Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

A genius sheet pan trick that will forever change how you make ribs

My brother-in-law, Mark Gartman, is an outstanding home cook. Having known him now for nearly 40 years, I can attest that he has always been a good chef with a great instinct for flavor, but now that he’s semi-retired with more time to devote to cooking, he has truly become exceptional. 

What are Mark’s secrets? He prioritizes fresh, quality ingredients, and he also has all of the toys and tools any cook would want right in his home kitchen. 

It’s not out of the ordinary to find Mark, mortar and pestle in hand, making a dry rub for his filets while whipping up family-favorite sides for both planned and impromptu gatherings. He makes it all look easy, even though he’s practically running a three-ring circus with the grill going outside, multiple things cooking in the kitchen, people coming and going, and a dog or a cat underfoot. 

In case you can’t tell, it’s quite the show! And, in the midst of all that he’s juggling, Mark can make you one of the best martinis you’ve ever tasted. (I think it might have something to do with the hand-stuffed blue cheese olives.)

RELATED: Wine jelly is the nostalgic dessert from a bygone era that couldn’t be more deserving of a comeback

Between his cooking abilities and my sister’s flair not only for hosting and making people feel welcome but also for making everything she touches beautiful yet utterly comfortable, their home on Fish River is the place to be. It’s no wonder they’re inundated with guests all the time. 

Being only 30 minutes away from where I live in Alabama, I look forward to their soirées, but I also enjoy dropping by on any given weekend afternoon just as much. It’s always fun and festive at their house, where good food and drink abound.


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


Mark has his tried and true methods for everything in his repertoire at this point, and grilling meat, ribs in particular, is something he has had down pat for a very long time. He might change a seasoning or create some new sauce or accompaniment, but when cooking ribs, low and slow was simply the way to do it. He followed that method for years and years with great success. 

But guess what? Old dogs can learn new tricks. The age of cooking ribs low and slow is over, or at least semi-retired, thanks to a young restauranteur and family friend who shared his cooking method with us. This particular recipe is Mark’s own sheet pan version and everyone who tries these ribs raves about them.  

In terms of prep, a helpful butcher does all of the work for you, and these ribs are in and out of the oven in an hour. You won’t believe how easy they are to make or how delicious they taste. I wish you could try them at the Gartman house. I think everything just tastes a little bit better there, but I have no doubt you’ll think they’re mighty delicious wherever you try them.

RibsOne Hour Barbecue Ribs (Photo courtesy of Bibi Hutchings)

Ingredients

Ribs

Ask the butcher to cut your chosen slab of ribs into individual pieces. If a butcher isn’t available, you’ll need to do this yourself.  

Korean barbecue sauce

Bottled sauce works just fine. My brother-in-law prefers the brands Bibigo and/or Kevin’s, both of which are labeled as “Korean BBQ sauce.”

***

Recipe: One Hour Barbecue Ribs

Yields
4+ servings
Prep Time
5-10 minutes
Cook Time
60 minutes

Ingredients

 

Directions

  1. Preheat the oven to 400 degrees. 

  2. If your ribs haven’t been cut into individual pieces, cut them up.

  3. Heavily salt and pepper both sides and place on a lined cookie sheet large enough for each individual rib to be in a single layer.

  4. Bake at 400 degrees for 30 minutes.

  5. Turn the ribs over and bake them for an additional 30 minutes.

  6. Remove the ribs from the oven. While they’re still hot, pour the sauce over them with a heavy hand.


Cook’s Notes

The serving size depends on appetite, but 1 slab is always plenty for 4 people.

 

Enjoy more recipes from Bibi’s kitchen: 

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.

Depp defamation verdict excites the right: “A win for all men who have been wrongfully accused”

Over the long holiday weekend, and into the start of Pride Month, followers of the Johnny Depp and Amber Heard trial have been keeping a watchful eye for the held-over jury to return with a verdict. Wednesday afternoon that verdict was handed down in favor of Depp.

“The disappointment I feel today is beyond words,” Heard wrote in a statement after the verdict was delivered. “I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband.

“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously.”

RELATED: Johnny Depp and Amber Heard’s ongoing defamation trial: Here’s everything you need to know

Determining that Heard had acted with “malice” in a 2018 op-ed she wrote about Depp for The Washington Post in which she detailed abuse suffered during their marriage and called for him to pay her $15 million in damages, the verdict awarded her $2 million in compensatory damages for her counterclaim, according to Variety, while awarding Depp with $10 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages. 

Just as the verdict itself was in favor of Depp, many reactions shot off on Twitter skewed in that direction as well. 

The official Twitter account for the House Judiciary GOP reacted to the verdict with a fan GIF of Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow from the “Pirates of the Caribbean” films.

Trump-endorsed author, Nick Adams, calls the verdict, “A win for all men who have been wrongfully accused of sexual assault.”

Pop culture commentator, Andy Signore, posted a screenshot of Heard’s statement with photoshopped red editor’s “corrections,” referring to her evidence as “lies” and Depp’s power as “the truth.”

Comedian Andy Milonakis quips that Heard, “seems like the type of girl that would call Johnny Depp after the lawsuit is over and see if he wants to get back together.”

Host of “Human Rights,” Jack Posobiec, calls for the ACLU to apologize to Depp.

Even Donald Trump Jr. is celebrating Depp’s win, echoing Chris Rock’s joke, “Believe all women . . . except Amber Heard,” and adding, “$15,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to Depp, and perhaps a case that could end the effective rabid femminist notion that all men are guilty before being proven innocent that we’ve seen as of late.” 


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


Depp posted a statement on Instagram after the verdict reading, “Six years later, the jury gave me my life back . . . I hope that my quest to have the truth be told will have helped others, men or women, who have found themselves in my situation, and that those supporting them never give up.

“I also hope that the position will now return to innocent until proven guilty, both within the courts and in the media. . . .The best is yet to come,” he adds.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CeRl1FwMmR6/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=4b3bff99-b662-4f26-824e-da196a3c1e7d

Musician Ryan Adams, the center of abuse allegations himself, reacted to Depp’s statement on Instagram by posting a string of supportive emojis.

However, many also came forward in support of Heard.

Moira Donegan, a gender and politics columnist for The Guardian, took to Twitter to say, “If women can’t speak about their experiences of gender abuse without incurring ruinous defamation suits, then functionally that speech by women is not free.”

Ej Dickson, a senior writer for Rolling Stone, reminds us of the vast amount of evidence Heard had against Depp, which was ultimately not enough to sway the jury’s decision.

Jessica DeFino, a beauty critic for The New York Times and other outlets, responded to the verdict with a thread pinpointing how society simply wants women to give up and shut up.

Isaac Chotiner, a New Yorker staff writer, comments that cheering for Depp is “less morally grotesque than going to a fascist rally or something.”

Taylor Lorenz, a writer for The Washington Post, highlights one of the most dire aspects of this verdict, the fact that hundreds of abuse victims are pulling out of court cases after seeing the results of this trial. 

Read more:

How 40 years without smallpox vaccinations could make the monkeypox outbreak worse

When the World Health Organization announced in 1980 that smallpox had been eradicated, it was considered a great victory for public health — and as a result, vaccination against smallpox became uncommon. While the eradication of a disfiguring disease is unequivocally good, the increase in poxviruses around the world since then is a curious side effect. The reason? Those with the smallpox vaccine (who are almost entirely older than 40) are more protected against other poxviruses, including monkeypox; those who haven’t been vaccinated, which is almost all of the younger population, are less protected. 

The variola virus, which causes smallpox, is the only disease to have been eradicated by human medicine. Variola now only exists in two locations in the world in secure laboratories in both Russia and the United States. With millions of recorded deaths attributable to smallpox, the WHO aptly describes it as “one of the most devastating diseases known to humanity.” However, it was not the only virus of its kind.

Other poxviruses have proliferated around the world, particularly in tropical regions, as climate change progresses, encroachment on wildlife habitats progresses, and geopolitical and armed conflicts impact endemic regions of diseases. When one such poxvirus, known as monkeypox, reached Europe recently, it raised alarm bells.

According to tropical disease epidemiologist Dr. David Heymann, smallpox vaccinations could have prevented the spread of monkeypox.

“If the population was still being vaccinated against smallpox as they were before the eradication [of smallpox], monkeypox would not be transmitting as easily as it is now,” Heymann told Salon. “It may have been curtailed in West Africa and other places because of vaccination.”

RELATED: The scramble for the smallpox vaccine

As few people younger than 40 to 50 years old have been vaccinated, an estimated 70% of the population no longer has immunity against smallpox — and thus they also have no immunity against monkeypox. Endemic to animal populations — so-called “reservoirs” for the disease — in sub-Saharan Africa, monkeypox has typically only infected humans that come into contact with rodents or other infected animals. Now its epidemiology appears to be changing course for unknown reasons, but one explanation could be waning immunity garnered by smallpox vaccinations.

