxes for this

You ever look at your paystub and get depressed? Am I only one who sees my paycheck deductions and feels like I’m not getting my money’s worth for the government services provided? 

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying we shouldn’t pay taxes. I’d like to think any good citizen would be happy to contribute to a healthy functional society. I just feel like I’m not getting my money’s worth. Especially when I know the ridiculously wealthy, the true welfare queens, are not contributing 33% of their incomes in the years they even pay income taxes at all. When I look at my depleted stubs, analyze the deductions and see the job that my city, state and federal governments are doing with those funds, I can’t help but think the juice ain’t worth the squeeze. 

Let’s talk about basics — roads and bridges. I have traveled to countries where some roads are left incomplete — as in, you are driving on the highway and then the highway just stops — so I appreciate the infrastructure we do have in America. However, I live in Baltimore City, where the streets are crumbling like a damp cookie. Don’t think about drinking a cup of coffee on the way to work because the truck-sized potholes will guarantee multiple stains all over your shirt. Sometimes I feel like I should buy my daughter a helmet because the uneven grooves make her bounce up and down. (Thank God we sprung for the expensive car seat.) One of the main roads to my house literally looks and feels like some sort of sick virtual reality video game. I have to bob and weave between orange traffic cones and city workers and dump trucks and excavators before slowing down to drive over the chunks of earth that have been gutted and try not to collide with the construction that has been going on for over three years. And the only thing that has been broken longer than that road to my house is funding for our public school system. 

I’ve been feeling this way about the system and its return on our investments for a while, but the recent Supreme Court decisions just made everything feel more urgent.

I have been very vocal about my love for public schools and public school teachers. Many of them are beyond excellent. They work extremely hard and have made giant strides in elevating the lives of our children. But those same excellent, hardworking teachers may still never reach their full potential because school funding depends in part on local property taxes, which means the ones in poor neighborhoods who need the most almost don’t have a chance at competing against schools in wealthier neighborhoods full of resources.

And in some of those underfunded, overwhelmed schools, it can be easier for some poor administrators and teachers to slip through the cracks than it would be in institutions with fewer overall stresses on their systems. I once dreamed of sending my daughter to public school so that she can have an experience like mine and be socialized in diverse realities. But my experiences have also forced me to consider private schools. I feel more and more like this is yet another institution I pay into but will never be able to use, like the police.

I have a history of joking with cops when they confront me: “Offer me top rate service, officer, I pay your salary!” But I never call the police myself unless I need to file a police report because it’s needed for insurance reimbursement. Other than that, never. For one, they tend to be bad at their jobs. And two, they might shoot me.  

Once I called the cops after someone slashed all four of my tires. I was a broke grad student at the time, no drama in my life that would have provoked an act of spiteful vandalism. Honestly, I think the slasher targeted the wrong car. But when I called the cops to have one come down and fill out a report, the joker got mad at me

“I’m not sure these tires were slashed, buddy,” the short unibrowed officer said, circling the car in his tiny work boots, scratching his head with the brim of his hat. “These look like pretty standard flats to me.” 

“You think I got four flats at the same time? Are you kidding me?”

“Listen here, buddy, my dad owns a garage in Detroit,” he said. “So I like to think I know a thing or two about tires.” 

“Detroit, what? Just write the report.” I laughed to suppress my anger, to avoid an argument that could turn ugly, and to get the paperwork I needed to file my insurance claim. 

The cop begrudgingly wrote the report. 

When will these broken systems be held accountable like the rest of us already are?

If a person puts a gun to my head and robs me of my belongings, I will not call the police even though my taxes help pay for their services. I don’t expect the police to comfort me, listen to me, or to solve the crime. And even if they were likely to solve the crime, I don’t think jail would solve the problems that caused the person to rob me in the first place. And that’s another thing we have to pay for, too. 

I’ve been feeling this way about the system and its return on our investments for a while, but the recent Supreme Court decisions just made everything feel more urgent. 

Last week, the court reversed Roe v. Wade, declaring that a woman’s constitutional right to abortion, precedent that has been in place for nearly a half century, no longer exists. This happened after justices responsible for the change had denied any intentions of overturning the landmark decision during their confirmation hearings. Donald Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, along with Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, also just curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to mitigate climate change by setting limits on how they regulate power plants. And we paid their salaries while they did it.

Our hard-earned money pays for their homes, the island vacations they take their families on, the cars they drive, the meals they eat. Associate justices make $274,200 a year; the chief justice brings in $286,700. Which may not be a lot of money in the grand scheme of the federal budget, but let’s remember the estimated average salary of the American worker last year was $58,260. And who among them has a job guaranteed for life?

I’m sure I’m not the only one feeling, in this moment, like the judicial branch of the government might have been one of the greatest mistakes of the nation’s founders, filed right below allowing slavery to exist in this new country they fought to create. Maybe they imagined those lifetime appointments would always be held by somber experts in jurisprudence who would put the good of the nation first, and not an assembly of ideologically-drunk, politically-motivated clowns. How can checks and& balances exist when the majority on the court’s goal appears to be serving the interests of one political party? And we get the bill!

Again, I’ll proudly pay my fair share of taxes because I believe in accountability and doing my part. But when will these broken systems be held accountable like the rest of us already are?

Read more

about taxes:

Sinema kills plan to codify abortion rights — then fundraises on protecting women’s health care

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., on Thursday sent out a fundraising email touting her work to protect women’s health care after shooting down President Joe Biden’s proposal to codify abortion rights.

Biden on Thursday called for the Senate to support a filibuster carveout to pass a federal law ensuring the right to an abortion.

“The most important thing … we have to change — I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law,” Biden said during a news conference at the NATO summit in Madrid. “And the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights — it should be (that) we provide an exception to this … requiring an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision.”

The plan was quickly shot down by Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who have opposed scrapping the filibuster. Sinema’s office told CNN that the senator is “still opposed to gutting the filibuster on any topic including on reproductive rights.”

Sinema was accused of hypocrisy after repeatedly touting her support for abortion rights. Former Obama administration digital strategist Tim Fullerton flagged a fundraising email Sinema’s campaign sent out Thursday touting her work to “protect women’s health care.”

Sinema said after the Supreme Court last week struck down federal abortion protections that the ruling “endangers the health and wellbeing of women.”

“Throughout my time in Congress, I’ve always supported women’s access to health care, and I’ll continue working with anyone to protect women’s ability to make decisions about their futures,” she said in a statement that noted she has “repeatedly voted in favor of protecting women’s right to choose and is a cosponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act.”

Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett noted that Sinema and Democrats were only able to confirm Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson with 53 votes because of an existing filibuster carveout.

“Why wouldn’t she do it to pass the bill to codify Roe—a bill she cosponsors?” he tweeted.

John LaBombard, Sinema’s former spokesman, dismissed criticism of the senator, describing a filibuster carveout to protect abortion rights as a “progressive purity test.”


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


Sinema last year wrote a Washington Post op-ed arguing that Democrats “have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster.”

“To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to expand health-care access,” she wrote, “Would it be good for our country if we did, only to later see that legislation replaced by legislation… defunding women’s reproductive health services?”

Sinema’s explanation was rejected by Arizona Democrats, who censured her for backing the filibuster as the party tried to codify voting rights during a nationwide Republican crackdown on ballot access. Some progressives have already launched efforts to back a primary challenger to Sinema in 2024.

There is, of course, nothing to stop Republicans from forcing their own filibuster changes if they regain control of the Senate in the midterm elections regardless of what Democrats do this term. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who previously eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, floated the possibility of passing a federal abortion ban earlier this year.

McConnell’s Senate strategy during Biden’s first two years in office has heavily relied on obstruction from Manchin and Sinema. The Republican leader has repeatedly pointed to Sinema’s opposition to rolling back the Trump tax cuts — which she campaigned against — to privately assure Republicans that she would help kill his legislative agenda.

“Hopefully that will be enough to keep this thing underwater permanently,” he said publicly during a Kentucky Chamber of Commerce event this spring.

McConnell went further on Thursday, vowing to kill the bipartisan United States Innovation and Competition Act — a bill that invests in American industries to bolster U.S. competitiveness with China that passed the Senate 68-32 — if Democrats move ahead with a reconciliation bill to lower drug prices.

Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., a potential Sinema primary challenger, tweeted that the “only reason he can make that threat” is because he knows Sinema and Manchin empower him “by not neutering the filibuster.”

Longtime progressive advocate Nina Turner called out the Democratic Party for allowing the two senators to hold their agenda hostage.

“Manchin and Sinema deserve to face consequences,” she tweeted. “Would Mitch McConnell allow two Republican senators to derail the GOP agenda? No he would not.”

 

Correction: This article previously said Sinema supported a filibuster carveout to raise the debt ceiling. It was a workaround that passed with 60 votes.

Read more

about Sinema’s obstruction

School’s out forever: Arizona moves “to kill public education” with new universal voucher law

Last Friday, while the country reeled from the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, Arizona made history of a different sort. Legislators in the Grand Canyon State passed a universal school voucher bill that, once signed by Gov. Doug Ducey, will become the most wide-reaching school privatization plan in the country. 

In his January State of the State address, Ducey called on Arizona lawmakers to send him bills that would “expand school choice any way we can,” and the Republican-dominated legislature obliged, delivering last Friday’s bill, which will open a preexisting program for Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) up to the entire state. In practice, the law will now give parents who opt out of public schools a debit card for roughly $7,000 per child that can be used to pay for private school tuition, but also for much more: for religious schools, homeschool expenses, tutoring, online classes, education supplies and fees associated with “microschools,” in which small groups of parents pool resources to hire teachers. 

Ducey said the law had “set the gold standard in educational freedom” in the country, and right-wing politicians and education activists quickly agreed. Corey DeAngelis, the research director of Betsy DeVos’ school privatization lobby group American Federation for Children, declared on Twitter that Arizona “just took first place” when it comes to school choice. Anti-critical race theory activist Christopher Rufo — the Manhattan Institute fellow who this spring called for fostering “universal public school distrust” in order to build support for “universal school choice” — tweeted, “Every red state in the country should follow [Ducey’s] lead,” since the law “gives every family a right to exit any public school that fails to educate their children or reflect their values.”

RELATED: Salon investigates: The war on public schools is being fought from Hillsdale College

From the American Enterprise Institute, education researcher Max Eden happily concluded that “Arizona now funds students, not systems,” deploying a formulation that has become common among conservative education activists, as when last week the Moms for Liberty network chastised Arizona public school advocates who opposed the bill as “system advocates” rather than “education advocates.” From Rhode Island, anti-CRT activist Nicole Solas, a fellow with the right-wing Independent Women’s Forum, tweeted, “You know what happens when you abuse people? People leave you. Bye, public school.” 

And back in Arizona, the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in honor of former senator and right-wing icon Barry Goldwater, celebrated the law it had done much to create as a “major victory for families wary of a one-size-fits-all approach to education,” plus a cost-saving measure to boot, since the total funding parents would receive through ESA vouchers is $4,000 less than Arizona’s already paltry per-pupil funding for public schools. 

By contrast, Democratic politicians and public education advocates described the law as the potential “nail in the coffin” for public schools in Arizona, as Beth Lewis, director of Save Our Schools Arizona (SOS Arizona) put it. 

“The Republican universal voucher system is designed to kill public education,” tweeted former Arizona House Rep. Diego Rodriguez. “OUR nation’s greatness is built on free Public schools. The GOP goal is to recreate segregation, expand the opportunity gap, and destroy the foundation of our democracy.” 

“I think it’s a very serious mistake and the result will be that, within a decade, Arizona will have a very, very poorly educated adult population,” added Carol Corbett Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education. “Maybe that’s the game.” 

*  *  *

For years, SOS Arizona says, their state has been treated as a “laboratory for predatory national privatizers” of education. When Betsy DeVos founded another of her advocacy groups, Alliance for School Choice, on the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, as the progressive White Hat Research & Policy Group noted in a 2019 report, it was headquartered in Phoenix. When the Network for Public Education graded states’ commitment to public education in a “report card” earlier this year, Arizona came in last. For years, the Goldwater Institute and its allies have advanced an array of programs to expand public funding of private schools, including, in 2011, shepherding the country’s first-ever ESA program into law, and thus launching a national model. 

The 2011 Arizona law that created ESAs — under which parents of eligible students who agreed in writing to opt out of public schools could receive vouchers ranging from $3,000 to more than $30,000  — was initially conceived in reaction to a conservative defeat. In 2006, just a few years after DeVos infamously called on conservative Christians to adopt “school choice” as a cause and a means of “greater Kingdom gain,” Arizona passed two voucher programs. But three years later, both were found to be unconstitutional means of redirecting public funds to private schools. 


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


In response, the Goldwater Institute developed the ESA concept as a workaround, giving the public funds directly to parents to spend as they saw fit, including on sectarian schools. (While in Arizona, “ESA” refers to Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, the same abbreviation is also used to cover similar programs with different titles, like “education scholarship accounts.”) To public education advocates like Charles Siler, cofounder of the progressive political consultancy firm Agave Strategy, the program amounted to “a money laundering scheme to get around the Blaine Amendments” — the state-level amendments that, until another groundbreaking SCOTUS decision last week, barred taxpayer funds in most states from being used to fund religious schools. 

But that’s not how it was sold. From its inception, says Lewis, ESAs were presented as a solution for high-needs students who required specialized education options. Then they were systematically expanded to include group after group: students in F-rated schools, in foster care, in active-duty military families, on Native American reservations. 

“The people who were pushing this through knew what they were doing — that they were going to expand this incrementally through sympathetic populations,” said Lewis. “And it didn’t raise huge amounts of opposition because people didn’t see the game plan at the time.” 