“Monkeypox is prevented by smallpox vaccination — there’s no question about that.”

“What we’re seeing is the result of non-vaccination for the last 40 years, which is what should have happened. We couldn’t continue to vaccinate because vaccination was more dangerous at that time than getting smallpox, which was eradicated,” Heymann continued.

This is because smallpox vaccinations offer what is known as cross-immunity. Closely related poxviruses, including orthopoxviruses such as monkeypox, are susceptible to the same antibodies.

According to Dr. Heymann, the interchangeable use of smallpox vaccinations to prevent monkeypox is verified, and is a tangible way to contain an outbreak.

“Monkeypox is prevented by smallpox vaccination,” he asserted. “There’s no question about that.”

As smallpox immunity wanes, monkeypox chains of transmission have spread beyond initial infections to upwards of seven or eight people removed from that initial infection, Heymann explained. Before, human-to-human transmission was rare to unheard of.

Back in 2019, an uptick in monkeypox outbreaks outside of endemic regions precipitated an unofficial meeting between concerned experts in the field, which was held at Chatham House — a London-based think tank. Among the researchers was Dr. Heymann, who is affiliated as a professor with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases which published a report on their discussions.

Some researchers speculated about the possibility that monkeypox could fill the ecological niche of smallpox, which would have devastating consequences. Indeed, at least 300 million people are estimated to have died from smallpox in the 20th century alone. Now, the epidemiology of monkeypox appears to be changing and reports of other poxviruses are spreading.


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


Unlike coronaviruses, monkeypox does not mutate rapidly. Only two major strains — the Congo Basin and West African clades — are known. The latter, the West African clade, is responsible for the current outbreak. This is a stroke of luck for those infected.

According to Heymann, the Congo Basin clade more closely resembles smallpox in both form and function. Infections from the Congo Basin clade often lead to far more lesions. Since the virus spreads via contact with these lesions, the Congo Basin clade is more transmissible.

The Congo Basin clade is also far more deadly. Outbreaks of the West African clade claim the life of approximately 1 out of every 100 people who contract it, which is on par with COVID-19’s mortality rate. The Congo Basin clade would be of far greater concern if it were to spread, with an average of 1 out of 10 infections leading to death. That being said, neither are nearly as deadly as smallpox, which historically had a 30% fatality rate.

“The good news is that we have in our own hands the ability to prevent it if we do a risk assessment,” Heymann added somewhat optimistically. “If we feel that someone who we’re going to be intimate with or going to be in close contact with might have monkeypox then we should take the proper protective measures. … Individuals can have that power even without being vaccinated.

Read more on monkeypox and smallpox:

Cynthia Nixon says Miranda was always queer with “lesbianic qualities” on “Sex and the City”

Cynthia Nixon is opening up about her character Miranda Hobbes’ sexuality in an interview for Variety’s cover story about Sara Ramírez, who plays Miranda’s new love interest, Che Diaz, on the “Sex and the City” revival.

On HBO Max’s “And Just Like That…,” the headstrong lawyer makes strides in both her career and love life after quitting her job at a corporate law firm to go back to school and then abandoning her marriage to Steve explore her own bisexuality.

According to Nixon, Miranda’s newfound journey was first discussed when showrunner Michael Patrick King asked her if she wanted Miranda to be a queer character. The role would also be reflective of Nixon herself, who identifies as queer and is currently married to education activist Christine Marinoni.    

RELATED: The antiquated homophobia of “And Just Like That”

“I was like, ‘Sure, why not!'” Nixon told Variety. “If we’re trying to do different stuff, and show different worlds, and show different aspects of these characters, why not do that?”

For the storyline, King wanted to focus on Miranda’s marriage, specially her departure from it, and initially proposed that Miranda have an affair with her professor. Nixon, however, opposed the idea.

“I know we’re crossing a lot of boundaries here that people have a lot of opinions about, but for me a boundary that I don’t want to see Miranda cross is dating her professor, you know?” she explained. “That’s not OK with me.”

Instead, Miranda falls in love with Che — a non-binary, queer stand-up comedian who co-hosts a podcast alongside Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) — and leaves her husband, Steve (David Eigenberg). The romance was regarded as controversial by many viewers. But King said it made sense, especially because Miranda got “married against her will almost.”

“Miranda was an anarchy character,” King said. “She was like, ‘Why do I have to wear a dress and go out and pretend guys are smarter than they are?'”


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


When asked if she always thought Miranda was queer, Nixon responded with an enthusiastic, “Yes!”

“Even though she was only really interested in men, I think that Miranda had many other queer and frankly, lesbianic qualities about her,” she said. “And I think for a lot of gay women, she — we didn’t have a gay woman! But she was a stand-in for the gay women we didn’t have.”

Nixon continued, “Miranda has always grappled with power, and female power versus male power, and women getting the short end of the stick — and that’s a big issue for women who are queer. I think not having to be under a man’s thumb has always been one of the very appealing things that being with another woman has to offer.”

More stories you might like:

Doug Mastriano’s largest donor is Shake Shack’s bread maker

What does something as wholesome-sounding as a potato roll have to do with the assault on American democracy? The answer is James Martin. The Pennsylvania bread maker is the largest donor by far to the state’s far-right Republican nominee for governor, Doug Mastriano. 

Martin also contributed to the campaign of Trump-endorsed Jody Hice, the Georgia congressman and election denier who this week failed in his attempt to unseat Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State who refused to “find” the 11,000 votes that would help Donald Trump overturn the 2020 election.

Martin is the patriarch behind family-owned Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe and has donated over $200,000 to dozens of Republican candidates in eight states over the past 15 years. But he appears to be uniquely energized by Mastriano’s campaign. His $110,000 in donations to Mastriano dwarfs any other campaign donation he has ever made to any other candidate, according to Open Secrets, a nonprofit that tracks money in politics. It’s also more than twice the amount given by any other donor to Mastriano.

Mastriano’s victory over Congressman Lou Barletta by a margin of more than 2-to-1 on May 17 set off alarm bells among those concerned about the emergence of a messianic variety of Christian nationalism that is propelling the rise of the far right. “The forces of darkness are hitting us really hard right now,” Mastriano told those who gathered in a church parking lot for a rally in Pennsburg earlier this month, according to a report in The Washington Post. “We’re going to bring the state back to righteousness, this is our day, our hour to take our state back and renew the blessings of America.”

Mastriano would have the power to thwart the democratic process in his quest to bring Pennsylvania back to his brand of righteousness. He is not merely one of the many Republican candidates and officeholders who have advanced the false claim that Trump won the 2020 election. As governor of a key battleground state, he would be uniquely positionedto illegitimately orchestrate Trump’s return to power in 2024 should the former president’s future victory hinge on Pennsylvania’s electoral college votes. Mastriano, a former colonel and current state senator, has also hinted his intention to interfere with the 2024 election.

Unlike in other states, the governor of Pennsylvania appoints its chief election officer. (In most states, it is an elected position.) “I get to appoint the Secretary of State who’s delegated from me the power to make the corrections to elections, the voting logs and everything. I could decertify every machine in the state with the stroke of a pen. I already had the Secretary of State picked out,” Mastriano said on a radio show in March. What’s more, Mastriano has embraced the fringe theory that a state legislature has the power to overturn the results of a presidential election and appoint an alternate slate of electors if it is unhappy with the way it is carried out.

Close Family Connections Bind Mastriano to the Martin Family

Family ties and policy goals connect the Mastriano family and the Martins. Mastriano’s wife, Rebecca Stewart, served as a chaplain at Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, which is headquartered in Chambersburg, in central Pennsylvania. Martin’s wife, Donna, who helps run the company, provided the Mastriano campaign with an in-kind donation worth about $4,000, according to  Billy Penn, a newsletter for WHYY in Philadephia. The site also reported that his daughter, Julie Martin, social media manager for the company, also gave $2,000 to Mastriano last year. Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe hosted a public hearing for Mastriano in 2019 on 1000 Potato Roll Lane in Chambersburg on “regulatory review, bureaucratic red tape and Pennsylvania’s business climate.”

Some companies do make direct contributions to campaigns, but in this case the Martin family’s largesse consists of individual contributions by the company’s owners. The company’s marketing team said in a statement provided to Capital & Main: “Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe Inc. does not donate to any political candidate or party. The many individuals who work for Martin’s, as well as all the stockholders, are all free to support and vote for whoever they choose, but as a company, we do not donate to any candidate or political organization.” The Martin family could not be reached for comment in spite of repeated attempts by Capital & Main.

Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe’s baked goods are distributed to restaurants and supermarkets all around the globe, and its potato rolls are a key ingredient of Shake Shack’s famous ShackBurger. New York-based Shake Shack has used Martin’s potato rolls at its very first location, opened in Madison Square Park in 2004, according to Eater.

On a recent afternoon, some diners at a Shake Shack in Pasadena, California, were not happy to hear about the chain’s connection to Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe, given the family’s enthusiasm for Mastriano. “Now I’m sick to my stomach,” said 35-year-old Josh Cutler, a supervisor at a piping and chemical company in Echo Park. He’d just finished eating a burger with his six-year-old son. “If Shake Shack is in bed with someone like that, it’s hard to support them.”

At first, 46-year-old Kristin Pittman, a San Marino mindfulness coach, was philosophical. “It’s capitalism,” she said. She had opted for a veggie burger wrapped in lettuce anyway. She had not heard of Mastriano before and regulates her intake of politics as well as carbs. But on reflection, she said, “I’ll probably not come back here.” She had brought her daughters, who were chomping on burgers with buns.

Shake Shack’s corporate values fit uncomfortably with those of Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe’s owners. The chain touts its equity and inclusion goals and its work to advance LGBTQ+ issues. “We never stop looking for the best products and best companies to partner with. We put small businesses on the map and support their growth,” according to an executive quoted in a 2021 Shake Shack report on its efforts around corporate responsibility. Shake Shack’s corporate mission is summarized by the statement, “Stand for Something Good.” Shake Shack did not respond to a request for comment.

Mastriano, meanwhile, took time to complain about allowing trans athletes to compete at schools during his election night acceptance speech. He holds a number of views that are far out of step with public opinion. He supports a total ban on abortion, without exceptions. Heintroduced a “fetal heartbeat bill” in 2019, which would ban abortion before many women know they are pregnant. He also introduced legislation to make federal gun laws unenforceable in Pennsylvania.

Martin has donated to other election-denying candidates during this election cycle. In 2022, he gave $1,000 each to Hice; Arkansas gubernatorial Republican nominee Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former press secretary; and Robert W. Kauffman, who was one of 90 state legislators who sent a letter to Vice President Mike Pence on Jan. 5 asking him to delay certification of the election. Mastriano chartered buses to shuttle supporters to the rally on Jan. 6, 2021, which preceded the attack on the Capitol. He has denied breaching the barricade, although video shows otherwise.

Last year, Martin handed over the role of president of Martin’s Famous Pastry Shoppe to his son, but he chairs the company’s board and continues to have “significant influence on the direction and strategy of the company,” according to Food Business News.

Sandra Mailey is a retired kindergarten teacher in Franklin County, the rural and heavily Republican community where the Martins’ family business is headquartered. Mailey remembers that a member of the Martin family came to help out in her classroom many years before Trump was elected. “She was lovely. We certainly did not talk politics,” says Mailey, who is now chair of the county’s Democratic Party. But that was a different era. “It’s a very extreme time. It really is,” she adds.

Copyright 2022 Capital & Main

Gun stocks soar after Uvalde shooting as GOP runs interference on gun safety legislation

The day after an armed 18-year-old entered the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, and shot dead 19 children and two teachers, the share prices of gun and weapons manufacturers jumped.

A week on, and the market rally of gun stocks following the latest mass shooting hasn’t subsided. As of the close of trading on May 31, 2022, the stock price of weapons-maker Sturm Ruger was up more than 6.6% since May 23, the day before the shooting. For Smith & Wesson, the jump was even more marked, with shares up over 12% from the stock price prior to the mass killing in Uvalde.

But that relationship – a mass shooting followed by a spike in gun industry stocks – wasn’t always the case. My colleague Anand Gopal and I studied the impact of 93 mass shootings on the stock price of publicly listed firms from 2009 to 2013. We found that, contrary to what happens now, mass shootings in that period were followed by a drop in share price for Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger, the two gun companies still publicly listed in the U.S.

So why has that changed? The answer may lie in how hopes of legislation over tighter restrictions on gun sales have dwindled over the last decade. The takeaway is investors no longer seem to worry so much about the chances of tightening firearms regulation when assessing the long-term viability of gun manufacturers in the aftermath of mass shootings.

Let’s look at the factors that influence the valuation of such stocks after mass shootings. First you have increasing demand for weapons. Research has shown that gun sales go up after a high-profile shooting as Americans “arm up,” both out of a perceived concern for their safety and fear of tighter restrictions.

The thinking is simple: “I better buy firearms while I still can, before legislation makes it harder for me to do so.” This increased demand would, on its own, spur the market price of gun and ammunition manufacturers by providing an unanticipated financial windfall.

But then you have the counter factor: Any talk of tighter rules on gun sales puts at risk the long-term viability of the companies by curtailing future cash flows. The business model of gun-makers, after all, is to sell increasing numbers of firearms to the public. Any ban or restrictions on what types of weapon you can purchase – or even who can buy a firearm – would limit their ability to increase profits.

In the period we looked at, investors seemed to lean into this fear of future legislation more, as seen in the reduced valuation of publicly listed firearm companies after mass shootings. Our research showed that the mass shootings from 2009 to 2013 resulted in a penalty imposed on firearms stocks over a two-, five- and 10-day window. That is to say, a mass shooting would be followed by a cumulative abnormal drop in share price over that period. The penalty worked out to around 1.25% over a five-day period.

Interestingly, even over the years we looked at, things began to change. The negative stock market response to mass shootings tapered off in the later years of our study, suggesting that the threat of any regulatory measures was not as keenly felt by investors.

Inaction over gun control at the federal level – and the loosening of regulations among some states – in the years since our work has seemingly led to a rebalancing of the two main factors at play. Yes, there is still the surge of demand for gun sales after mass shootings. But the fear over potential regulations over gun sales has seemingly abated.

The surge in the stock price of Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger after the Uvalde school shooting provides strong correlational evidence that firearm stocks now rise after such events. A similar effect was seen after the 2018 mass shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

But there is a problem when it comes to saying outright that there is a link. One of the scariest things is the statistical model we used in our research no longer works. The reason: There are simply too many mass shootings in the U.S. They occur with such frequency that we can no longer implement this kind of analysis looking at the effect of isolated incidents and the stock market effect on gun companies.

In fact, according to the Gun Violence Archive, there were 18 more mass shootings in the U.S. in the seven days after the Uvalde shooting.

Brad Greenwood, Associate Professor of Information Systems and Operations Management, George Mason University

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

Trump continues to cry “obvious fraud” in Georgia — even after losing candidates he endorsed concede

Donald Trump, who has backed former Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., in the Georgia gubernatorial primary, is pushing the baseless allegation that Perdue lost to Gov. Brian Kemp by way of election fraud. 

More than one week after Perdue conceded on election night, the former president revised his fraud conspiracies in an email sent out by his “Save America” PAC, which linked to an article posted by former Newsmax correspondent Emerald Robinson. In the article, Robinson casts doubt over Kemp’s margin of victory, suggesting that his win was a sign of “obvious fraud.”

“On Primary Day in Georgia, Kemp gets 74% and Perdue gets 22%. Nobody in any election in America gets 74% of the votes,” she writes. “Ever. It doesn’t happen. Obvious fraud.”

RELATED: Georgia GOP outraged Trump turned against Brian Kemp: ‘I am just so mad — beyond words”

There is no evidence that Georgia’s gubernatorial primary was impacted by fraud. Further, while a 52% margin of victory might be relatively large for most elections, it is not unprecedented, as journalist Steven Fowler explained over Twitter. In her 2020 House races, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., beat her Democratic general opponent with about 50% more of the vote. In the last presidential election, Trump likewise trounced Biden in Wyoming with over 70% of the vote. 


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


Robinson is currently employed by Lindell-TV, the online streaming platform founded by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, one of Trump’s most vocal election deniers. Robinson was fired last year after spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. 

“Dear Christians: the vaccines contain a bioluminescent marker called LUCIFERASE so that you can be tracked,” she wrote at the time in a since-deleted Twitter post. “Read the last book of the New Testament to see how this ends.”

In Georgia, Perdue’s loss isn’t only the setback in Trump’s crusade to install MAGA-friendly candidates in the upper echelons of state governments. 

Last month, Trump-backed secretary of state candidate Rep. Jodi Hice, R-Ga., lost to incumbent Brad Raffensperger, who famously rejected the former president’s request to “find” enough votes to overturn the election in Trump’s favor. Raffensperger won 52% of the vote, while 33% went to Hice, who conceded in short order. According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Trump was reportedly “stunned” by Hice’s loss.