“The basic sales pitch was that schools are failing, and don’t meet the needs of children,” agreed Siler. While today Siler is a progressive public education advocate, a decade ago he worked as a lobbyist and PR staffer for the Goldwater Institute, helping other states follow Arizona’s lead in setting up ESA programs. “We definitely leaned into marginalized communities as much as we could. In Arizona, we started with special needs students. If we could use Black children as the face of our programs, we’d do it in a heartbeat, even though all of this is really about taxpayer-funded white flight and Christian nationalism.” 

“If we could use Black children as the face of our programs, we’d do it in a heartbeat, even though this is really about taxpayer-funded white flight and Christian nationalism.”

To demonstrate that point, Siler pointed to one of the figures who drove ESA and other conservative school privatization campaigns for years: Clint Bolick, who, before being appointed by Ducey as an Arizona Supreme Court associate justice, served as the Goldwater Institute’s director of litigation, the first president of DeVos’ Alliance for School Choice and cofounder of the Arizona libertarian law firm Institute for Justice. In the late 1990s, the New York Times dubbed Bolick the “political right’s point man on race,” for his two-year fight against the Civil Rights Act of 1991, his campaign against affirmative action and his work to scuttle the Department of Justice nomination of the late Lani Guinier, the first Black woman to be tenured at Harvard Law School, by labeling her a “quota queen.” More recently, the White Hat report described Bolick’s legacy as “primarily focused on laying the legal groundwork for a national disinvestment in public education in favor of free market education reforms.” 

But in 2017, says Lewis, Arizona’s education privatizers overreached, passing a law providing for universal voucher expansion. In response, a grassroots group of educators and parents launched a citizens’ initiative referendum campaign and put the issue on the ballot. In 2018, that led to a landslide repudiation of the law, with 65% of Arizonans voting against it — a nearly two-to-one margin. 

As Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts recently recalled, Arizona’s voters “didn’t just reject” the scheme: “They stoned the thing, then they tossed it in the street and ran over it. Then they backed up and ran over it again.” 

That came as a rude shock for the privatization movement, says Siler. “They thought Arizona was this playground where you could do whatever you want, see what works, then export it to Florida, Tennessee or wherever. This was the first time they had a big loss.” But the win came with its own repercussions, Siler continued, as conservatives responded by taking steps to overhaul the citizen initiative process in Arizona, working to disqualify some ballot initiatives in court and crafting legislation that required new supermajorities to pass an initiative into law. 

Now, less than four years after that public rejection of universal vouchers, Lewis says, Republican lawmakers have returned with a law that’s even worse than the one passed in 2017, immediately making every child in the state who is already in private school or being homeschooled eligible for the new funds — leading to an immediate cost increase of nearly $600 million, and opening the door for all of Arizona’s 1.1 million public school students to follow suit.

*  *  *

Since Arizona pioneered ESAs in 2011, similar programs have been launched in a number of other states. Among conservative education reform advocates, they’ve become a favored model. Last July, as the right was ramping up its attacks on public schools over pandemic safety measures, CRT and more, the AEI’s Max Eden warned that simply allowing public funding of private schools was an insufficient bulwark against “wokeness,” since too many private schools were under the sway of accreditation bodies that had already “gone woke.” Instead, Eden told the right-wing outlet Washington Free Beacon, state legislatures should promote ESAs, which would allow those funds to be spent on non-accredited schools — or almost anything else, for that matter. 

In praising Arizona’s new law this week, Eden wrote that ESAs represent “the purest form of school choice,” adding that they might spark the proliferation of microschools, opening what had been a “luxury good” for wealthy families during the pandemic to all Arizona families. He praised entrepreneurs who had transformed small microschool pods into companies that now offer their curricula of “self-paced Chromebook lessons and group problem-based learning” to the broader public, as well as established charter school networks, like the Texas- and Arizona-based Great Hearts Academy, that have expanded into the microschool business. (In 2018, Great Hearts drew national headlines after one of its Texas instructors directed students to list the pros and cons of slavery.) Eden also suggested that ESA-funded microschools might become a boon for teachers, since educators who go freelance and successfully advertise their services to the parents of a dozen kids, could potentially “draw nearly $80,000 in public funding,” amounting to a higher salary than the median public school teacher pay, even after deducting their expenses. 

But what Eden heralded as the entrepreneurial reboot of “the one-room schoolhouse” in private families’ homes is seen in grimmer terms by public school advocates. Both microschools and the sorts of private schools fueled by widespread voucher use, they say, tend to leave the quality of education students receive largely up to chance. 

“It’s easy to set up a one-room shop in a strip mall, give every kid a Chromebook and a plaid skirt, and tell parents they’re on an accelerated curriculum.” And it’s just as easy for those schools to “close up shop whenever they want.”

In Florida, as a 2017 Orlando Sentinel investigation found, massive voucher expansion led to the creation of low-cost but low-quality “voucher schools”: private schools inexpensive enough that low-income parents could cover their tuition with voucher funds alone, but so poorly regulated that repeated problems arose — schools set up in decrepit strip malls, schools that violated health and safety requirements, schools that hired teachers without credentials. The same situation holds in Arizona, said Lewis, and even a Goldwater Institute report found that ESA benefits would only cover about two-thirds of the median tuition for the state’s private high schools. 

While the words “private school” conjure an image of stone and ivy in most people’s minds, in school districts like South Phoenix, which primarily serves low-income families of color, Lewis said, “you’re not going to all of a sudden have a gleaming new Notre Dame prep school.”

“It’s very easy to set up a one-room shop in a strip mall, give every kid a Chromebook and a plaid skirt, tell parents they’re on an accelerated curriculum and take that $7,000,” said Lewis. But it’s equally easy for those schools to “close up shop whenever they want,” as numerous low-quality voucher schools have been known to do, leaving students stranded partway through the school year. When that happens, said Lewis, “There’s no recourse to claw those funds back.” 

As Arizona’s new law was making its way through the legislature, reported Arizona’s 12 News, Democratic lawmakers tried to add accountability and transparency measures, including testing mandates, background checks for employees hired with ESA funds and demographic tracking to ensure the program wasn’t just subsidizing private school tuition for rich families who didn’t need it. But none of those things made it into the final bill, shot down by arguments like that of bill sponsor and House Majority Leader Ben Toma, who argued that parents must serve as the “ultimate authority. They know what’s best for their children, and we should trust them to do the right thing.” 

Unfortunately, said Carol Corbett Burris, ESA programs have already demonstrated problems with that approach, through numerous cases of fraud, in which parents used the funds for things other than their children’s education. 

“There are no real checks to make sure children receive the education they deserve, no proof parents have to provide that their children learned,” said Burris. Even among the vast majority of parents who would use the funds as intended, she added, “You have people with absolutely no education credentials in charge of students, and nobody checking to ensure the education is of any quality at all.” 

“It’s like an insurance company giving parents of a sick child $7,000 and saying, ‘We don’t care if you go to a physician or a dentist — take that money and do what you believe is best,” Burris continued. “Parents may know best about many things, but they’re not professional educators any more than they are doctors, dentists or nurses.” 

“It’s like an insurance company giving parents of a sick child $7,000 and saying, ‘We don’t care if you go to a physician or a dentist — take that money and do what you believe is best.'”

What’s more, SOS Arizona pointed out, the ESA funds could also be used to send taxpayer funding to the sort of private school being established by Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, who recently announced plans to start a network of anti-“woke” Turning Point Academies, first in Arizona, then around the country. The first such school, with more than 600 students, is set to open in Glendale this fall, as the result of a partnership between Kirk and Phoenix megachurch Dream City. According to Newsweek, the academy will ban CRT, the New York Times’ “1619 Project” and what it calls “radical LGBT agendas.” Those 600-plus students, Lewis notes, will add up to some “4 million taxpayer dollars that go straight into Kirk’s academy.” 

*  *  *

On a larger level, the new law also speeds up the same sort of death spiral that has afflicted public schools across the country, by steadily draining funds away from public education. While the immediate cost of ESA expansion — for students already outside the public school system — will draw on Arizona’s general funds, the money to cover children who leave public schools in coming years will be deducted from public school budgets. 

“When that happens, especially in rural areas, if enough kids leave the system, they leave behind all kinds of stranded costs,” said Burris. Schools will still have to pay staff and keep the lights on, but will receive substantially less support to do so. “Then you have a vicious cycle, where the quality of education in public schools starts to suffer, which means more people leave, and the more people leave, the more the quality of education deteriorates.” 

That problem is compounded, adds Lewis, by the fact that private and charter schools are allowed to”cherry-pick” high-achieving students without special needs, while leaving higher-needs students in public schools as those schools are systematically drained of the resources to teach them well. That pattern, she continued, already means that one of Arizona’s top charter schools regularly starts each of its classes with hundreds of students, but only a few dozen remain by graduation, since the school has pushed most lower-performing students out. And if such charters convert into private schools, as they’re allowed to do, ESA expansion will mean they get more money and even looser regulation. 

“We know historically that when systems are opened up for everybody, students of color and low-income students never get the long straw, ever,” said Lewis. “They use this terminology of choice, but what they fail to acknowledge is that it’s the school’s choice, every time.”

Already, Arizona’s investment in public education is dismal, ranking second-to-last in per-pupil funding nationwide. Last Friday, alongside the ESA expansion, Arizona’s legislature also passed a budget that included a $400 million increase in public funding — enough, SOS Arizona noted, to potentially nudge Arizona’s ranking up to 45th-worst — but that’s complicated too. As Network for Public Education founder Diane Ravitch noted earlier this month, only half of that money is recurring, and all of it is contingent upon the voucher bill becoming law. That “poison pill,” wrote Ravitch, was a clear effort to preempt a replay of public education advocates’ 2018 ballot initiative, by holding the increase in school funding hostage to a privatization agenda. 

To SOS Arizona, it amounted to “adding more money to the top of our education funding bucket while drilling massive holes in the bottom.”

“I think we’re witnessing the dismantling of public education in our state,” said Lewis. “Will it happen overnight? No. But the effects will be felt quickly and the blow to public schools will be unsustainable.” If even a few kids leave a neighborhood school, the difference in funding is noticeable. If six or seven do, “that’s a whole teacher [salary] down.” In her own school, where Lewis teaches third grade, that sort of downsizing would mean the immediate increase of her class size of 27 students to more than 40. “Or do you make the cuts elsewhere? Do you cut special education, which has already been cut to the bone? Or music, arts and after-school programs, which have already been cut to the bone? Do you not have an assistant principal? Then how many students don’t get what they need?” 

“We are going to stop this by any means necessary,” Lewis said, including electoral work, public education, and possibly another ballot initiative, even if that means risking the “poison pill” cancellation of the state’s newly increased public school funds. “All options are on the table.” 

But all options, suggests Charles Siler, are also on the table for the other side. “One of the things people never fully comprehend is how far privatization advocates want to take things,” he said. “They want to get rid of all public funding for education. Eventually vouchers will die off too.” What will remain, he argues, will be a self-funded primary education system, funded by a lending market much as colleges are. Or as Lewis says, a “system of haves and have-nots.” 

Read more on the right’s systematic assault on public education:

In some states, women will be forced to carry pregnancies with lethal fetal anomalies

When news broke on Friday that the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, some states like Ohio rushed to put a six-week abortion ban in place. This means, as it stands, abortion is prohibited at six weeks of pregnancy for Ohioans. While there are exceptions in cases of life endangerment for the mother, although the language is vague, there are no exceptions for rape and incest.

What if an otherwise healthy pregnant person found out their fetus had a lethal fetal anomaly, and would not be able to survive outside of the uterus?

As a Cleveland-based maternal fetal medicine specialist and chair of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists Ohio chapter, Dr. David Hackney said he felt like suddenly the legal ground had “entirely changed beneath my feet,” as he started to play different scenarios in his head that could happen at work the next day. One particularly troubling one came to mind: what if an otherwise healthy pregnant person found out their fetus had a lethal fetal anomaly, and would not be able to survive outside of the uterus? Would that person be forced to carry that pregnancy to term knowing the fetus wouldn’t survive?

RELATED: Are contraceptives next for SCOTUS?

“My understanding is that the law is quite clear that there are no exceptions, in addition to incest and rape, for lethal birth defects or congenital anomalies,” Hackney said. “I think this is one of the things that I’m that I’m dreading most in the next several weeks because I’m the person who diagnoses birth defects, I’m the person who breaks horrible news to patients, and counsels patients about continuing the pregnancy or not.”

Indeed, not all patients choose to terminate their pregnancies in this situation — but some do. Under the current abortion ban in Ohio, they won’t have a choice. Instead of offering the option of termination, Hackney would have to refer a patient out of state to terminate the pregnancy if that was their decision. “But say somebody can’t travel?,” Hackney told Salon. “And it’s not always just a financial issue, they may have kids, they may have a job.” If travel wasn’t an option, they’d be forced to carry the fetus to full-term and go through labor and delivery.

Hackney said going down the path of being forced to carry a fetus with a lethal anomaly would be an “unequivocal nightmare.”

“I don’t know if there’s any other way to describe that, especially if you think of someone going through an entire pregnancy to term against their will for a fetus that is going to die,” Hackney said. “They’re going to be visibly pregnant during the third trimester, you can’t really easily conceal it, you’re going to get questions about it […] and then you have to go through the labor process.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in every 4,600 babies are born with anencephaly in the United States.

One example of this would be if a fetus is diagnosed with anencephaly, Hackney said, which is a type of neural tube defect when a baby is born without parts of their brain and skull. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one in every 4,600 babies are born with anencephaly in the United States. Since there is no standard treatment or cure, the CDC states “almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth.”

“It’s forced birth,” Louise King, vice chair of ACOG’s Committee on Ethics, told Salon, bringing up another example of a fetus with severe hydrocephalus, which is when the fetus has a large amount of fluid in the brain, which could mean there might be no likelihood of survival after birth. When this happens, since there’s no fetal treatment, a fetus might die in utero. If the fetus doesn’t, and as the pregnancy gets closer to full-term, sometimes the head is too enlarged that a vaginal delivery is no longer an option. “Even later in pregnancy, we’d offer to decompress the fetal skull and deliver vaginally to preserve the person’s ability to avoid severe infection, but in these states [where abortion is banned], that option is not possible either, so no matter what with that scenario you’re looking at forcing not only forcing someone to give birth, but forcing someone to undergo a surgical procedure.”