RELATED: Trump drains GOP of cash in Georgia – then suffers embarrassing defeat

Largest-ever Medicare premium hikes: Biden just handed a huge “gift to McConnell” ahead of midterms

The Biden administration quietly announced last week that it will leave in place one of the largest-ever Medicare premium hikes for the remainder of 2022, despite federal health officials’ decision to restrict coverage of the expensive and potentially ineffective Alzheimer’s drug that drove the increase.

Progressive healthcare advocates responded with outrage to the administration’s Friday announcement, warning that it will inflict entirely avoidable financial pain on vulnerable seniors and hand the GOP an effective talking point heading into the November midterms.

“This is a terrible decision,” Linda Benesch, communications director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams. “Seniors should never have been forced to pay inflated Medicare premiums for an ineffective, dangerous, and massively overpriced drug.”

“Not only is lowering Medicare premiums the right thing to do, it’s also a political necessity,” said Benesch. “Older voters are a key force in midterm elections. Keeping Medicare premiums needlessly high until after the election is a gift to Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans. Every Congressional Democrat who wants to keep their seat in November should join us in calling on the Biden administration to reverse this decision and lower Medicare premiums now!”

Warren Gunnels, the staff director for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., similarly argued that the Biden administration’s refusal to reverse the premium hike is both political and policy malpractice.

“Imagine being able to put more money in the pockets of senior citizens who are struggling to put food on the table right now and doing nothing instead,” Gunnels wrote on Twitter. “This is how you blow a slam dunk.”

First announced by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) last November, the monthly Medicare Part B premium increase of 14.5% over the 2021 rate—from $148.50 to $170.10—was enacted to account for the potentially massive cost that Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm was expected to impose on the federal health program in 2022.

But in January, under pressure from progressive lawmakers and organizations, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra instructed CMS to reexamine the 2022 Medicare premium hike in light of Biogen’s decision to cut Aduhelm’s annual price from $56,000 to $28,200.

And last month, CMS finalized its decision to restrict coverage of Aduhelm to Medicare patients enrolled in clinical trials, further undercutting the justification for the 2022 premium spike.

Citing CMS’ Aduhelm coverage decision, Sanders—the chair of the Senate Budget Committee—pushed the Biden administration earlier this year to swiftly reverse the Medicare premium increase and refund seniors who had already paid the inflated price.

Benesch echoed that demand on Tuesday, arguing that “once Medicare rightfully decided not to cover Aduhelm in most circumstances, beneficiaries should have gotten a refund.”

“We are going to keep organizing seniors to demand that the Biden administration reverse course and send Medicare beneficiaries the refund they deserve, along with lowering premiums for the rest of the year,” said Benesch.

In a five-page analysis released Friday, CMS insisted that carrying out a mid-year change to Medicare’s 2022 premiums would be “prohibitively complex and highly risky, requiring significant resources and unproven technical solutions from the varied entities which manage premium collection and payment.”

The agency estimated that Medicare Part B’s monthly premiums in 2022 would have been $160.30 instead of $170.10 if Aduhelm were removed from the equation.

“Potential Aduhelm costs resulted in roughly half of the 2022 premium increase,” CMS said.

Becerra pointed to CMS’ conclusion as evidence that the Biden administration’s hands are tied by its own November decision to hike premiums in preparation for Aduhelm cost burdens.

Lamenting the “legal and operational hurdles” flagged by CMS, Becerra promised the administration will work to ensure that seniors see premium relief next year—cold comfort to those hurt by higher costs in 2022.

“After receiving CMS’ report reevaluating the 2022 Medicare Part B premiums, we have determined that we can put cost-savings directly back into the pockets of people enrolled in Medicare in 2023,” said Becerra. “We had hoped to achieve this sooner, but CMS explains that the options to accomplish this would not be feasible.”

“CMS and HHS are committed to lowering healthcare costs—so we look forward to seeing this Medicare premium adjustment across the finish line to ensure seniors get their cost savings in 2023,” Becerra added.

But Rachel Cohrs of STAT noted that while “overpayments will instead be factored into next year’s premiums,” it is “possible seniors won’t see a decrease in premiums next year, but instead premiums may hold steady or increase at a slower rate than they otherwise would have.”

In response to STAT‘s reporting, Sanders’ communications director Mike Casca called it “a classic Democratic Party story.”

“Pharma greed and a broken bureaucracy drove up Medicare premiums,” Casca added. “[The] White House could take a victory lap and tout lower rates after taking action. Nope!”

The right desperately tries to blame women for the 21 murders in the Uvalde school shooting

The self-exonerating stories from police after the mass shooting in an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas keep falling apart. The already long list of corrections to initial police reports now has another addition: exoneration for the teacher who police falsely implicated in the shooting by claiming she propped open a back door that the shooter used to get into the school. The Texas Department of Safety has since revealed that the teacher actually did shut the door, but that it simply didn’t lock as it should. 

The Uvalde police’s story has changed so often that the journalists who keep track of the shifting narrative deserve hazard pay. It’s gotten so bad that the Uvalde police have stopped cooperating with the state investigation into the failures that led to cops standing outside the classroom while children locked in with an active shooter kept calling 911 and begging for help. The false story of the careless teacher looks now like yet another attempt to deflect blame from the cops. Scapegoating a school teacher is a particularly low move considering that it appears that the two teachers who died that day were among the few adults who had the courage to attempt to protect the children. 

Male cops blaming a female teacher for their own failures fits right into a larger pattern on the right: Pinning the blame for this massacre, and all others like it, on women. 

RELATED: Uvalde shooting timeline exposes an ugly truth: The police have no legal duty to protect you

Before the bodies were even cold, in their effort to talk about anything but guns, Republican pundits and politicians zeroed right in on victim-blaming school staff for mass shootings. Most teachers are women, giving the Republican propaganda machine an opportunity to characterize schools as weak and feminine places supposedly in need of even more male protection. On Fox News, there was lots of chatter about schools being “soft” targets in need of “armed security agents” and other manly man figures to shield the women and children inside.  

The underlying theory is that the “problem” is letting those college-educated women who teach school have too much control over what happens in classrooms.

It swiftly became clear, however, that the problem in Uvalde was not a lack of well-armed men who like to pose dramatically with guns. On the contrary, there was a robust police presence at the school, but those big tough manly cops were afraid to engage the gunman. Instead, they stood out of the classroom for an hour while kids begged for help. This did not deter right-wing media or Republican politicians from peddling a gendered narrative extolling masculinity and demonizing women, however. On the contrary, the misogynist narratives exploded rapidly. 


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


On Fox News, Lara Trump blamed “fatherless children” for mass shootings. Jesse Watters echoed this claim, arguing that divorce “rates have skyrocketed.” (In reality, divorce rates have been in decline since 1980.)Watters also said that “shooters didn’t have a dad in their life.” Fox News commentator Dan Bongino worked the same nonsense, claiming kids don’t have fathers to teach “physicality doesn’t always mean violence.” It’s probably not true, but definitely not in this case, as the father of the shooter has already publicly apologized. Despite the heavy use of the word “father,” anyone who has even a cursory understanding of right-wing media knows this is a standard-issue woman-blaming narrative on the right. The idea is that feminism “ruined” women by making them too independent and giving them too-high standards, which supposedly runs off the men. 

RELATED: Another Uvalde shooting claim falls apart — now police chief refuses to cooperate with investigation

Alongside single mothers, teachers themselves, the majority of whom are women, were also blamed. Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin argued that “we stopped teaching values in so many of our schools” and “we’re teaching wokeness.” It’s a narrative of racist paranoia, but also gendered paranoia. The underlying theory is that the “problem” is letting those college-educated women who teach school have too much control over what happens in classrooms. Right-wing podcaster Steven Crowder claimed “public schools are a breeding ground for evil,” because of those majority-female teachers supposedly “browbeating young white boys.” Glenn Beck rolled out the same talking points about “wokeness” in schools, taking a shot at trans students and staff by decrying “bathrooms that anybody can use.”

Male cops blaming a female teacher for their own failures fits right into a larger pattern on the right.

It got even more explicit with Fox News guest Jason Whitlock arguing that school shootings happen because “masculinity, traditional male values, are under attack.” On One America News, Oliver North blamed women for having abortions. (Note that the same conservatives who blame single mothers want to force more women to be single mothers.) And no matter how often it’s debunked, Candace Owens of Daily Wire is determined to blame trans women for a cis man shooting up a school. 


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


Needless to say, women are not the cause of either mass murder or widespread law enforcement failures.

The percentage of mass shooters who are female is vanishingly small. It is very much a crime of toxic masculinity, no matter how whiny conservatives get when this obvious fact is pointed out. And the law enforcement failures in Uvalde underscore how much the masculinist fantasy of the “good guy with a gun” is a flat-out lie.