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


As King alluded to, it’s not just Ohio where this worst-case-scenario can become a reality. As of June 30, 2022, abortion is now banned in at least seven states, according to The New York Times’ tracker. Since SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling which had legalized abortion nationwide, the situation has remained fluid as some judges are moving forward to block abortion bans in states that are seeking to enforce them. However, about half of U.S. states are expected to allow bans or limit the procedure to some capacity in the coming weeks. None of the abortion bans at the moment have specific carve-outs for lethal fetal anomalies.

“It puts the pregnant person in such a terrible situation,” Dr. Melissa Simon, an obstetrician gynecologist at Northwestern Medicine, told Salon. “That they have to carry the pregnancy to term no matter what happens, and that is not without consequence — regardless if there’s a fatal genetic anomaly diagnosed in a fetus, carrying a pregnancy to term has risks regardless of the state of the baby, and that is just, it’s a very unfortunate.”

In some states with less restrictions on abortion, there are specific exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies. For example, in April 2022 the state of New Hampshire added a fatal fetal anomaly exception to the state’s 24-week abortion ban. Similarly, in the state of Massachusetts abortions are legal up until 24 weeks — but there is an exception if a “lethal fetal anomaly” is detected.

Meanwhile, back in Ohio, Dr. Hackney said he’s concerned that even when a patient can be referred out of state, will the clinic have capacity to handle the influx?

“The patients who are the ones with anomalies, do they get to go ahead or do you engage in triage?” Hackney said. “And then there’s a client ethical conundrum about that, and I can’t even believe I’m talking about this, do you put the rape victims first, the incest victims first, what about the 21-year-old who doesn’t want to be pregnant? These could be some of the issues that we could be facing.”

Read more on the Supreme Court leak and the end of Roe v. Wade:

Our Fourth of July nightmare: A republic in the tightening grip of minority rule

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, the court’s conservative supermajority performed a nifty sleight-of-hand, as if dressed in magician’s capes rather than judicial robes.

The six conservatives suggested that the court wasn’t scrapping a half-century of settled law, but empowering the people to solve the contentious issue of abortion rights themselves, via the political process. 

“It’s time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion. The ruling, Alito continued, “allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting and running for office.”

In a functioning democracy, in which majorities rule and the punishment for running afoul of the people’s will is losing an election, reproductive rights would be safe nearly nationwide. 

RELATED: How North Carolina became a laboratory for the GOP’s subversion of democracy

We do not have a functioning democracy. The court isn’t returning abortion rights to the political process to be determined by majority rule. It’s sending the issue back to state legislatures so gerrymandered that they can scarcely claim to reflect the will of the people at all.  It’s handing the issue to “elected representatives,” yes, but elected from districts drawn by these very lawmakers so that they cannot lose. 

It’s a broken system and a rigged game, severed from electoral accountability and run by lawmakers increasingly insulated from the people. Alito and his colleagues fully understand this; their decisions to bless extreme partisan gerrymandering and bleed the Voting Rights Act have helped create this era of worsening minority rule. 

This is democracy cosplay, performed by robed ideologues. After all, public opinion has remained remarkably consistent for the past 20 years: Before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs, almost twice as many Americans wanted to see Roe upheld as wanted to see it overturned. And after the high court’s decision, that number jumped even higher.

We have a broken system and a rigged game — democracy cosplay, severed from electoral accountability and run by lawmakers increasingly insulated from the public.

Yet even in states where majorities support abortion rights — including Iowa, Oklahoma, Ohio, Virginia and Arizona — lawmakers hurried to enact immediate, bold restrictions or enforce bans already on the books. This rushed activity followed additional abortion restrictions passed recently in Texas, Alabama and Georgia, despite opposition by majorities in those red states.

In Ohio, for example, a ban on abortions six weeks into pregnancy — a so-called heartbeat law — went into effect after the court overturned Roe. This law was passed by Ohio lawmakers in 2019 even though it was opposed by 52 percent of voters, and supported by just 39 percent. 

Ohio enacted that ban just months after the 2018 elections, in which Democrats and Republicans equally divided the statewide vote for the state legislature. Nevertheless, Republicans had gerrymandered themselves such a massive advantage that they won nearly two-thirds of the seats. Gerrymandering built a firewall between runaway lawmakers and accountability at the ballot box. Only six of those 99 seats in the Ohio House could even be considered competitive, meaning there’s effectively no way for a majority of voters to change their government.


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


Gerrymandering enables these laws — and then makes it all but impossible to vote the scoundrels out. So it should come as little surprise that GOP leaders have so little fear of the voters that they have already promised additional abortion restrictions this fall.

Even in closely divided states like Georgia and Florida, uncompetitive state legislative districts empower extreme lawmakers far out of the political mainstream. In Florida, those lawmakers passed a new package of abortion restrictions early this year, even though voters opposed them by a margin of nearly two-to-one. Gerrymandering helps Republicans hold 65 percent of seats in the state House, even though Gov. Ron DeSantis only won the state in 2018 by 33,000 votes. In 2020, when Donald Trump won 51 percent of the vote here, just six of 120 districts were competitive enough to be within 5 percentage points.

But that’s also the case in officially red states like Texas and Oklahoma. The draconian Texas restrictions effectively turn citizens into bounty hunters, empowered to file lawsuits against anyone they think may have helped someone else obtain an abortion. A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll showed that 57 percent of Texans opposed this legislation; lawmakers passed it anyway. Oklahoma — where a Pew Center poll found 51 percent of citizens believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases — passed a similar bill, the public be damned.

Citizens can vote harder, lobby their elected representatives, run for office themselves, or do any of the other civic-minded activities Alito encouraged in his opinion. But none of that really matters when the outcomes are preordained.

Minority rule has a tight grip on American democracy, and it has only just begun to squeeze in earnest. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, of course, was itself appointed by two presidents who lost the national popular vote, and then confirmed by a U.S. Senate that does not reflect the public will and hands extra power to smaller, whiter and more conservative states.

Now, one by one, this court is handing down decisions most Americans revile, and suggesting that the answer lies in a political process that this conservative wrecking crew has been systematically kneecapping for the last decade. 

It could get worse. On Friday, the court declared that it would hear arguments in a case from North Carolina that could hand gerrymandered state legislatures complete control over election law and procedures, from redistricting to the approval of presidential electors, without no veto by governors or review by state supreme courts. This terrifying notion is called the Independent State Legislature doctrine, and it seems likely that as many as four justices already support it. This is America as we head into so-called Independence Day: A nation where you can vote as hard as you want, but it might not make any difference.

Read more on the Supreme Court, gerrymandering and the end of democracy:

AOC says the U.S. is witnessing a “judicial coup”

Progressive powerhouse Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez warned Thursday that the United States is “witnessing a judicial coup in progress,” a reaction by the Democratic congresswoman to a raft of highly consequential Supreme Court rulings and the justices’ scheduled hearing of a critical voting rights case.

“If the president and Congress do not restrain the Court now, the Court is signaling they will come for the presidential election next,” Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) tweeted in response to news that the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Moore v. Harper—a case involving the dubious right-wing “independent state legislature theory” (ISLT)—this October.

ISLT, which the Brennan Center for Justice calls a “baseless” concept “making the rounds in conservative legal circles,” contends that congressional elections can only be regulated by a state’s lawmakers and not its judiciary, or even its constitution. The theory has been embraced by supporters of former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“If taken to its extreme, [ISLT] could help foment election subversion,” writes legal scholar Richard L. Hasen in Slate. “How so? Suppose a state court or agency interprets state rules to allow for the counting of certain ballots, and doing so favors one candidate. If the leaders of the legislature are from the other party, and they say that the interpretation does not follow the views of the legislature, it’s impermissible and the results need to flip.”

Ocasio-Cortez asserted that “all our leaders—regardless of party—must recognize this constitutional crisis for what it is.”

“At this point we should be well beyond partisanship,” she added. “Members of Congress have sworn an oath to the Constitution. It is our duty to check the Court’s gross overreach of power in violating people’s inalienable rights and seizing for itself the powers of Congress and the president.”

One way in which progressives have proposed redressing the government’s balance of power is by expanding the Supreme Court. Earlier this week, progressive advocacy groups led by Stand Up America launched the “Four More” campaign in support of the Judiciary Act, proposed legislation that would enlarge the high court from nine to 13 justices.

This isn’t the first time progressives have sounded the alarm over what some have called a “judicial coup.”

Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader and others used the term to describe the Supreme Court’s conflict-laden Bush v. Gore ruling that handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush—with the help of some familiar names including John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Clarence Thomas claims COVID-19 vaccines are made with cells from terminated pregnancies

United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas claimed on Thursday that COVID-19 vaccines are engineered from cells taken from terminated pregnancies.

“The conservative Justice’s statement came in a dissenting opinion on a case in which the Supreme Court declined to hear a religious liberty challenge to New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate from 16 health care workers. The state requires that all health care workers show proof of vaccination,” Politico reported.

Thomas, one of the six right-wing jurists in the Court’s majority who has upended decades of legal precedents in a slew of recent rulings, wrote that the petitioners “object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Politico explained why Thomas’ remarks are preposterous:

None of the COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the cells of aborted fetuses. Cells obtained from elective abortions decades ago were used in testing during the Covid vaccine development process, a practice that is common in vaccine testing — including for the rubella and chickenpox vaccinations.

Doctors, legislators, journalists, and casual observers were in utter disbelief and horror that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would peddle such an outrageous conspiracy theory, which was hatched by a propaganda outlet called First Draft in 2020 and thoroughly debunked.

Let’s all stop ignoring The Fandom Menace. It’s real, and it’s winning

One of the first highly public instances of “Ms. Marvel” trolling happened nearly a decade ago, courtesy of Stephen Colbert. “Ladies and gentlemen, America has lost another battle in the culture war, which is surprising because we’ve got all the guns,” he says. “This time the battlefield is comic books. And folks, that saddens me because I’m a fan.”

Colbert was referring to Marvel’s announcement in November 2013 that Kamala Khan, a Muslim teenager from Jersey City, was set to assume the Ms. Marvel mantle.

“This affront has taken me aback. A Muslim cannot be a superhero, for Pete’s sake! They’re on the no-fly list,” Colbert imperiously huffs. “. . . It’s even more upsetting when you consider the original Ms. Marvel. She was wholesome and all-American! Blonde! Family values! With two bulging chest muscles and clearly wearing her Sunday church panties! This is nothing more than Sharia creep, plain and simple.”

Since this rant was brought to us by “The Colbert Report,” Colbert’s hallowed satire of right-wing talk shows in which he parodied Bill O’Reilly and other Fox News windbags, the audience understood it to be a bit.

Nearly a decade later another group of self-important white guys are railing against Kamala Khan’s right to exist in the Marvel Universe. The difference is they’re not joking, even if some of them insist that they are.

RELATED: “Ms. Marvel” and the dawn of the strict TV supermom

The actors are as varied as their motivations, you see. Some engage in review bombing, as they did to Disney+’s “Ms. Marvel” hours after its debut, because it’s an easy way to kick what they see as the social justice warrior hornet’s nest. Others camp out on in Facebook groups that have been recycled to manufacture the illusion of inflated offense for their own entertainment.

Each is a cancer cell in a larger amorphous hate blob descended from Gamergate.

Obi-Wan Kenobi” star Moses Ingram was their most recent target, and her harassment and Disney’s response, including a video post from Ewan McGregor that defended her, was widely reported. Not long before Ingram made her “Obi-Wan” debut as Inquisitor Reva Sevander, bigots piled on to newcomer Leah Jeffries when Disney announced she’d been cast as the new Annabeth Chase in the upcoming Disney+ adaptation of “Percy Jackson and the Olympians.”

All of this is either directly or tangentially a decentralized web referred to as The Fandom Menace, a group of extremely online comic book and “Star Wars” zealots that coalesced around a shared dislike for Rian Johnson’s Lucasfilm sequel “Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.”

Star Wars: The Last JediKelly Marie Tran and John Boyega in “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” (LucasFilms)Some of the trolls claim allegiance to that label, others merely qualify for membership. Even those who don’t consider themselves a part of it or decry their disturbing attack patterns may contribute to their success without meaning to do so.

Regardless of how they identify, each is a cancer cell in a larger amorphous hate blob descended from Gamergate and Comicsgate, infecting the fandoms of the most ubiquitous entertainment franchises in the world — mainly Marvel, Star Wars and other Disney titles.

It’s also leaderless and therefore easily deniable, allowing it to proliferate in spaces designed to be escapist and unserious. Because of this, most journalist coverage of fantasy- or comic book-related TV and movies caters to consumers engaging with these shows and films in good faith, in the form of episodic analysis or the specific artistry informing its visuals and scripts.

This may be the reason that our coverage and condemnation of these hate eruptions has taken on a reflexive pattern, too. I’ve certainly been guilty of this in this publication and elsewhere: We report on the offense, quote the reactions of person being targeted and amplify the voices rallying to support them. We boost the notion that malignant actors within fandoms are limited to a small group that excels at being louder than the reasonable majority.

We trust that exposing each incident is enough and that the hatred toward the latest targeted actor will fade, which it usually does. We close the loop by expecting there to be another incident, and already knowing the reason, guaranteeing the cycle will begin anew.  

It’s easier to brace for impact, enact communications triage and wait for the problem to go away than to examine what’s motivating the people behind these hate campaigns.

And there are answers to that question beyond the simplest, which is good old-fashioned racism. Don’t get me wrong — that’s enough of a reason for someone to devote a few minutes of time and mouse clicks to do their part in tanking the ratings on a show they view as progressive agitprop.