What we have here is a classic example of the right’s tendency to psychological projection. Mass shootings expose the deep problem of mindless cheerleading for “traditional” masculinity. The masculinist power fantasies that undergird our lax gun laws are fueling the violence. The same fantasies turn even uglier and more violent in the minds of the men who commit these crimes. Domestic or sexual violence is a common theme with shooters prior to their mass shootings. The Uvalde shooter is no exception. Our overpaid and ineffective police force is also the result of these silly masculinist power fantasies. 

But rather than admit their conceptions of manhood are fueling this mass shooting problem, conservatives are projecting their own failures onto women. Many are even literally accusing a woman, falsely, for the shooting. Owens and other right-wing conspiracy theorists continued to pass around photos of a trans woman they falsely claim is the shooter. Conservatives would rather blame innocent women — a random trans woman, a teacher at the school, teachers in general — than admit that there’s a problem with “traditional” conceptions of manhood. 

“Phony” Joe Manchin slammed for demanding lower drug prices after killing bill to lower drug prices

Progressives within and beyond Congress took aim at Sen. Joe Manchin on Tuesday after the West Virginia Democrat infamous for blocking his own party’s priorities took to Twitter to call for lowering prescription drug prices.

Sharing a photo with older residents of his state, Manchin said that “by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, capping the cost of insulin at $35 per month, and allowing the importation of drugs from Canada, we can lower prescription drug prices in America. We must take action and keep the promises we’ve made to our seniors.”

The tweets were swiftly noticed by critics who pointed out that Manchin prevented the passage of the Build Back Better (BBB) Act, a sweeping package approved by House Democrats last year that included various drug pricing reforms.

Responding to the senator, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., tweeted that “you literally killed the bill to do this.”

Human rights attorney Qasim Rashid told Manchin that his demands are “all things you voted against when you blocked the BBB,” and “it’s mind-blowing that you would tweet this when you’re the reason Americans don’t have this.”

Warren Gunnels, majority staff director for Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was similarly critical.

“What a phony. THE reason we failed to keep our promises to seniors is because [Manchin] sabotaged the Build Back Better Act and refuses to end the filibuster,” said Gunnels. “In Joe’s world, protecting the filibuster is more important than protecting seniors. No wonder billionaires love him.”

“If Manchin didn’t sabotage Build Back Better, Medicare would be negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices, insulin would be capped at $35 a month, and Medicare would be expanded to provide dental, vision, and hearing to seniors,” he added. “Promises made. Promises broken.”

Sanders himself blasted Manchin and fellow obstructionist Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona during a televised interview with MSNBC earlier this month, accusing the pair of sabotaging President Joe Biden’s agenda.

Despite Manchin long expressing support for cutting prescription costs and suggesting in recent months that he would be open to a watered-down package to advance climate action, drug price reforms, and higher taxes on the wealthy, no concrete proposals have publicly materialized.

NPR White House correspondent Asma Khalid noted that Manchin’s tweets followed Biden’s Monday opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal on his administration’s plan to fight inflation, which said that “we can reduce the price of prescription drugs by giving Medicare the power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and capping the cost of insulin.”

Troy Miller, a West Virginia organizer for Social Security Works, demanded action from his senator on Tuesday.

“It’s been six months since we rallied for you to vote for these provisions as part of BBB,” Miller said. “And in the meantime, people have died because they couldn’t afford meds. Bring a bill forward!”

“Pot psychosis”: Laura Ingraham baselessly links marijuana consumption to mass shootings

Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday suggested that marijuana consumption might be contributing to the uptick mass shootings in America, an alleged link she called “the pot psychosis-violent behavior connection.”

Ingraham’s remarks came in an interview with Dr. Russell Kamer, the medical director of Partners in Safety, which helps companies to provide drug tests for employees. During the segment, the conservative pundit brought up last week’s shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two adults were murdered in a school shooting by an 18-year-old gunman with a legally-purchased assault rifle. 

“Why aren’t people in general not talking more about the pot psychosis–violent behavior connection?” Ingraham asked Kamer. 

“What we find in studies [is that] it’s very clear that the use of the high potency marijuana is strongly associated with the development of psychosis,” Kamer said. “My colleagues in Colorado,” Kamer continued, “are sounding the alarm because that was one of the first states to legalize. It’s practically a daily occurrence that kids come into the emergency rooms in florid, cannabis-induced psychosis.”

RELATED: Parents of murdered Uvalde students refuse to meet with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

At one one point, Ingraham stressed that the country needs to have a “serious national conversation” about the alleged potential for weed to make young men more violent. 

“This is something that the medical community is well aware of. Yet, you get the sense that the billions of dollars on the line are more important than our kids,” Ingraham said. “And what’s happening especially to young men in the United States, who are frequent users of this high-potency THC that’s now in marijuana products sold legally in dispensaries across the United States.”


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


“And yet people like Beto [O’Rourke] – and I’m not trying to drag you in a political conversation, Dr. Kaymer – but they’re fine with going in and do a run on the guns,” she added. “And I guess you can argue that, if that’s what you want to do, try to get rid of the Second Amendment, but yeah, completely oblivious to what legalization of marijuana has done and is doing to an entire generation of Americans with violent consequences.”

It isn’t the first time that conservatives have attempted to use mass shootings as a cudgel against marijuana legalization.

Back in August 2019, shortly after a shooter in Dayton, Ohio killed nine people and wounded 17 more, Fox News host Tucker Carlson pointed to the fact that the gunman was a “long-time user of marijuana.”

RELATED: So where were the “good guys with guns”? Standing around doing jacks**t, as usual

“It turns out, in fact, that many violent individuals have been avid marijuana users,” Carlson said at the time. “Is there a connection?”

There is no clear linkage between marijuana and violence, according to PolitiFact. It’s widely known amongst drug policy experts that weed consumption and psychosis are correlated, though no strong causal relationship has emerged. Public health researchers in 2016 found that pot tends to make people more relaxed, as The Washington Post reported.

Judge rips Palin’s bid to re-sue NY Times for defamation: You don’t have “even a speck of evidence”

Far-right GOP culture warrior Sarah Palin, who is running for a U.S. House seat in Alaska, hasn’t given up her vendetta against the New York Times and has requested a new trial in her defamation lawsuit against the publication. But Palin’s vendetta ran into a brick wall on Tuesday, May 31, when U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff denied her request.

Rakoff didn’t mince words, emphasizing that Palin’s case has not met the legal standard for defamation of a public official. That standard was set back in 1964 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 9-0 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan. Under the Sullivan standard handed down by Chief Justice Earl Warren (a Republican appointee of President Dwight D. Eisenhower) and eight other justices, a public official in a defamation case must show “actual malice” — and Rakoff clearly doesn’t believe that Palin has met that standard in her lawsuit against the Times.

A jury trial for Palin’s case against the Times concluded in February, when a jury found that “that there was insufficient evidence to prove the newspaper had defamed her in a 2017 editorial that erroneously linked her political rhetoric to a mass shooting” in Arizona in 2011. Palin responded by requesting a new trial, but Rakoff doesn’t believe that one is merited.

On May 31, Rakoff noted that while the Times made mistakes in that 2017 editorial, “a mistake is not enough to win if it was not motivated by actual malice.”

Rakoff wrote, “The striking thing about the trial here was that Palin, for all her earlier assertions, could not in the end introduce even a speck of such evidence. Palin’s motion is hereby denied in its entirety.”

Attorneys for the Times have maintained that the 2017 editorial made an “honest mistake.” According to the High Court’s ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan, an honest mistake involving a public official doesn’t qualify as defamation — “actual malice” is necessary.

Rakoff’s decision comes at a time when Palin is running for public office for the first time since 2008. That year, the former Alaska governor was GOP presidential nominee John McCain’s running mate. When McCain lost the 2008 election to Democratic nominee Barack Obama, Palin had her position as governor of Alaska to fall back on. But in 2009, Palin resigned as Alaska governor.

Clinton lawyer taunts Trump: Durham probe “collapsed when proof had to be introduced in open court”

An attorney representing 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton took a victory lap in a Tuesday op-ed published by The Washington Post.

“Well, that was a quick acquittal!” wrote David E. Kendall. “The Michael Sussmann prosecution brought by Trump administration special counsel John Durham tried to generate a Clinton-conspiracy bang but ended with a not-guilty-verdict whimper.

Kendall noted Durham was appointed special counsel by Trump Attorney General Bill Barr.