The attacks on Ingram and Jeffries before her, and the campaign devoted to downplaying their severity in the wake of them, require us to at least begin to grapple with where these campaigns begin and how each, in their own way, may contribute to the larger political efforts to mainstream white supremacy and radicalize the disaffected.

Geekdom went mainstream decades ago, but it’s still commonly viewed through a filter of adolescent harmlessness. This is useful for the purposes of Facebook groups such as Christians Against Ms. Marvel, a private forum whose purported founder, a character calling themselves Wade Wilson — a troll in itself — describes its purpose as follows:

Ms Marvel might be the biggest slap in the face for conservative Christians to date!!! Disney has decided that the face of this franchise should not be Carol Danvers but should instead be a gay Muslim. no more straight Christian characters from Marvel. those days are over. please join us as we let Disney know that we will not BE CANCELLED!!!

That’s . . . a point of view. Plausible, too, considering the right-wing Christian conservative protests over Disney’s inclusive policies. However, tempting as it may be to correct factual errors in the page’s so-called mission statement (Kamala Khan is neither gay nor replacing Carol Danvers) examining details about the page itself is much more informative.

Laughing off [Facebook] pages . . . is simple. Review bombing, less so.

The group’s history reveals that it’s only been called “Christians Against Ms. Marvel” since June 7, the day before the series debuted. Before that, it was “Christians Against Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” Before that, it was called “Christians Against Turning Red.”

Turning RedTurning Red (Disney/Pixar)This page’s “Christians,” in fact, have also been against Disney in general, “Marvel’s The Eternals,” “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” “Shang Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings,” “The Loki Series” [sic] and “The Little Mermaid” (presumably in a different way than “Christian’s Against the Little Mermaid (Boycott Halle Bailey),” which my colleague Ashlie Stevens wrote about). Its anti-Disney, anti-inclusive stance stretches back to December 29, 2020 . . . when the page was titled “Twisted Tea for Mitch McConnell.”

But it’s also quite clearly someone’s idea of a long-running joke. The page claims 18,000 attention-seeking goblins, likely seeing a place to blow off steam by triggering the libs, strictly for the lolz. It’s only “Wade Wilson’s” second most popular page, though, coming in behind the 39,000 member-strong “Linda Skeens Secret Cookbook,” which merely 24 hours ago went by “Helen Keller Never Existed.”

Laughing off pages like this one is simple. Review bombing, less so.

This is another recurring strategy on database-driven movie and TV sites that post aggregate scores of user ratings.  The tactic’s goal is to create the illusion that a show or TV series is a creative bomb by intentionally depressing their audience ratings with a barrage of one-star reviews or their equivalent. These ratings are easy to game on sites lacking specific measures to curb abuses, which is what Rotten Tomatoes did in 2019 following a coordinated bombing of its audience rating for “Captain Marvel.”

IMDb star ratings remain stunningly simple to manipulate, it seems. On June 9 “Ms. Marvel” was polling at a 6.6. out of 10, thanks to 22.2% of the site’s reviewers giving the series one star. This dragged down the 39.5% giving it 10 stars, a fair share of which was probably contributed by users attempting to restore balance to the scale.

It didn’t work in the long run. Today “Ms. Marvel” has a 6.1 user review rating, with the percentage of one-star votes having risen to 27.2.  A person can simply claim that a lot of people don’t like the series, but if that were so the RT audience ratings would resemble IMDb’s. It doesn’t, and by a significant margin.

On the surface these two examples likely rate as annoying ploys to gain attention or take swipes at a giant media conglomerate that ultimately doesn’t factor juvenile backlash into its decision-making process. But they also serve as a distraction from the more dangerous problem posed by a handful of YouTube influencers such as Geeks + Gamers or TheQuartering, whose bread and butter is anti-“Star Wars” and anti-Marvel videos.

Simu Liu in “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” (Jasin Boland/Marvel Studios)Successful review bombing efforts, in fact, provide such influences with a data point “proving” the rectitude of their complaints about diversity.

An exhaustive, extensively researched 2021 Medium post authored by Rewriting Ripley draws a connection between “Star Wars”‘ toxic fandom and these YouTube personalities and the right-wing ecosphere that came before them and continues to nourish them. Everyone should read it to gain a greater understanding of how these figures profit off racism and misogyny in ways that aren’t obvious prima facie, but are not well-hidden either.

Geeks + Gamers and TheQuartering, the YouTube vlogger moniker for Jeremy Hambly, style themselves as pop culture gatekeepers. Individuals associated Geeks + Gamers, including its founder Jeremy Griggs and contributor Ryan Kinel, also leverage their brands as gateways to alt-right ideology via their personal YouTube channels.

Griggs, for example, has more than 101,000 subscribers to his channel operating under the handle DDayCobra, where he posts videos with titles such as “Freedom Truckers Are Making Canada Great Again” and, in one video posted on January 6, 2021, explains the rioting mob as the result of “we, the people” being “fed up” while decrying the violence. A second video posted the same day floats the conspiracy theory blaming the violence on the antifa boogeyman and Black Lives Matter activists.

That video is titled “The Media Is The Enemy Of The People,” a favorite phrase of the 45th president that has a history of being invoked by Joseph Stalin, as well as the Nazis in Germany after the first World War. And if you know how YouTube’s algorithms work, you can guess which videos begin surfacing alongside these.

Of course, each of these men is sophisticated enough in their approach to keep their videos from running afoul of YouTube community guidelines. Instead of using slurs, they invoke terms like “woke” and rail against “SJWs” ruining the “Star Wars” universe.

None of them make specific calls for harassment or violence against the targets of their harangues which, when there isn’t a woman of color to go after or Amber Heard isn’t in the news, tends to be Lucasfilm president (and this group’s Darth) Kathleen Kennedy.

Importantly, they and others go out of their way to insist that none of their vitriol comes from a racist place and condemn violence. But such disclaimers tend to be adjacent to gaslighting or misinformation diatribes. A popular recent one cast doubt on Ingram’s reports about the nature of her harassment and Disney’s assertion that racism exists among the “Star Wars” fandom.

If that’s so, one popular argument goes, why didn’t we hear of any racist backlash over Ming-Na Wen’s casting in “The Mandalorian” and “The Book of Boba Fett” or Rosario Dawson taking on the role of Ahsoka Tano? This obviously ignores the salient fact that Wen and Dawson have longer careers and probably more managerial layers between them and their online fans and haters, whereas Ingram, Jeffries and others appear to run their own social media accounts, making it easier for trolls to see the tangible impact of their attacks.

For example, enough trolls bombarded TikTok’s admins with enough fake violation reports to get both of Jeffries’ accounts de-platformed in the wake of her “Percy Jackson” casting.


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


Another reframes the statement the official “Star Wars” Twitter account posted in support of Ingram that reads, “If anyone intends to make her feel in any way unwelcome, we have only one thing to say: we resist,” as being directed at anyone who doesn’t like the series.  

Griping about wokeness ruining “Star Wars” and the MCU is big business, and in case you haven’t been paying attention … business is good.

“We know Reva got a lot of backlash for her acting, for her spot in the story, for her importance, for everything she knew, for the continuity, a lot of different things,” Kinel spews in a reaction video. “Lucasfilm wants to paint anyone that didn’t like this character as a racist because they continue to attack fans.”

And monetizing the outrage of the disillusioned is lucrative: If you consider that a YouTube personality can make around $18 per 1,000 ad views, equating to $3 to $5 per 1,000 video views, you begin to understand why a few of these men, and mainly it’s men, make it their job to pump out multiple videos a day.

Spiderman: No Way HomeMJ (Zendaya) prepares to freefall with Spider-man in “Spiderman: No Way Home” (Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures)Griping about wokeness ruining “Star Wars” and the MCU is big business, and in case you haven’t been paying attention to these folks — and for the most part, the average viewer, moviegoer and entertainment journalist hasn’t — business is good, because these concepts have been mainstreamed. What are complaints about racebending roles or casting for diversity if not a weaker version of the so-called Great Replacement Theory? You know, just asking questions.

Sexism and racism abided in genre fandom long before the “Star Wars” sequels were an itch in George Lucas’ brain. (Ask any of the graying geeks and Trekkers in your orbit who sought like-minded souls on message boards or at comic book conventions back in the ’90s or the aughts.)

Only recently has that bigotry metastasized effectively enough to produce a predictable repetition of outrage cycles, coinciding with efforts by media corporations to cast more inclusively — and, more to the point, in the wake of Gamergate. This is not an accident.

In 2014 Gamergate tested how effectively misogynistic, racist fandom could be harnessed and weaponized against individuals designated as stand-ins for entire groups of people.  

The people involved claimed to be fed up with the creeping incursion of progressivism in the gaming industry. In reality, they were channeling untapped white male rage that eventually came for Kelly Marie Tran, whose character Rose Tico became a favorite punching bag among the Menace, along with Leslie Jones and Zendaya, who had the nerve to be cast as MJ in Tom Holland’s “Spider-Man” movies.

One of the takeaways from this culture-shifting ordeal was the effectiveness of this apparently leaderless mob’s narrowly directed campaigns of harassment, including doxing. What we failed to comprehend is that the mob never really dispersed. It merely redirected its efforts to other targets, mainly women of color, and evolved its methods.

Ms. MarvelIman Vellani as Ms. Marvel/Kamala Khan in Marvel Studios’ “Ms. Marvel” (Marvel Studios)All of this begs for Disney and other corporations to use their power to take concrete steps to protect the Black, brown, Asian, Indigenous and non-white actors it continues to hire in these roles. Public statements are one step, but they can also be coupled with preemptive protections they could enact on their talent’s social media accounts.

If Disney found a way to alert TikTok of the hatred it correctly predicted was coming Jeffries’ way, would she have had her accounts suspended? If they devoted similar resources toward sheltering Ingram from online hatred, how might that have impacted the narrative being misshapen by far-right leaning personalities masquerading as guardians of the “Star Wars” and Marvel faiths?

A more alarming truth, however, is that the fandom’s toxicity may be too far gone to effectively eradicate it. The Rewriting Ripley post acknowledges this, despite describing its article as “a plea for any entity that has enough power to control a narrative… to be aware of how hate is designed to manipulate those narratives without most people ever realizing it.”

Its title is, “In Plain Sight: How White Supremacy, Misogyny, and Hate Targeted the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy and Won.”

More stories like this:

The salty, sweet, cheesy popcorn I can’t stop eating

Do you have a “no brakes” food? You know, a “Get this stuff away from me” food? For me, it’s the Garrett Mix from Garrett Popcorn, aka the Chicago Mix. An astonishingly addictive blend of cheese and caramel popcorn, it’s the company’s most famous creation. It’s also the one food I am truly powerless against.

I discovered it, naturally, in Chicago several years ago. I’d taken my older daughter to the Windy City for a special weekend away, and there was a Garrett’s near our hotel. We stopped in and ordered a big bag of their most popular item, then went back to the hotel to order a movie.

RELATED: In strong defense of Molly Yeh’s popcorn salad recipe

I should say here that I am generally indifferent to popcorn; I never even buy it at the movies. But from the moment I reached my hand into that fateful bag, I could not stop myself. I have had dumplings in Beijing and jamón ibérico in Barcelona, and I have had Garrett Mix in Chicago; they are all transcendent culinary experiences. It’s the salt, it’s the sweet, it’s the buttery, it’s the… cheesy. Thank God I don’t live in Chicago, I’d have a medical condition from all the Garrett’s I’d eat.

While I definitely advise you to try the real thing for yourself, if you are feeling that certain itch and want to try your hand at a home version, it’s a relatively simple procedure. Garrett’s uses “mushroom” popcorn, which creates up an exceptionally round popcorn that holds toppings well, but your own favorite supermarket brand makes a serviceable substitute. And while there are plenty of recipes for cheddar popcorn out there, most seem to casually list cheddar powder as an ingredient, even though it’s not exactly a household item. I make mine with the little package in a box of mac & cheese, then just repurpose the pasta.

Would this mix fool anybody in a showdown against Garrett’s? Heavens, no. But would I devour an entire bowl moments after putting it in said bowl? I would and I did. Get this stuff away from me. It’s just too, too good.

***

Recipe: Chicago Mix Popcorn
Inspired by Gale Gand and Recipe Tin Eats

Yields
 2 – 3  servings
Prep Time
 10 minutes
Cook Time
 15  minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 bag of your favorite natural style microwave popcorn

For the cheese popcorn:

  • 4 tablespoons of melted butter
  • 1 package of cheddar cheese powder from a box of macaroni and cheese
  • 1/4 teaspoon of mustard powder
  • Salt and pepper

For the caramel popcorn:

  • 1/2 cup of   brown sugar
  •  2 tablespoons of light corn syrup
  • 4 tablespoons of butter
  • 1/8 teaspoons of  baking soda
  • 1/4 of  teaspoon vanilla extract
  • pinch of salt

 

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 200°F.
  2. Microwave your popcorn to package directions. 
  3. Line two sheet pans with parchment paper. Spread out half the popcorn on one of them.
  4. Over medium heat in a medium pan, combine brown sugar, corn syrup, butter and a pinch of salt. Cook until just boiling, stirring from time to time. Continue stirring another minute or so.
  5. Meanwhile, in a large bowl, combine the melted butter, cheddar cheese mix, and mustard powder. Stir in the other half of the popcorn and mix to coat well. Spoon the popcorn on to the second sheet pan.
  6. Remove the caramel  pan from heat and carefully stir in the vanilla and baking soda. The baking soda will make it bubble up, so watch out.
  7. Pour the caramel over the first sheet of (plain) popcorn. Stir well to coat as much as possible.
  8. Stick the pans in the oven for about 15 minutes, stirring once or twice to dry things out a little.
  9. Remove pans from the oven and let cool so you don’t destroy your mouth. Mix both your popcorns in a large bowl, and enjoy.

Cook’s Notes

Hate macaroni and cheese? You can purchase cheddar powder separately online.

 

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


More of our favorite easy snacks:

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.

Everyone thinks “Stranger Things” Season 4 is about trauma. It’s not

A tantalizing two-word phrase handwritten in pen on a sheet of high school stationery seems to offer the key that unlocks the mysteries — both psychological and supernatural — of the first half of the fourth season of “Stranger Things.”

Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo), Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin), Steve (Joe Keery) and Max (Sadie Sink) have broken into Hawkins High and are rifling through the files of the school psychologist trying to figure out if there is any connection among the victims of Vecna, the season’s snake-veined big bad whose favorite pasttimes include antiquing (that grandfather clock is a real find) and gruesomely mangling the bodies of children as he sucks out their souls. As Max spreads the victims’ files out on the darkened desk, a pattern emerges. All had sought counseling for a common set of symptoms, including nightmares, headaches, and nosebleeds. But the kicker comes at the bottom of the page, underlined twice: “past trauma.” Vecna, it seems, is a trauma monster, feeding on the anguish of the psychologically vulnerable.

“Past trauma” is a brilliant red herring, and none of Vecna’s victims are traumatized. Or perhaps more precisely, none are only traumatized.

It’s a clever twist, and more than a handful of critics have taken the bait, arguing that the series offers a “journey into the depths of psychological trauma” that is “surprisingly mature” — and that the figure of Vecna, who preys on “past trauma,” allows the series to explore the “trauma response in children and teens.”

There’s just one problem: “past trauma” is a brilliant red herring, and none of Vecna’s victims are traumatized. Or perhaps more precisely, none are only traumatized. Rather, they all have symptoms of a different form of mental illness that psychologists have come to call moral injury.

RELATED: “Stranger Things” and the frustrations of Gen X’s ’80s nostalgia habit

Most recent research on moral injury has come from work with veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. As the Pulitzer-winner David Wood reports in “What Have We Done: The Moral Injury of Our Longest Wars,” though tens of thousands of service members were coming home with debilitating mental illness, they were not responding to standard trauma treatments. This startling revelation led a group of VA psychologists to argue that many were not traumatized; they were morally injured.

Moral injury feels like such an intuitive concept, it’s surprising that mental health specialists have only begun to explain it in the last 20 years or so. To understand it, think of the drone strike that killed 10 innocent civilians as the U.S. military pulled out of Afghanistan last year. Both the drone pilot and the families of the dead will likely be haunted by that tragedy, and until recently, we might have called the pain of both parties “trauma.” But doing so grates, for perhaps obvious reasons. One person fired the missile; the others lost family members in a grisly conflagration. Sure, all may suffer, but is that suffering uniform? Some specialists now say no, arguing that the pain of victimization (trauma) is qualitatively different from the pain of perpetration (moral injury). They propose a relatively simple definition: moral injury is the mental anguish that sometimes afflicts a person who does wrong, who breaks their own moral code.

Which brings us back to “Stranger Things” — and the real link connecting all of Vecna’s victims. All are haunted not by “past trauma,” by what was done to them, but by what they have done. They are weighed down by the burden of their perceived misdeeds. Or more simply, this season of “Stranger Things” is an extended meditation on moral injury, and one of the most psychologically fascinating pieces of recent television.

It’s easiest to see in Vecna’s first victim Victor Creel, played by Kevin L. Johnson and a later version played with surprising pathos by horror legend Robert Englund. Creel’s problems begin when he moves into the grand old Victorian house that is also Vecna’s lair. Shortly after arriving, the demon begins tormenting Creel and his family and eventually kills his wife and two children. In a flashback scene, we learn why: Creel is a World War II veteran still tormented by his mistaken decision to call in a missile strike on a civilian neighborhood. Exploring the bomb site in the wake of the explosion, Creel sees a baby’s cradle on fire and learns the horrible truth. The image of the fiery cradle returns in his nightmares and is the fuel on which Vecna feeds. But it is not a symbol of Creel’s victimization — or his trauma. It’s a reminder of his complicity in the death of innocents.

Stranger ThingsLogan Riley Bruner as Fred Benson on “Stranger Things” (Netflix)

Vecna’s second contemporary victim, the nerdy school newspaper reporter Fred Benson (Logan Riley Bruner), has an analogous history. He has scars on his face, the result of a car accident he barely escaped. Fred is plagued by memories of the crash, but not because he nearly died. There was another kid in the car, one who didn’t escape and perished in the flames. Though the details of the accident are a little murky, Fred feels responsible for his classmate’s death, and Vecna exploits that pain, calling Fred a “murderer” shortly before lifting him up in the air and breaking all his bones.

“What if I’m not good? What if I’m the monster?”

As Max looks at Fred’s file in the scene mentioned above, she realizes that she has been suffering from the same symptoms, and as the revelation dawns that she is Vecna’s next victim, we hear his disembodied voice mutter her name. But how does Max fit the pattern? Surely she, a victim of domestic abuse forced to witness the death of her brother at the end of Season 3, is traumatized — not morally injured. The letter she reads to her brother in the poignant fourth episode, “Dear Billy,” suggests otherwise: “I play that moment back in my head all the time. Sometimes I imagine myself running to you, pulling you away. I imagine that if I had, that you would still be here, and everything would be, everything would be right again.” It is this nagging sense of guilt that she could have done more, that she could have prevented her brother’s death and didn’t, that Vecna feeds on. He reminds her of her failure to do so when he takes Billy’s form in the Upside Down.

Psychologists argue that one of the main characteristics of moral injury is a relatively normal guilt response that gets stuck in overdrive (just as PTSD is essentially the hyperfunctioning of an otherwise natural fear response). Many people feel guilty after committing a wrong for a few days or even weeks. But the morally injured — like Creel, Fred, and Max — get stuck in the mire of guilt and shame and find themselves unable to escape.

Stranger ThingsMillie Bobby Brown as Eleven in “Stranger Things” (Tina Rowden/Netflix)

And yet it is Eleven who exhibits what is perhaps an even more telling symptom. In scenes meaningfully spliced together with her friends’ late-night search of the counselor’s office, Eleven meets with Dr. Owens (Paul Reiser) in a desert diner. Owens is trying to convince El to return to Hawkins once more to join the fight against Vecna. But she looks him straight in the eye and demurs, saying, “What if I’m not good? What if I’m the monster?” Here’s why she says that: throughout the fourth season, El is beset by memories of her time at Hawkins National Laboratory — and by one bloody recollection in particular. In it, she stands glaring over the blood-spattered corpses of the lab’s other test subjects. Over the course of the season, she comes to believe that she only escaped after slaughtering dozens of people with her psychokinetic powers (though later episodes will prove otherwise). Morally injured people often come to feel like they are irredeemable; the evil of their acts infects their very being. They didn’t do bad things; they are bad people. They are, in El’s term, monsters.

We come to learn later in the season that El is not a monster — and that a more vicious evil lurks in Hawkins. But vicious evil lurks in the real world too. The fourth season of “Stranger Things” was released just days after the school shooting in Uvalde. Given the fact that the premiere opens with a scene of children’s dead bodies strewn about what looks an awful lot like a school hallway, the showrunners decided to provide a trigger warning: “We filmed this season of ‘Stranger Things’ a year ago. But given the recent tragic shooting at a school in Texas, viewers may find the opening scene of Episode 1 distressing. We are deeply saddened by this unspeakable violence, and our hearts go out to every family mourning a loved one.”


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


The study of moral injury asks us to remember that those who endure its unique flavor of anguish are not monsters. But it also keeps us in close contact with the monstrous things (like school shootings) human beings are capable of. “Stranger Things” does both of these things too.

Read more

about this topic

Drag is not dangerous: How exposing your kids to drag performance can be a good thing

Drag queens are more popular than ever, but parents have recently been criticized for taking kids to family-friendly drag shows perceived to be inappropriate for children. Granted, not all drag shows are created for young audiences, but the art of drag is far-reaching, and it’s making a difference for youth.

My middle son came out as gay at age 9. When I tell him that gay bars used to be raided by police or that drag queens were once arrested for their art, he finds this absurd. He’s 12 now and, like so many young people, marvels at the queens on “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” their ability to express themselves and make a career doing it. He doesn’t know the gritty side of drag; the booze-soaked, smoke-filled clubs and cabarets. Maybe he never will. Public perception and expectations around drag have changed. What matters is that my son knows there are people out there like him, people who celebrate an art form that has a sense of humor and elevates the human spirit. Drag isn’t something to hide behind, it’s powerful creative expression. As RuPaul says, drag is for everyone.

I was initially nervous about some of the language and sexual innuendo, but I felt he was mature enough to gain an understanding of these elements as they relate to drag performance. And let’s face it, in the absence of policing every internet moment for our children, they will discover what they want to learn, with or without us. 

To be a drag queen is to be reborn, over and over again, in an image of your own creation. This is empowering.

Visit any website or discussion board about recommendations for suitable viewing age and you will find mixed opinions. Some sites advise restricting viewership for “Drag Race” to 15-year-olds and up. Others have more liberal advice, but discussion among parents is variable. Some say their toddlers love the dazzling visuals and pretty contestants. Others abhor the language, suggestive sexual content, and occasional “nudity” (which, interestingly, some networks use censorship by way of blurring the nipples on fake breasts but not the real nipples of topless men). 

RuPaul's Drag Race All StarsTrinity the Tuck in “RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars” (World of Wonder/Paramount+)

As a mom, I made the decision to let my pre-teen watch the show because much of what children see on television, in movies, and online involves socially constructed ideas of gender and sexuality, even outright homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. I felt the truth about the culture with which he identifies was a step in the right direction. My own experiences as a fan of drag culture taught me about a complexity beyond female impersonation. It isn’t “deceptive,” as many heteronormative films depict the unwanted surprise under a dress, perpetuating a myth that gay men and trans women go around trying to trick straight people into unwanted sex. Drag is performance, art, and comedy. It requires a vast knowledge of pop culture and the wit to turn it into parody and satire. To be a drag queen is to be reborn, over and over again, in an image of your own creation. This is empowering. 

Drag has become a part of mainstream pop culture and “RuPaul’s Drag Race” has elevated the art form. 

When “RuPaul’s Drag Race” first aired in 2009, it had infamously terrible lighting. The sets looked cheap, but real queens performed in a drag pageant on TV. It was revolutionary. It was gay culture packaged as reality television. This was a time before the drag show had become a destination for brunches, stagettes and girls’ nights, before drag queens became a commodity for general consumption. Today, terms like “reading,” tucking” and “fishy” have entered the vernacular of “Drag Race” viewers, many of whom have never set foot at a live drag show. Celebrities and politicians have been guest judges. Outside of the show, audiences are devouring content like Tom Holland performing in drag for his turn as Rihanna or Channing Tatum as Beyoncé on “Lip Sync Battle,” a show that has arguably been influenced by drag’s staple performance. Drag has become a part of mainstream pop culture and “RuPaul’s Drag Race” has elevated the art form. 

RELATED: HBO’s heartfelt “We’re Here” is the drag show we all need right now

The show has been instrumental in bringing the art of drag to the mainstream. Through the commercialization of drag and the success of the show, RuPaul Charles has made the LGBTQ2+ community more visible and acceptable in mainstream popular culture. Drag has evolved from a necessarily underground subculture to a full-fledged art form. Today, youth looking to see themselves in the popular media can view “Drag Race” franchises in Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, Brazil, Chile, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom. The show has produced 14 seasons and inspired multiple spin-offs associated with the primary production, as well as DragCon trade shows in Los Angeles, New York, and London. Former contestants perform in worldwide tours and host shows of their own, propelled by the exposure they receive while competing in “RuPaul’s Drag Race.” The show has changed the face of drag, a historically subversive art form, and has become a beacon of visibility and hope for LGBTQ2+ youth.

Drag Race” is the contest that encourages individuality and self-love. 

Drag’s appeal to a wider audience, specifically women, is significant. The idea that drag toys with gender roles and notions of appropriation makes it inherently universal. The acceptance of “Drag Race” by the mainstream is progress, appreciation for queer history and art that was, until relatively recently, associated with deviance and shame. Previous generations of children grew up watching televised beauty pageants, measuring women against the impossible standards of bathing suit competitions and rehearsed responses to patronizing and patriarchal questions. Today, “RuPaul’s Drag Race” has those same elements of glamour and fashion, but the contestants are expressing themselves, not conforming to beauty standards that objectify and oppress. Contestants are challenged to create runway garments from dollar store junk and dumpster dives, write stand-up comedy and choreograph complex dance routines. “Drag Race” is the contest that encourages individuality and self-love. 

RuPaul's Drag RaceMaddy Morphosis on “RuPaul’s Drag Race” (VH1)There have been bumps along the path to success, including the controversy around RuPaul’s initial refusal to accept trans participants. The show has now featured trans women, trans men and a cisgender heterosexual man in recent years. The third season of “RuPaul’s Drag Race UK” in 2021 featured the first-ever AFAB (assigned female at birth) drag queen on the show. Ru has apologized for his previous statements about trans queens and admits that the contestants are as much his teachers as he is theirs. 

Changes have also been made around some of the language used on the show to accommodate an increased awareness around offensive and outdated terminology. This shift emphasizes the need for adaptability in the evolving landscape of LGBTQ2+ communities. RuPaul often uses the phrase, “With great power comes great responsibility,” and he is living this by admitting to past mistakes and making space for all identities on the show. As a parent and ally, these issues have sparked conversations with my kids about the language we use and the importance of inclusion. Over 14 years, the show has evolved to become more inclusive, mirroring the positive changes happening in wider society.

RuPaul has said that, historically, the public perception of gay culture had been largely informed by gay pornography. Since the rise of “Drag Race,” that perception has changed.