“Durham’s counterfactual scenario generated endless speculation and fulmination among the MAGA faithful, including by Trump, but it collapsed when proof had to be introduced in open court subject to the rules of evidence,” he wrote. “With his oversized and oblivious ego, the former president has never acknowledged the reality that the Russians zealously tried to help him defeat Hillary Clinton.”

Also writing in The Washington Post, journalists Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent said Durham’s goal was to probe that Russiagate was a “big big nothingburger.”

“In this sense, Durham’s flop is only the latest in a long string of failures,” they wrote. “None of these efforts have been able to disappear a fundamental truth: The stubborn facts show that Russiagate actually was an extraordinarily grave and disturbing scandal.”

The two noted five separate efforts to cover up Russia, beginning with then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warning Democrats against organizing a bipartisan condemnation of Russian interference as the 2016 election was still under. Barr also mislead the public about the contents of the Mueller report and Republicans distorted a report by the Justice Department inspector general. Trump’s homeland security chief intervened to slow warning of Russia again interfering in the 2020 election and the president berated his intelligence chief for briefing Congress.

“In some ways, that campaign was successful. Trump pardoned a long list of cronies with ties to the Russia scandal (Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos). And every Republican is pretty much required to say it’s no big deal if a hostile foreign power helps a presidential candidate get elected, provided that candidate is a Republican,” they wrote. “But the long-held dream of Trump and his allies to erase the enormous significance and depravity of the Russiagate scandal stands as decidedly unfulfilled. And thus it will likely remain.”

Kendall, however, warned the special counsel may still release a report, that he expected to be biased.

“Despite the setback of the Sussmann verdict, it’s possible that Durham will ultimately draft a report that does in words what he has so far been unable to do in court — proclaim Trump is a victim and that the allegations of Russian support for him were a ‘hoax’ of the Democrats or the ‘deep state.’ Such a report will have all the appeal and credibility of a self-published memoir,” he wrote. “A future whitewash in a special counsel report is bound to fail in light of the overwhelming, undeniable and ineluctable amount of evidence of Russian government efforts to help Trump and harm Clinton.”

CNN’s John King described the verdict as “a big defeat.”

Watch below or at this link.

“Constitutional trainwreck”: Trump-appointed justices help block Texas GOP social media law

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a Texas law that prohibits large social media companies, such as Facebook or Twitter, from banning or removing users’ posts based on political viewpoints.

The justices, in a 5-4 vote, granted NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association’s request to reinstate a block imposed by a federal district judge as the lawsuit makes its way through the courts. The justices who voted to reverse the lower court’s ruling didn’t give a reason for their decision — a standard practice when the court is ruling on emergency applications.

Matt Schruers, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, one of the two groups that sued to block the law on claims that it violates companies’ First Amendment rights, celebrated the court’s decision.

“No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech,” he said in a statement. “This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has upheld that.”

Passed during a special session last year, House Bill 20 does not provide any specific civil penalties for breaking the law besides allowing users to sue to recuperate their court costs from the company found in violation. The law also empowers the attorney general to pursue violations.

The law would ban platforms with more than 50 million monthly users, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, in the U.S. from removing a user over a “viewpoint” and require them to publicly report information about content removal and account suspensions.

The Legislature passed the measure after outcry from Republicans over perceived anti-conservative bias among major tech companies. That charge grew when Twitter permanently banned former President Donald Trump for inciting violence and purged over 70,000 accounts linked to dangerous conspiracy groups after the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection attack of the U.S. Capitol.

Supporters of the law say it ensures that users’ political views go uncensored. State Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park — who authored the bill — compared tech companies to “common carriers” like phone companies or cable providers, which are barred from customer discrimination.

Big social media company executives have denied removing content or blocking users based on their viewpoints, though they do have policies prohibiting explicitly graphic content, bullying, hate speech and dangerous misinformation. The two trade groups that challenged the Texas law argued in their lawsuit that HB 20 forces social-media platforms “to disseminate, for example, pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda, foreign government disinformation, and medical misinformation.”

“Texas’s HB 20 is a constitutional trainwreck—or, as the district court put it, an example of ‘burning the house to roast the pig,'” Chris Marchese, counsel at NetChoice, said in a statement on Tuesday. “We are relieved that the First Amendment, open internet, and the users who rely on it remain protected from Texas’s unconstitutional overreach.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has defended the law, saying it doesn’t violate the First Amendment because social media platforms are “gatekeepers of a digital modern public square.” He has also argued that social media platforms “are the twenty-first century descendants of telegraph and telephone companies.” And he has claimed that the government should be allowed to regulate the companies as “common carriers,” which are private or public companies that transport goods or people and are barred by government regulators from discriminating against customers.

The two industry trade groups that represent companies such as Google and Twitter sued to block the law last fall. In December, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of the groups and prevented the law from going into effect, reasoning that the First Amendment protects a company’s right to moderate content and calling parts of the law “prohibitively vague.”

As a result, Paxton appealed the district judge’s decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reinstated the law.

Three conservative justices, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, said in a dissent that they would have let Texas’ law stand for now. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, said she would have also let the order stand but didn’t provide a reason.

Alito wrote in the dissent that it is “not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies.” Still, he wrote, the case is “of great importance” and the Supreme Court would have to review the arguments at some point.

“Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” he wrote. “At issue is a ground-breaking Texas law that addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

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


Stories like the one you just read come to life at The Texas Tribune Festival, the Tribune’s annual celebration of politics and policy happening Sept. 22-24 in downtown Austin. For just a little bit longer you can grab a discounted ticket to this year’s event, but act fast — savings end on May 31! Buy now and save.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/31/texas-social-media-law-blocked/.

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

The Durham investigation is a flop — but Donald Trump just can’t quit the conspiracy

Donald Trump has made no secret of his deep and abiding belief in vengeance as a philosophical principle. From his earliest days as a celebrity businessman in New York, Trump has made it clear that if he believes someone has wronged him he must retaliate. In “Think Big,” his 2009 book of business advice, he spells it out:

 I love getting even when I get screwed by someone. … Always get even. When you are in business you need to get even with people who screw you. You need to screw them back 15 times harder. You do it not only to get the person who messed with you but also to show the others who are watching what will happen to them if they mess with you. If someone attacks you, do not hesitate. Go for the jugular.

After his former attorney general, Bill Barr, pompously mischaracterized Robert Mueller’s report as exonerating the president of any possible criminal behavior in the Russia probe, Trump and his toadies made it clear that they planned to do just that. For weeks they pushed their mantra that the Russia investigation had been a Deep State plot in collusion with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to smear Trump without a shred of evidence. Recall this famous Trump exhortation:

Trump no doubt believed that the FBI was out to get him because he believed that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was loyal to Obama and Clinton rather than him. That’s just how he thinks. And those around him who had been infected with various strains of Fox News brain rot also were convinced that Clinton had somehow been let off easy while the DOJ was relentlessly hounding Trump for no reason. It didn’t take long for Barr to assign the “oranges” investigation to the U.S. Attorney from Connecticut, John Durham, best known for organized crime cases and an investigation into the Bush administration’s torture program that ended in no accountability for those responsible.

That torture investigation began under Bush’s last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, who tasked Durham with looking into the destruction of CIA tapes of “interrogation” sessions. Obama’s first attorney general, Eric Holder, then expanded Durham’s mandate to examine CIA torture allegations. The political establishment and the press saw that bipartisan trust as evidence of Durham’s integrity but that investigation was actually a cover-up, which was partially discovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee. They even made a movie about it.

RELATED: Eric Holder: Democracy is worth saving — and justice is coming for Donald Trump

After being appointed to look into the origins of the Russia probe Durham’s reputation for integrity unraveled within months when Durham (and Barr) decided to break DOJ protocol and contradict a new inspector general’s report finding that the FBI acted appropriately in opening the inquiry into whether the Trump campaign was involved in the Russian campaign to influence the 2016 election. The New York Times reported at the time that even Durham’s allies were surprised because “they found it out of character for him to intervene in such a high-profile way in an open case.” As the Times observed:

Mr. Durham’s decision to speak out seemed to supply political fuel to Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly blasted the Russia inquiry as a “hoax” and a “witch hunt.” 

In fact, that was the point of the investigation, which is still ongoing after three years. Durham’s probe has been political from the start, as much a partisan PR stunt as an investigation, with Barr finally appointing Durham as a Special Counsel on his way out the door to ensure that it would continue under the new administration. It’s really just a pathetic attempt to provide the Fox News audience with their own version of “it’s Mueller time” that so enthralled the Trump resistance in the early years of the administration.


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


It was clear from the start that Durham had wildly over-promised.

Durham’s actual results are embarrassing. 