There’s a tradition on “RuPaul’s Drag Race” where the finalists in the competition address photos of their younger selves. RuPaul holds up images of the queens as cherubic toddlers or wide-eyed grade schoolers and asks the final four contenders to offer words of advice to their inner children. This is the episode that brings almost everyone to tears, judges included, as wisdom is dispensed about staying strong through relentless bullying, parental abandonment, and a lifetime of low self-esteem. Occasionally, one of the participants describes a childhood filled with unconditional love, support, and encouragement that allowed them to thrive and become their best, most confident selves. They talk about parents who took on the task of educating themselves about queer culture, helped design costumes, showed up for every drag show. I can’t help but imagine my son, all grown up, talking to the image of his younger self. I want him to be buoyed to success by the support of his family. As a mom to a tween son who came out as gay three years ago, these poignant moments with the finalists clinch the importance of a reality show that celebrates an art form steeped in the rich history of queer culture and activism. 

RuPaul's Drag Race All StarsYvie Oddly, Jinkx Monsoon, The Vivienne, and Jaida Essence Hall in the “Total Ru-quest Live” episode of “RuPaul’s Drag Race All Stars” (World of Wonder/Paramount+)

RuPaul has said that, historically, the public perception of gay culture had been largely informed by gay pornography. Since the rise of “Drag Race,” that perception has changed. Popular culture has always been influenced by gay culture, but “Drag Race” has cleared a path for a television drama series like “Pose” (based on the New York City drag ball scene), a myriad of shows hosted by drag queens on streaming platforms and YouTube, and younger kids taking to social media to express their true nature. Desmond Is Amazing is a child who began his art of drag early, learning from RuPaul and the other queens on the show. He has performed in the New York Pride Parade, walked in New York Fashion Week runways, and appeared in Vogue. Public facilities are hosting programs such as the Calgary Public Library’s “Reading with Royalty” series, celebrating inclusion and diversity with drag queens and kings reading stories to young children. CBC Gem is streaming “Drag Kids,” a documentary profiling four children as they prepare for a performance in an all-ages drag ball at Montreal Pride. Drag Syndrome is a group of London performers with Down Syndrome who have embraced the art of drag. The winner of the first season of “Canada’s Drag Race,” Priyanka, is former YTV (children’s network) host Suki. Another famous Canadian queen, Kendall Gender, calls herself a “sober queen” and makes a point of doing all-ages shows, something she feels makes a difference for kids looking for their own identities and communities. These initiatives speak volumes about the cultural shift that has taken place through mainstream acceptance. Drag is no longer tucked (so to speak) away in the underground. The art of drag has changed, and the audience is growing to include new generations of fans with enlightened expectations.

This focus on self-love is one of the most positive aspects of the show, instilling confidence and self-esteem in the participants as well as young viewers struggling with their identities and relationships. 

In 2017, RuPaul released the song “Call Me Mother,” a reference to being a drag mother, the maternal role taken on by seasoned queens who mentor those coming up in the industry. Often, the relationship forms out of necessity, survival for gay and genderqueer young people who have been thrown out by their birth families. Some drag mothers provide food and shelter. Others impart their skills and resources, helping new drag queens to sew costumes, land gigs and gain exposure. Like a true mom, RuPaul encourages the queens to protect their health and practice self-care. He repeats his now-famous motto at the end of every episode, “If you can’t love yourself, how in the hell are you gonna to love somebody else?” My son has a T-shirt with this maxim. It has become the “Drag Race” mantra. This focus on self-love is one of the most positive aspects of the show, instilling confidence and self-esteem in the participants as well as young viewers struggling with their identities and relationships. 


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


My middle son is 12 now and knows details about famous drag queens the way sports fans keep statistics on their favourite athletes. We have front row meet-and-greet seats for the “Canada’s Drag Race” Tour this summer. I can’t wait to see the look on his face when he meets his favourite queens up close. Some would call me a bad parent for letting my child watch “RuPaul’s Drag Race” or taking him to a drag show. In parts of the United States, Republicans are trying to pass a bill to ban kids from drag shows and call social services on parents like me. In a society bursting with images of women and girls as sex objects, rampant gun violence, and hate driven by ignorance, I’m glad my kids can enjoy an art form that starts the conversation about queer history, oppression, and activism. My son sees himself reflected in these artists, and his brothers are growing up with exposure to a culture that normalizes this diversity. It’s part of educating all of us about our evolving societal landscape. 

“RuPaul’s Drag Race” is streaming on Paramount+.

Read more

about this topic

The rum runner is your summer cocktail BFF

I was recently reacquainted with the concept of rum-running while reading Mallory O’Meara’s excellent book “Girly Drinks.” The book details women’s significant contributions to the history of alcohol. One of the most memorable figures in the book is Gertrude “Cleo” Lythgoe, who smuggled spirits (mostly whiskey) into the United States via the Bahamas during Prohibition. Rum-running was a huge business during Prohibition, and Lythgoe was one of the key players in a network that kept the American drinking public supplied with top-shelf booze.

The history of this drink, like many, is difficult to verify. According to some accounts, it was created by a bartender in the Florida Keys in the 1970s as a tribute to the people who kept America wet during Prohibition. At first glance it might look like a gruesome hodgepodge of ingredients, but I liken this drink to a fruitier rum version of a Singapore Sling — perhaps a bit overstuffed, but certainly more than the sum of its parts, which is a key attribute of all great drinks.

Some recipes call for light and dark rum, but I’ve simplified things a bit and just gone with dark for this rendition. If you happen to have another dark berry liqueur on hand, like crème de cassis or Chambord, feel free to use that in place of the blackberry liqueur if you don’t feel like adding another bottle to your home bar. And for the pineapple juice and grenadine: Store-bought is fine if you must, but making your own adds a delicious shine.
— John deBary

Watch this recipe

Rum Runner

Yields
1 drink
Prep Time
10 minutes

Ingredients

For the rum runner:

  • 1 1/2 ounces dark rum
  • 1 ounce banana liqueur
  • 1 ounce blackberry liqueur (or other berry liqueur, like crème de cassis or Chambord)
  • 1 ounce pineapple juice
  • 1 ounce freshly squeezed lime juice
  • 1/2 ounce grenadine (recipe below)
  • Cocktail cherry and pineapple wedge, for garnish (optional)

For the homemade grenadine:

  • 1/2 cup pomegranate juice
  • 1/2 cup granulated sugar

Directions

  1. For the rum runner: Combine all ingredients in a cocktail shaker. Add ice and shake vigorously for 20 seconds. Strain into a tall glass. If you’d like, garnish with a paper umbrella and a cocktail cherry and pineapple wedge on a pick.
  2. For the homemade grenadine: Combine the pomegranate juice and sugar in a blender and blend on high for 1 minute, until the sugar is dissolved. Let the syrup rest for 5 minutes before using. The grenadine will keep in the refrigerator for up to 2 weeks or in the freezer for up to 1 month.

 

Doomsday: Supreme Court decision a dagger for efforts to curb carbon emissions, experts say

Does the Environmental Protection Agency have the power to limit greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants?

Most voters think so, but the Supreme Court just delivered a devastating blow to the EPA on Friday in a 6-3 vote. The ruling on West Virginia v. EPA razed the agency’s legal authority to regulate the electrical grid with significant consequences for the Biden Administration’s climate agenda, which climate scientists already call the bare minimum. Without strict regulation, power plants remain the second-largest U.S. source of carbon emissions contributing to climate change.

Conservative justices on the bench have already proven their willingness to ignore popular sentiment and judicial precedent in a turbulent final month of decisions. The bombshell Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision stripped millions of Americans of a fundamental right to bodily autonomy last week. SCOTUS disregarded half a century of judicial precedent when it overturned Roe v. Wade. Unlike abortion access, however, the EPA’s authority to limit pollution is a federal law.

“The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy,” Justice Kagan wrote. “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor Stephen Breyer joined Kagan in a dissenting opinion, condemning the decision of the court to override a power Congress clearly established over 50 years ago.

RELATED: “Cataclysmic”: Conservatives on Supreme Court rule against EPA’s plan to combat climate change

Invoking the “Major Questions Doctrine,” the court held that Congress did not grant the EPA the authority to implement emissions caps that would shift the structure of the electrical grid in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act as the agency did in the moot Obama-era Clean Power Plan. The good news is that current greenhouse gas regulations will still stand. Until 2007, when the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on Massachusetts v. EPA, that not only can the EPA regulate greenhouse gasses but the EPA must regulate them or face litigation. The case remains the most significant piece of U.S. climate litigation for that reason.

Justice Kagan wrote, “I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

West Virginia v. EPA though, revolved around 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), one of many provisions Congress has added to the Clean Air Act over the years. The provision from 1970 delegated more powers to the EPA to determine hazardous air pollutants and work with states to restrict them at existing, stationary sources, namely power plants. Accounting for 25% of all US greenhouse gas emissions, electrical generation remains the second-largest U.S. contribution to climate change.

Even as the summer months bring heavier strain to the grid and supply chain disruptions persist, new polling from Data for Progress and Evergreen Action suggested that 60% of eligible voters believe the EPA should be able to regulate power plant pollution that contributes to climate change. Less than a quarter of voters opposed such restrictions. Before the decision, 192 members of Congress also wrote an amicus curiae brief in support of the respondents.

On Feb. 27, just one day before the Supreme Court heard arguments for West Virginia v. EPA, an expansive report from the United Nations reaffirmed that the fossil fuel industry poses a significant hazard to human health. Even if all fossil fuel emissions stopped today, climate change would still drive extreme weather events for decades to come. Heat waves alone will lead to more premature deaths and exacerbate various health conditions, as will natural disasters like wildfires that get much of the spotlight. President Biden’s goal of a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 hinges on a transition to clean energy.


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


With Congress gridlocked on carbon policy, EPA emissions standards have been the only effective tool to directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some have suggested serious consideration of carbon sequestration as an alternative solution. Director of The George Washington University Climate and Health Institute Susan Anenburg told Salon this is not enough to stave off climate change. She added that pollutants like NOx, SO2, acid rain, heavy metals, and ground-level ozone would still impact air quality whether they could be directly or indirectly tied back to smokestacks.

“We don’t have another option for large-scale reductions in greenhouse gasses,” Anenburg said, noting that municipalities may well be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions independently of cooperation in Congress still.

Without a system-wide approach, old power plants will freely emit massive amounts of greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, which carbon sequestration can not address, for decades. Under President Donald Trump, the EPA repealed the rule, suggesting the EPA overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act before any challenges made their way to the Supreme Court. A 2021 D.C. Circuit Court, however, opined that the EPA had far more power under the Clean Air Act than they have used.

According to dissenting justices, the Supreme Court has obstructed the EPA’s legal authority to curb carbon emissions from the beginning.

“The majority’s decision rests on one claim alone: that generation shifting is just too new and too big a deal for Congress to have authorized it,” Justice Kagan wrote simply. “But that is wrong.”

On a basic level, West Virginia v. EPA concerns the D.C. Circuit Court ruling, which invalidated the repeal of the Clean Power Plan and scrapped President Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy rule that was put in its stead. Only briefly in place during the Obama Administration, the Clean Power Plan never impacted a single power plant. Because its emissions targets have already been met the EPA never put it back in place though. 

“There was no need for the court to take this case.”

Director of Strategic Legal Advocacy at Earthjustice Kirti Datla says that without a rule to challenge, petitioners did not have much standing in the case, but since conservative justices on the Supreme Court proceeded with the case anyway, the U.S. and the world will have to deal with the consequences.

“There was no need for the court to take this case given that the Biden administration told the court that it was planning to write a new regulation and there would have been litigation over that regulation,” Datla said about the highly unusual move by the Supreme Court.

Coal industry lawyers joined the attorney generals of West Virginia and 16 other states in court to challenge the premise that the EPA could use such powers to restructure the energy sector itself. It’s not a coincidence that other fossil fuel industries did not join though. The regulation would have made coal-powered industries uncompetitive as a result of the inefficiency of coal with a cap would force coal-fired power plants to shut down, which was the intention of the Clean Power Plan. Coal has the largest carbon footprint and the dirtiest one to boot, according to Anenburg.

“We absolutely can not just sit back and wait for market forces to organically move us away from coal,” she expounded. “It just isn’t happening fast enough. It continues to produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide as well as air pollution, both warming the climate and sickening people and surrounding neighborhoods in addition to people across the country.”

Petitioners argued that Congress should have to explicitly dictate regulations, urging the court to consider the potential economic impacts of a rule that no longer exists to prevent future EPA standards from forcing them out of business, citing litigation of tobacco corporations and the FDA’s treatment of them. 

“We absolutely can not just sit back and wait for market forces to organically move us away from coal”

“This is really a step further than anything we have said before,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor responded to this suggestion. “All of our other cases, whether its regulation of tobacco or regulation of evictions under major questions doctrine, have not addressed the ‘how.’ Now … you want us to look at the ‘how.'”

A decision that should have been a relatively simple statutory interpretation now has broad implications as a result of the Major Questions Doctrine. The invocation of the doctrine will tether the authority of agencies like the FDA and CDC to Congress in an expansive gray area.

Your ultimate guide to pairing summer fruit and cheese

Last year, I finally made good on my lifelong love of cheese and started working through a series of cheese mongering certifications. A lot of my classwork is dedicated to understanding the complexity of cheesemaking and the scientific processes underlying the industry’s best practices. But there’s a lot of taste-testing involved, too. 

Once every few weeks, I’ll visit my local cheese shop and pick a couple wedges of whatever looks best that day. After sampling the cheese as-is and noting its attributes and flavors in this dorky log I keep (a notebook with “Cheese!” scrawled on the front), I tend to move on to fruit pairings. 

One of my instructors told the class that the “right pairing can elevate the cheese and the fruit and unlock unexpected nuances in both ingredients.” That sentiment feels especially true in the summer, when most of North America is faced with a bounty of seasonal produce

Here are some of the best summer fruit and cheese pairings I’ve found. 