Aside from one lame guilty plea from an FBI agent who admitted to changing an email, the entire investigation has been pegged to the case he brought against an attorney who worked for a firm that was employed by the Clinton campaign named Michael Sussman. Durham had been hinting broadly in all the court filings for the last six months that he had the goods to prove that Clinton was behind the Russia investigation. (Talk about red meat for the slavering Fox fans!) At one point he even seemed to suggest that Clinton had somehow spied on the Trump White House which was ridiculous on its face and proven to be untrue, needless to say. But it kept the right-wing fever swamp beside themselves with excitement for months Durham was promising that Trump’s revenge would be very sweet indeed. Not only would the Russia investigation’s origins be shown to have been wrongly predicated, they might just get to “lock her up” at long last.

But two weeks ago the trial against Michael Sussman began and it was clear from the start that Durham had wildly over-promised.

The prosecution’s case rested on the single charge that Sussman lied to the FBI when he brought them a tip and said he was not representing the Clinton campaign. They did not come close to proving that, and as it unfolded it was obvious that the whole thing was silly in any case since the FBI had already been looking into the matter at the time. On Tuesday, Sussman was acquitted after a short jury deliberation.

RELATED: Legal experts mock Trump after John Durham’s “big fat loss” in court

Naturally, the inevitable collective primal scream from the sore-loser right was deafening. Trump took to his Truth Social account and wailed:

Our Legal System is CORRUPT, our Judges (and Justices!) are highly partisan, compromised or just plain scared, our Borders are OPEN, our Elections are Rigged, Inflation is RAMPANT, gas prices and food costs are “through the roof,” our Military “Leadership” Woke, our Country is going to HELL and Michael Sussman is not guilty. How’s everything else doing? Enjoy your day!!!

His defenders were no less hysterical:

They should all buck up. John Durham isn’t through yet. He may never be through. His investigation has already gone on a year longer than Mueller and there’s no indication that he plans to quit. And there’s no indication that Attorney General Merrick Garland is prepared to get rid of him for cause. He’s got one more case coming up in the fall against a researcher who is also accused of lying to the FBI about something arcane and irrelevant. And this one concerns the infamous Steele Dossier! I can hear the champagne bottles prematurely popping already. 

Another Uvalde shooting claim falls apart — now police chief refuses to cooperate with investigation

The Uvalde school district police chief is refusing to cooperate with investigators after more of the department’s initial claims about the Uvalde shooting response unraveled.

Pete Arredondo, the chief of police at Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District who made the call to hold law enforcement officers back for more than an hour after the shooting began, has not responded to a request for an interview with Texas Rangers for several days, spokespeople for the Texas Department of Public Safety told the Texas Tribune.

The DPS told the outlet on Tuesday that Arredondo “provided an initial interview but has not responded to a request for a follow-up interview with the Texas Rangers that was made two days ago.”

The school district department and the Uvalde Police Department have otherwise cooperated with the probe, DPS spokesperson Travis Considine told the outlet.

Arredondo on Tuesday was sworn in as a member of the city council, Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin said, after he was elected weeks before the shooting. The swearing-in was initially postponed but was ultimately held without a public ceremony instead, according to NBC News.

The swearing-in came just days after DPS Director Steven McCraw faulted Arredondo’s choice to hold officers back and wait for reinforcements rather than engage the shooter.

“With the benefit of hindsight, where I’m sitting now, of course it was not the right decision, it was the wrong decision, there was no excuse for that,” McCraw said.

RELATED: Texas cops’ claims unravel: Police didn’t “engage” Uvalde shooter — but they cuffed scared parents

The Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, the largest police union in the state, urged police to “cooperate fully” with the investigation without naming Arredondo.

The union blamed state officials on Tuesday for “a great deal of false and misleading information in the aftermath of this tragedy,” some of which “came from the very highest levels of government and law enforcement.”

“Sources that Texans once saw as iron-clad and completely reliable have now been proven false,” the union said in a statement.

The initial narrative about the shooting has largely unraveled in the days since 18-year-old Salvador Ramos killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School. Though Gov. Greg Abbott and DPS officials initially said a school district police officer and two Uvalde officers “engaged” the gunman before he entered the school, DPS later acknowledged that no officers engaged the gunman before he entered the school and that there was no school district officer on the scene at all. In fact, the gunman rampaged outside of the school for 12 minutes before entering “unobstructed” through a side door.

Officials last week blamed a teacher for leaving the door propped open but that claim fell apart on Tuesday. The unidentified teacher’s lawyer told the San Antonio Express-News that the teacher closed the door after reporting that Ramos crashed his vehicle outside the school.

“She saw the wreck,” attorney Don Flanary said. “She ran back inside to get her phone to report the accident. She came back out while on the phone with 911. The men at the funeral home yelled, ‘He has a gun!’ She saw him jump the fence, and he had a gun, so she ran back inside.

“She kicked the rock away when she went back in. She remembers pulling the door closed while telling 911 that he was shooting. She thought the door would lock because that door is always supposed to be locked.”

DPS spokesman Travis Considine later confirmed that the teacher closed the door but it did not lock.

“We did verify she closed the door,” Considine said. “The door did not lock. We know that much, and now investigators are looking into why it did not lock.”

DPS says two Uvalde police officers tried to engage the suspect after he opened fire in the school but were shot and backed off. According to DPS, 19 officers huddled outside the classroom door for more than an hour as Arredondo held off both local law enforcement and federal officers who arrived to assist. McCraw said Arredondo made the call to treat the gunman as a “barricaded suspect” rather than an active shooter and believed children were no longer at risk, which he described as a mistake.

Audio released from 911 calls shows children begging for police assistance while trapped in the classroom.

One girl called the police multiple times begging for assistance.

“Please send police now,” she pleaded with a 911 dispatcher, more than 40 minutes after her first frantic call.

McCraw said last week that the 911 information may not have been relayed to officers on the ground but a new video obtained by ABC News shows 911 dispatchers alerting police that the classroom was “full of victims.” It’s unclear if anyone on the scene heard the calls.


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


Though McCraw said Arredondo believed the children were no longer at risk, DPS spokesperson Chris Olivarez told CNN on Friday that officers were reluctant to engage the gunman because “they could’ve been shot.” Olivarez said that police were waiting for a tactical team from Border Patrol to arrive. But The New York Times reported last week that Arredondo also held the Border Patrol team back as well. NBC News reported that the team defied the instructions and ultimately confronted the shooter, killing him.

Meanwhile, dozens of police officers and law enforcement agents were gathered outside of the school. While some helped evacuate the rest of the school, others worked crowd control, preventing parents from getting into the school. Some parents reported being handcuffed and said others were even Tasered, tackled and pepper-sprayed.

Abbott, who relayed the initial claims at multiple press conferences, told reporters on Friday he was “livid” that he was “misled” about what happened.

“The information I was given turned out, in part, to be inaccurate, and I am absolutely livid about that,” said Abbott, who had repeatedly praised law enforcement for their “amazing courage.”

“It could have been worse,” he said Wednesday. “The reason it was not worse is because law enforcement officials did what they do.”

Read more:

The ugly produce industry faces an ugly question. Now it’s trying to solve it

A batch of companies has been trying to take the mountains of “ugly” fruits and vegetables passed over by supermarkets and find new homes for all that produce. They aim to turn a profit while also curbing the massive problem of food waste.

But they have run into a thorny problem. How do you know whether the oranges and lettuce a company says it “saves” would have been wasted otherwise? It’s a question with implications for the climate, since decomposing food, which releases methane, is responsible for about 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Knowing how much waste is actually being averted is key to calculating these companies’ effects on the environment.

At first, “everyone just simplified it and said, ‘Oh, if it’s surplus or imperfect, it’s reducing food waste. And it’s just not,'” said Christine Moseley, the founder and CEO of Full Harvest, a company that connects farms to businesses that can use their ugly and imperfect produce. Moseley explained that there were already markets for off-grade produce — turning inferior-looking apples into applesauce, for example — meaning there was always a chance the apples you thought you rescued might have been sold to someone else. “There was no standard, and not a lot of data.” 

Sensing an appetite for clarity, Full Harvest recently developed the world’s first “verified rescued produce” certification label. The trademarked seal now appears on Mondelez’s air-dried vegetable crisps and some of Danone’s yogurt, assuring buyers that the zucchini and lemons inside the package have been saved from the scrap heap. 

Certification reflects a step forward in the field, a sign that companies are getting serious about calculating their impact and that people are hungry to buy more sustainable products. But it’s a field potentially littered with landmines. Some experts have criticized Full Harvest for the lack of transparency around its proprietary certification process. And the tricky problem of verifying whether produce was truly “rescued” will sound familiar to those working on projects to offset carbon dioxide on farms and forests, which have been struggling with similar verification issues — with consequences for the ever-heating planet.