Peaches 

The best peaches are packed with a sweet, amber-colored juice that is really distinctive, so it’s best not to have it compete with more pungent cheeses. Instead, pair peaches with a young, soft goat cheese. For a simple snack or lunch, spread the goat cheese on a nice crusty piece of toast. Top with segmented peach slices and roughly chopped thyme. 

Plums 

William Carlos Williams wrote an entire poem about the refreshing nature of icebox-chilled plums. When fresh and cool, their flesh has a subtly sweet snap that pairs surprisingly well with firm blue cheeses. To round out the combination, drizzle both with smoky hot honey

Cherries 

As part of their summer releases, many Wisconsin creameries, including Maple Leaf Cheese and Renard’s Artisan Cheeses, produce cherry-studded white cheddars. They know the buttery tang of white cheddar and the tartness of Wisconsin cherries are a natural match. Capture that magic in your own kitchen by serving the two alongside each other. 


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


Watermelon 

When you think of summer cheese plates, watermelon may not come to mind as a fruit to include. But one of the best summer flavor pairings is juicy, slightly sour watermelon with briny feta. Look for a full-fat feta; the low-fat stuff occasionally borders on chalky. Both melon and feta are elevated by a few sprigs of mint and a little lemon zest. 

Honeydew melons and cantaloupes

Halloumi, which is sometimes marketed as “grilling cheese,” is traditionally made by mixing goat’s and sheep’s milk, resulting in a pretty tangy cheese. Cheesemongers describe its texture as “squeaky” (think of fresh cheese curds!), so I like to pair it with firm melon varieties, like honeydew and cantaloupes, so neither ingredient gets lost on the plate. 

Blackberries 

Syrupy, aromatic blackberries and nutty manchego — made from the milk of the Manchega sheep — were made for each other. If you want to build a salad around this winner of a flavor combination, keep it simple by tossing them with peppery arugula and a citrus-forward vinaigrette. 

Strawberries  

Sometimes I like to reverse-engineer fruit and cheese pairings by starting with an unexpected cheeseboard condiment. One of my favorites this season is a really good balsamic glaze. Fruit-wise, the vinegary sweetness of balsamic really makes strawberries’ more saccharine sweetness pop; its acidity also cuts through super rich cheeses, like burrata. Combine the three of them — plus a little fresh basil and a sprinkle of good salt — for an unforgettable side dish. 

Sweet grapes 

Even sweet grapes, which are prevalent in the summer, have a subtle sour bite to them. That complexity of flavor means you can pair them with an equally nuanced cheese. Try a strong aged gouda. As gouda ages, it develops a milky-caramel taste with smoky undertones that won’t overpower early-season fruit. 

Read more

of our favorite warm-weather recipes

 

Do I really need to bake with cake flour?

There’s something soothing about following directions for baked goods, knowing that the final product will turn out just right if you abide by the precise measurements. I love to bake everything from elaborate birthday cakes to buttery biscuits to fudgy brownies, but sometimes I get a little lazy when it comes to using the appropriate ingredients (who doesn’t?). For example, when I see that a recipe calls for cake flour instead of all-purpose flour, I tend to turn my cheek and proceed with all-purpose, not wanting to make a last-minute run to the store. While the swap turns out okay, the final product is never quite as fluffy and light as it should be.

I did some digging to find out: is it really worth buying cake flour in addition to AP flour? What makes cake flour necessary for certain baked goods? And what’s the difference between all-purpose flour and cake flour, anyway?

What Is Cake Flour?

Cake flour is made by milling soft wheat (aka wheat that’s low in gluten, though not gluten-free) and sifting it until extra fine in texture. The fineness yields tender baked goods with a moist, airy crumb—perfect for delicate sponges and pillowy cookies, like snickerdoodles. Soft white wheat and soft red winter wheat are used in the production of cake flour due to their low levels of protein, which hover around 8.5 percent to 10.5 percent. Both grains are short and plump, and grind more easily than their hard wheat counterparts.

Another name for the protein content of flour is gluten, which acts as a binding agent, developing structure and holding the ingredients together. Each type of flour contains a different amount of gluten, which has a noticeable effect on the final result. In the case of cake flour, the minimal gluten allows baked goods to rise, but not develop the firm and chewy texture that a higher-gluten flour would. When you have cake flour on hand, it’s much easier to whip up reliably soft, light sweet treats. If you’re an avid baker, it’s worth grabbing some cake flour at the grocery store in addition to your regular all-purpose. Note: it’s typically packaged in a box instead of a bag.

What Is All-Purpose Flour?

A pantry workhorse, all-purpose flour is arguably the most versatile of all flours, used for everything from breading chicken to making pancakes and waffles to thickening gravies. It’s made by milling a combination of hard and soft wheat, which balances the protein levels to a mid-range amount of around 12 percent. All-purpose flour is not as finely ground as cake flour, although the texture can differ depending on whether it’s bleached or not. Bleached flour is treated with chemical agents to create a softer flour with a bright white hue, while unbleached flour is off-white with a denser grain. Both kinds will work well in whatever you’re baking, and the difference in your final product will be subtle, if noticeable at all. Whether you opt for bleached or unbleached, it’s a good idea to keep all-purpose flour around for a wide variety of baking and cooking applications.

If you were to use 100 percent all-purpose flour in place of cake flour, the AP flour would absorb all the liquid, causing gluten to rapidly develop and result in a chewy, dense final product.

Can You Replace Cake Flour With All-Purpose Flour?

Not exactly, but there’s an easy way to make a cake flour substitute, with just all-purpose flour and cornstarch. This DIY method works because cornstarch lacks protein, lowering the overall protein content of the blend. The cornstarch thus inhibits gluten development and has a tenderizing effect. Make sure to whisk and sift thoroughly in order to combine the flour and cornstarch evenly and aerate the mixture.

How To Make A Cake Flour Substitute:

  • Measure out 1 level cup of all-purpose flour, then remove 2 tablespoons.
  • Add 2 tablespoons of cornstarch to the flour.
  • Transfer to a mixing bowl, and whisk to combine.
  • Sift the flour-cornstarch mixture at least once, preferably a few times, before using.

Our Favorite Recipes With Cake Flour

Pink Champagne Cake

Pink lovers will swoon over this blush-hued cake. Sweet and tangy, with a hint of fruitiness from the Champagne, it tastes like a celebration.

Matcha Swiss Roll

If you’re looking for a fun baking project, try this inventive Swiss roll, which highlights the earthy, nutty flavor and verdant green color of matcha.

1 2 3 4 Cake With Raspberry Swiss Meringue Buttercream

This timeless 1-2-3-4 cake recipe comes from the back of a Swans Down cake flour box. We love topping it with a luscious buttercream infused with fresh raspberries, but you can easily swap in your favorite flavor.

Strawberry Shortcake Cupcakes

Everything you love about strawberry shortcake…in cupcake form! Pillowy and cloudlike, these delightful treats made with cake flour would be perfect for a spring or summer birthday party for kids and adults alike.

Texas Ruby Red Grapefruit Cake With A Hint Of Mint

This charming cake flour-based bundt has a glaze flecked with fresh mint and a soft citrusy crumb kissed with lemon zest and grapefruit juice. Beating egg whites and folding them into the batter ensures an airy, light cake.

Texas AG Ken Paxton says he’s “willing and able” bring back state ban on gay sex

Civil libertarians have been warning that if Roe v. Wade was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, other civil liberties would be in danger as well. And sure enough, when the High Court announced, on Friday, June 24, that it was overturning RoeJustice Clarence Thomas recommended that the Court “reconsider” some landmark right-to-privacy decisions on contraception and gay rights.

One of the cases that Thomas specially mentioned was Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 ruling that struck down a sodomy law in the Lone Star State and, by extension, similar laws in other states. Now, far-right Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is indicating that he is open to the possibility of criminalizing gay sex in Texas once again if Lawrence is ever overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sydney, Australia’s 9News reports that when Paxton, during an interview, was asked if he would be willing to take a challenge to Lawrence v. Texas to the U.S. Supreme Court, he indicated that he would. And Paxton also indicated that he would enforce Texas’ old sodomy law if Lawrence were overturned.

Paxton, during that interview, said, “My job is to defend state law, and I’ll continue to do that. That is my job under the Constitution, and I’m certainly willing and able to do that.”

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 6-3 Lawrence ruling in 2003, Thomas was among the three dissenters; the other two were the late Justice Antonin Scalia and then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The majority opinion in Lawrence was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a right-wing libertarian and Ronald Reagan appointee who was a strong supporter of right-to-privacy decisions — and Kennedy, in Lawrence, used the right-to-privacy framework that had been a part of not only Roe, but also, other U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut (which established access to contraception as a constitutionally protected right for married couples), 1969’s Stanley v. Georgia and 1972’s Eisenstadt v. Baird (which expanded Griswold to unmarried couples).

Twelve years after the Lawrence ruling, in 2015, the right-to-privacy framework was employed in Obergefell v. Hodges — which made same-sex marriage a constitutionally protected right. Now that Roe has been overturned, Thomas wants to “reconsider” Obergefell along with Lawrence and Griswold. And Paxton, who is seeking reelection in the 2022 midterms, would obviously like Lawrence to go away.

Paxton’s authoritarianism goes way beyond his opposition to abortion rights and gay rights; the Texas attorney general has declared war on democracy itself. Following now-President Joe Biden’s victory over then-President Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election, Paxton aggressively promoted the Big Lie and filed a lawsuit seeking to bar four states that Biden won from casting their electoral votes: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan. Paxton’s Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rochelle Garza, the Democratic nominee running against Paxton in Texas’ state attorney general race, is warning that abortion isn’t the only civil liberty Paxton is attacking. Garza recently tweeted, “Roe was just the first — they won’t stop till they roll back all of our civil rights. We MUST kick Ken Paxton out of office this Nov.”

But Garza is fighting an uphill battle. Although Democrats have been making inroads in Texas — which, at this point, is light red rather than deep red like Mississippi, Idaho, West Virginia or Wyoming — they still struggle in statewide races there. Biden lost Texas to Trump by about 6% in 2020.

Law professor Laurence Tribe has astutely commented that Lawrence v. Texas “may well be remembered as the Brown v. Board of Education of gay and lesbian America.” But if Paxton has his way, that’s all the protections of Lawrence will be — a memory.

GOP candidate goes off on Fox News for questioning her: “Thought you were a little better than CNN”

Arizona GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who has said that drag queens are a danger to children, threw an on-air tantrum on Monday after being asked by Fox News host Bret Baier about her decades-long relationship with a drag queen.

The interview started with Baier casting doubt over Lake’s widely-debunked claim that Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential election by dint of widespread voter fraud. Baier specifically asked the gubernatorial hopeful to respond to footage of a recent January 6 hearing in which the Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers affirmed that there was no fraud to speak of. 

“He is a Republican,” Baier said. “He is a Trump supporter. And that’s what he said.”

RELATED: GOP candidate says “back the blue” — but campaigns with felon who plotted to kill an FBI informant

“He is a RINO,” Lake shot back, suggesting that Bowers was a Republican in name only. “And he hopefully will be defeated. He is an absolute RINO.”


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


“I understand what you are saying,” Baier responded. “But there have been, as you know, more than 70 court cases where there was not evidence and there was not any state legislature or governor that failed to certify an election, including your own Republican [Governor] Doug Ducey.”

Lake then proceeded to claim that the GOP has not had any legitimate evidence until now. 

Later in the interview, Baier pivoted to the subject of Lake’s relationship with Richard Stevens, also known as Barbra Seville, citing an article by The Washington Post, which reported that Lake attended Stevens’ shows for more than a decade. 

“I’ve performed for Kari’s birthday, I’ve performed in her home (with children present,) and I’ve performed for her at some of the seediest bars in Phoenix,” Stevens wrote on Facebook earlier this month, according to the Post, which also released two pictures of Lake with Stevens. 

“I actually do care to address that,” Lake responded, visibly enraged. “But I’m really shocked. I’m actually appalled that Fox News would take a defamatory story like that – and we are pursuing legal action against this drag queen – I’m appalled that you would bring that up when you have not talked about our stolen election.”

Lake specifically claimed that she has served Stevens with “defamation papers.” But according to MeidasTouch, the Republican has only sent the performer a cease-and-desist letter. 

RELATED: Meet the scariest Republican candidates of 2022: It wasn’t easy to pick ’em

Later in the interview, Lake claimed that she was “disappointed in Fox,” the network that once Trumpeted the former president’s election conspiracy theory but now appears to be backing away from it. 

“I thought you were a little better than CNN,” she added. 

Lake, a former television journalist, has called for the imprisonment of Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobb as well as unspecified writers who, by her account, told lies about the 2020 election.

Reporter: “Trump acolyte” who disputed Hutchinson testimony “broke every Secret Service tradition”

A reporter who has written a book on the Secret Service shredded the credibility of a former agent who has pushed back against Cassidy Hutchinson’s bombshell testimony.

The former White House aide testified that Tony Ornato, who moved from the Secret Service to deputy chief of staff, told her that Donald Trump became irate when his security detail would not take him to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and lunged for the steering wheel of his armored SUV and physically attacked his lead agent, and Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig poured cold water on his denials.

“This is a person who worked as President Trump’s security detail leader, and the boss liked him so much he installed him in a political White House job,” Leonnig told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “That broke every Secret Service tradition in the book because he stayed as a Secret Service employee, but Trump essentially had him directing the Secret Service to make sure that all of its campaigns events, all of his photo ops, everything that he wanted to do to get re-elected went off without a hitch.”

“That included paid rallies that caused COVID surges and included the forcible clearing of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square,” Leonnig continued. “Tony was the secret hand behind all of that, and that is what Trump wanted. Trump White House staffers and Secret Service agents have told me repeatedly, he’s a Trump acolyte. He will defend the president to the end, and he remains in contact with Trumpworld, so I want to stress that also Tony Ornoto has indicated that this story Cassidy Hutchinson told didn’t happen. Well, Tony Ornato said a lot of things didn’t happen. He tried to say to the press and to me indirectly that the clearing of Lafayette Square was not done for President Trump’s photo on, that’s not true. He was at the center of that, so I take the points because they’re saying in their experience, things that we reported, Tony tried to deny.”

“The Secret Service often tries to deny things that are unflattering, and then when the rubber hits the road, we learn there is a little bit more to it,” Leonnig added. “I want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and if Tony Ornato testified under oath that he exaggerated this story and it didn’t happen in the limo, forgive me, in the Suburban on Jan. 6, as she relayed, then that is important and we should take that seriously.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Parents react to updated AAP guidelines on breastfeeding

Earlier this week, amid a nationwide baby formula shortage, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) updated its policy statement on breastfeeding.

In its change in recommendation, the organization stated that it supports breastfeeding for two years or more “as mutually desired by mother and child.” Previously, the organization said it supported breastfeeding for one year. The policy statement hadn’t been updated since 2012. The extension on the recommended time to breastfeed, the AAP said, was prompted by the need for a routine update and to stay on top of new research.

“There are continued benefits from breastfeeding beyond 1 year, and up to 2 years especially in the mother,” the AAP stated in a press release. “Long-term breastfeeding is associated with protections against diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancers of the breast and ovaries.”

Read more: Why American parents love Old Enough!

Dr. Lori Feldman-Winter, chair of the AAP Section on Breastfeeding, told Salon another reason for the update was to help destigmatize breastfeeding after one year. Feldman-Winter said that the organization has heard of people who have been questioned by their own physicians if it’s a good idea to continue breastfeeding after one year.

“We really wanted to emphasize the fact that we’re recommending continued breastfeeding until mutually desired, so really desired by mother and baby,” Feldman-Winter said. “And pave the way so for those who do choose to breastfeed and reap the benefits after a year.”

The update has been viewed by some parents as a bit out of touch with the current moment and barriers parents face in America.

While the policy emphasized that lactating people face many barriers to breastfeeding in the U.S., the update has been viewed by some parents as a bit out of touch with the current moment and barriers parents face in America.


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


Amid a nationwide baby formula shortage, many parents are spending their days desperately scouring Facebook groups for formula-dealers or buying breast milk on online platforms — sometimes getting scammed in the process. At the same time, the lack of baby formula on shelves has resurfaced a national conversation around breastfeeding. The proposed response to the baby formula shortage from some people has been “Why don’t you just breastfeed?,” once again highlighting the lack of general concern and awareness of the barriers lactating people face in an attempt to breastfeed. From unsupportive work policies to a lack of parental leave or privacy in public spaces to the sheer time commitment, breastfeeding is not an option for many. An estimated 35 percent of infants are breastfed until one year in the United States.

“To be quite frank, the new recommendations caught me by surprise,” Samantha Brandon, a pharmacist and mother of a 20 month old and 3 year old, told Salon via email. “I can’t help but feel some disappointment and resentment that women have been given yet another unrealistic expectation to leave us feeling inadequate as mothers and working individuals during the most vulnerable moments in our lives.”

Chrissy Holm, who has a 19-month old baby, agreed.

“This new policy statement puts an unnecessary pressure on parents,” Holm said via email. “Though my background is in public health and I understand the importance of the first years of life, I still don’t think this is feasible for many in American society; in addition to the baby formula shortage, access to care and support needs to be increased for families with babies, especially for underrepresented communities.”

Brooke Cavalla, who runs the blog Struggles of a Fit Mom, told Salon via email she fears that for people who are unable to breastfeed, the recommended extension can do “more harm than good.”

“I feel like this is only going to make mothers feel more stressed, leading to more postpartum mental health issues in postpartum moms,” Cavalla said. “While breastfeeding and breast milk have numerous benefits for both mother and baby, we need to be careful how we convey this message so as not to put more pressure on vulnerable postpartum moms.”

Lauren Fritsky, who has a 5 and 8-year-old, told Salon via email that she switched to formula because of the challenges she faced while breastfeeding.

“I made so little milk and could not keep up with the schedule of breastfeeding, bottle feeding and then pumping, and worked in an office,” Fritsky said. “It feels a bit like yet another way to lob more guilt on mothers; now, there will be the thought that you are ‘less than’ if you do not breastfeed for the recommended two years.”

“Most people I know who have given birth set the breastfeeding goal post at a year, and that is hard enough to accomplish.”

“Most people I know who have given birth set the breastfeeding goal post at a year, and that is hard enough to accomplish,” Fritsky said.

When asked what the AAP would say to parents who are frustrated about the update, Feldman-Winter told Salon the organization “completely understands the frustration.”

“We don’t have a system that really supports the work of women,” Feldman-Winter said. “We understand that there’s a lot of frustration, that they may feel pressure because of that statement, and that’s why we preceded that pause with ‘as long as mutually desired,’ recognizing that it’s not desired by all and that it’s not even practical because of all of the constraints.”

Meanwhile, some parents are happy about the recommendation.

“Like many breastfeeding mothers of toddlers, I’ve received unsolicited feedback from people who questioned why I was still breastfeeding my 1 year old,” Crystal King, the founder of Amazing Baby, told Salon via email. “It made me feel like I was making a poor parenting choice, even though the research stated otherwise.”

King said she would time outings to avoid having to breastfeed her one-year-old and be stared at in public.

“We need to normalize breastfeeding in public in the U.S., beyond the walls of our breastfeeding support groups,” King said. Then, and only then, will it pave the way to make the ask of extended breastfeeding, a little less scary and a lot more realistic.”

Read more on parenting:

SCOTUS takes up case that could let red states overrule courts on unconstitutional election laws

The United States Supreme Court has said it will review whether state legislatures have the authority to ignore courts on election rules even if they are found to be unconstitutional.

SCOTUS Blog first reported that the high court will hear a North Carolina case on the dubious “independent state legislature” theory.

“In an election case out of North Carolina, SCOTUS agrees to review the “independent state legislature” theory next term. Under that theory, state legislatures have broad power to set rules for federal elections, even if state courts say those rules are unconstitutional,” SCOTUS Blog explained in a tweet.

Following the 2020 presidential election, supporters of then-President Donald Trump claimed that state legislatures had the power to overturn the outcome of elections.

Supreme Court rules Biden can end “remain in Mexico” policy but sends case back to a Texas court

Supreme Court rules Biden administration can end “remain in Mexico” policy, sending case back to a Texas court” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration has the right to end a Trump-era immigration policy that forces asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico as their cases make their way through U.S. immigration courts.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled against Texas and Missouri, which had argued that the Biden administration violated the law by rescinding the program, and sent the case back to the district court to determine if terminating the policy violated any administrative laws.

But the justices determined that the government’s cancellation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, also called “remain in Mexico,” did not violate a section of immigration law that Texas and Missouri had used to argue that the Biden administration illegally ended the program.

It’s unclear if the Biden administration will try to end the program immediately or wait for the lower court to rule.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the three more liberal justices in the majority.

The program was launched by the Trump administration in January 2019. After President Joe Biden took office, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas canceled the program in June 2021.

That led Texas and Missouri to sue the Biden administration in April 2021, arguing that canceling MPP violated administrative and immigration laws and that without the program, human trafficking would increase and force the states to expend resources on migrants — such as providing driver’s licenses, educating migrant children and providing hospital care.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court to determine if terminating the policy violated any administrative laws.

The case reached the Supreme Court after a federal district judge in Texas ruled last year that the Biden administration violated immigration law by not detaining every immigrant attempting to enter the country. In August 2021, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk ordered the Biden administration to reinstate the policy.

The Biden administration argued it has the discretion to end the program and that it was not an effective way to deal with migrants seeking asylum.

About 70,000 asylum-seekers have been sent to Mexico through MPP, leading to refugee camps on the Mexican side of the border, where many migrants became targets for kidnappers and drug cartels. Since the program resumed in December, immigration officials have enrolled just over 5,100 migrants as of May 31, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

Human Rights First, a New York-based organization, recorded 1,544 cases of killings, rapes and kidnappings of migrants who were forced to remain in Mexico between MPP’s launch in January 2019 and January 2021, when the Biden administration initially suspended the policy. One woman enrolled in the program told The Texas Tribune that she had been raped by a Ciudad Juárez police officer as she waited in Mexico.

On average, it takes five years for a migrant to get a decision on their asylum case. Under a new plan that went into effect this year, the Biden administration’s goal is to wrap up asylum cases within six months for some asylum-seekers.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a separate lawsuit against the Biden administration on April 28 to attempt to halt the new asylum plan. Kacsmaryk, who is based in Amarillo, is also overseeing that case, which remains pending.

 


Join us Sept. 22-24 in person in downtown Austin for The Texas Tribune Festival and experience 100+ conversation events featuring big names you know and others you should from the worlds of politics, public policy, the media and tech — all curated by The Texas Tribune’s award-winning journalists. Buy tickets.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/29/supreme-court-migrant-protection-protocols-remain-mexico-biden/.

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

“Cataclysmic”: Conservatives on Supreme Court rule against EPA’s plan to combat climate change

In spite of the accelerating pace of global warming, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the Biden administration’s attempts to slash emissions through regulatory powers resting in federal agencies. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday struck down the federal government’s authority to regulate in areas like climate policy or food and worker safety.

The case, first heard by the Supreme Court back in February, was a lawsuit filed last year by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have the power to regulate the state’s power plant emissions. At the center of the court’s debate was how much regulatory authority is enshrined in the Clean Air Act, a 1963 air quality law designed to reduce pollution. That act, Morrissey and 19 other attorneys general argued, does not grant the EPA the ability to put caps on power plant emissions – a matter which they’ve otherwise said should be settled by the legislature.

“Today, the court strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent. “The Court appoints itself— instead of Congress or the expert agency— the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Kagan took direct aim at her conservative colleagues, writing, “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change.” 

RELATED: Trump’s EPA allowed Big Agriculture to poison Americans; a court just told them to stop

The case has its roots in the Obama era, when legislators drew from the Clean Air Act (CAA) to enact the Clean Power Plan (CPP), a 2014 policy that put formal limits on greenhouse gas emissions, with the explicit goal of mitigating climate change. At the time, numerous coal companies fired off legal challenges against the law, though a court ordered a stay on the law. In 2017, after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Donald Trump ordered the EPA to review the CPP and had the CPP repealed with the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, a watered-down version of the CPP that was ultimately shot down by a federal appeals court. Since then, the Biden administration has not explicitly addressed whether the EPA can put restrictions on power plant emissions. 

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1542509947350446080


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


 

Historically, the authority to administer restrictions under laws like the CAA and the CPP had been broadly vested in the executive branch through various federal agencies. That authority was affirmed in a ruling handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at the beginning of the Biden administration, allowing the EPA to recommend that states use a “best system of emission reduction” as part of the president’s push for more renewables. 

Last year, President Biden’s solicitor general, Elizabeth B. Prelogar, asked the Supreme Court not to intervene on the matter, saying that the administration was “taking into account all relevant considerations, including changes to the electricity sector that have occurred during the last several years.” She also assured plaintiffs that Biden would not resurrect the CPP. 

But that didn’t stop the court from taking up the case. During oral arguments in February, many of the court’s justices cited the major question doctrine, which holds that an agency lacks the authority to regulate something that is not directly addressed in statutory law. At the time, Politico reported that the proceeding suggested the court might ax the EPA’s broad authority to regulate power plants and punt the issue to Congress.

RELATED: The EPA’s West Virginia coal mining smackdown

This decision “could be cataclysmic for modern administrative law,” University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck told CNN. 

Election law expert Rick Hassen told The Hill that “An extreme version of the theory would shut down state courts’ ability to rein in partisan gerrymandering and protect voters’ rights in federal elections.” In concurring opinions, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito appeared to endorse such an extreme move. 

Liz Cheney gets standing ovation at Reagan Library after calling out Trump’s GOP enablers

GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming received a warm welcome while speaking as part of the “A Time for Choosing” speakers series held by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation.

“I know at this moment we are confronting a domestic threat we have never faced before and that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic and he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who have made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man,” she said.

“Some in my party are embracing former President Trump and even after all we have seen, they are enabling his lies. Many urge we do not confront Donald Trump, that we look away, and that is certainly the easier path. One need only look at the threats facing the witnesses who have come before the Jan. 6 committee to understand the nature and magnitude of that threat, but to argue the threat posed by Donald Trump can be ignored is to cast aside the responsibility that every citizen, everyone must not do that, and we cannot do that.”

“As the full picture is coming into view with the Jan.6 committee, it has become clear that the efforts Donald Trump oversaw and engaged in were even more chilling and more threatening than we could have imagined,” Cheney said. “As we have shown, Donald Trump attempted to overturn the presidential election and attempted to stay in office and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. He summoned the mob to Washington, he knew they were armed on Jan. 6, he knew they were angry and he directed the violent mob to march on the Capitol in order to delay or prevent the counting of votes.”

She addressed the choice facing the GOP.

“The reality we face today as Republicans, as we think about the choice in front of us, we have to choose, because Republicans cannot be loyal to both Donald Trump and to the Constitution at this moment,” she said to applause.

“We must not elect people who are more loyal to themselves or to power than they are to our Constitution,” she said, to more applause.

After praising Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney trotted out what sounded like a 2024 campaign line.

“And I want to speak to every young girl watching tonight: the power is yours and so is the responsibility. In our great nation, one individual can make all the difference and each individual must try. There are no bystanders in a constitutional republic and let me say this to the little girls and young women watching tonight, these days, for the most part, men are running the world, and it is really not going that well,” she said to cheers and applause.

Watch below or at this link.