The farm-to-table carbon math

Moseley wants to stop the food waste that happens at farms — the unsold spinach, the outer leaves of romaine that get thrown out in favor of the perfect-looking hearts. Farmers often have to pay to get rid of this waste by sending it off to a landfill. Sometimes they turn it into compost or cattle feed or donate it to food banks. “It’s a very inefficient supply chain, and that’s why so much gets wasted,” Moseley said.

There’s some debate around how much food waste comes from farms, with recent research suggesting it might be larger than previously estimated. Somewhere between 20 and 50 percent of the total food that goes uneaten is lost on farms. The rest is lost in manufacturing, at restaurants, at the grocery store, and in people’s homes, where produce rots on countertops and in crisper drawers.

Dana Gunders, the executive director of the food waste nonprofit ReFED, said that from a greenhouse gas perspective, farms are a smaller piece of the problem because emissions build up after food leaves the farm, when it’s transported, refrigerated, and cooked. “Sometimes people say an early loss is a good loss,” she said. ReFED estimates that the burgeoning surplus produce industry could avert an annual 273,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, roughly the amount emitted by 59,000 cars a year.

Imperfect Foods, one of the companies that sells boxes of ugly produce, claims it has diverted more than 139 million pounds of food since 2015, avoiding more than 35,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Imperfect’s competitor, Misfits Market, says it’s saved 225 million pounds of food from 2018 until last fall, nearly three-quarters of which otherwise have gone to waste. Neither company responded to Grist’s request for comment.

Any company trying to turn a profit off an inconsistent and sometimes spontaneous supply of uneaten food is going to run into challenges. “It’s not entirely fair to expect a business that is working to solve some of those problems to only sell rescues,” Gunders said. Even Full Harvest doesn’t claim all the surplus and imperfect produce it sold would have gone to waste — just its verified rescued ones.

What does it mean to ‘rescue’ produce?

There’s a gray area when it comes to defining what counts as waste, Gunders says. What if corn was previously going to animal feed, but now ends up on your plate instead? What if that carrot was going to get juiced, but now you’re using the whole product, fiber and all?

Imperfect Foods focuses on avoiding these kinds of “lesser outcomes” for its food products, like getting left in the field or being sent to a landfill. This thinking is backed up by the Environmental Protection Agency’s rankings for different strategies to manage food waste, which prioritizes the solutions that provide the most benefits to society. The best option is simply producing less food to begin with, followed by using the surplus to feed hungry people, feeding animals, industrial uses, and composting.

Full Harvest’s website doesn’t define exactly what it means by “waste” or offer details on how its third-party “verified rescued” program works. Moseley said the methods of the program were trade secrets that the company had spent six years developing. Broadly, she said, the proprietary process has two parts: First, working directly with growers to save produce that was previously going to waste, and second, extensive surveys, audits, and affidavits to confirm each order would have been wasted otherwise. “We work with some of the largest food companies in the world who have vetted our process and hold it at the highest level of integrity or else they would not work with us,” Moseley said.

Some experts would like to see more details. “Generally speaking, certifications are pretty transparent about their methods and their criteria,” Gunders said. Austin Whitman, the CEO of the certification company Climate Neutral, said he thought Full Harvest’s methods should be explained and open for scrutiny. “If someone can’t explain to you, soup to nuts, what the requirements are of certification, then it would feel like it’s maybe missing the point,” he said.

To Whitman, the messy question of verifying whether produce was truly rescued reminded him of what’s known as “additionality,” whether an intervention — such as a carbon offset project — has an effect compared to a baseline. For instance, what if a program that’s supposed to incentivize farmers to use better soil practices to store carbon only ends up paying farmers who were already doing it? Climate Neutral, which has certified about 300 companies, uses third parties to verify carbon offsets and make sure new interventions pass an additionality test. It also has an advisory committee that reevaluates its list of standards each year.

The explosion of eco-labels

Demand for environmentally friendly products is growing: A survey from earlier this year found 68 percent of people were willing to pay more for sustainable products. “The trends around sustainability are massive,” according to Moseley, who said companies could be left out in the coming years if they don’t sell sustainable products.

Surbhi Martin, a vice president at Danone North America, oversees the company’s Two Good “Good Save” line, which sells yogurts made with Meyer lemons, pumpkins, and mandarin oranges marked by Full Harvest’s verified rescued seal. Martin said that the Good Save yogurts have been “excellent performers,” with sales increasing 383 percent in the first quarter of this year compared to the same quarter last year. To date, she said, the company has helped rescue more than 500,000 pounds of fruit since its Good Save line started in 2021, “with the goal of inspiring a movement” that will encourage others to use verified rescued produce.

Danone is one of many companies that are turning their sustainability cred into a selling point. Consider Avocado, a mattress company that proudly lists its more than a dozen certifications verifying that its products are organic and vegan, that the wool and other textiles it uses are sustainable, and that the company is “carbon negative,” meaning that it takes more CO2 out of the atmosphere than it emits. Gunders says that people trust certifications more than just declarations, but that she’s starting to see “certification fatigue.”

Environmentally-friendly labels can be a double-edged sword. “There’s no kind of indisputable truth that all eco-labels work, because they don’t,” Whitman said. He founded Climate Neutral because he saw companies starting to claim they were carbon neutral while only analyzing a small, lower-emitting part of their operations, and he wanted to make sure there were a set of rules that were more meaningful. “We’ve certainly seen a lot of cases where industry capture has kind of weakened or watered down eco-labels to a point where they become more a reflection of current corporate practices as opposed to a standard that raises the bar for corporate practices,” he said.

As for the ugly produce industry, Gunders says that it provides a useful service, but shouldn’t be used as an excuse for grocery stores and restaurants to keep rejecting produce that’s perfectly fine to eat. “I just don’t think we’re going to entirely solve this problem with side channels,” she said. “If the produce is edible, why is it not just sold on the shelf?”

Her first colonoscopy cost her $0. Her second cost $2,185. Why?

Elizabeth Melville and her husband are gradually hiking all 48 mountain peaks that top 4,000 feet in New Hampshire.

“I want to do everything I can to stay healthy so that I can be skiing and hiking into my 80s — hopefully even 90s!” said the 59-year-old part-time ski instructor who lives in the vacation town of Sunapee.

So when her primary care doctor suggested she be screened for colorectal cancer in September, Melville dutifully prepped for her colonoscopy and went to New London Hospital’s outpatient department for the zero-cost procedure.

Typically, screening colonoscopies are scheduled every 10 years starting at age 45. But more frequent screenings are often recommended for people with a history of polyps, since polyps can be a precursor to malignancy. Melville had had a benign polyp removed during a colonoscopy nearly six years earlier.

Melville’s second test was similar to her first one: normal, except for one small polyp that the gastroenterologist snipped out while she was sedated. It too was benign. So she thought she was done with many patients’ least favorite medical obligation for several years.

Then the bill came.

The Patient: Elizabeth Melville, 59, who is covered under a Cigna health plan that her husband gets through his employer. It has a $2,500 individual deductible and 30% coinsurance.

Medical Service: A screening colonoscopy, including removal of a benign polyp.

Service Provider: New London Hospital, a 25-bed facility in New London, New Hampshire. It is part of the Dartmouth Health system, a nonprofit academic medical center and regional network of five hospitals and more than 24 clinics with nearly $3 billion in annual revenue.

Total Bill: $10,329 for the procedure, anesthesiologist, and gastroenterologist. Cigna’s negotiated rate was $4,144, and Melville’s share under her insurance was $2,185.

What Gives: The Affordable Care Act made preventive health care such as mammograms and colonoscopies free of charge to patients without cost sharing. But there is wiggle room about when a procedure was done for screening purposes, versus for a diagnosis. And often the doctors and hospitals are the ones who decide when those categories shift and a patient can be charged — but those decisions often are debatable.

Getting screened regularly for colorectal cancer is one of the most effective tools people have for preventing it. Screening colonoscopies reduce the relative risk of getting colorectal cancer by 52% and the risk of dying from it by 62%, according to a recent analysis of published studies.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a nonpartisan group of medical experts, recommends regular colorectal cancer screening for average-risk people from ages 45 to 75.

Colonoscopies can be classified as for screening or for diagnosis. How they are classified makes all the difference for patients’ out-of-pocket costs. The former generally incurs no cost to patients under the ACA; the latter can generate bills.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has clarified repeatedly over the years that under the preventive services provisions of the ACA, removal of a polyp during a screening colonoscopy is considered an integral part of the procedure and should not change patients’ cost-sharing obligations.

After all, that’s the whole point of screening — to figure out whether polyps contain cancer, they must be removed and examined by a pathologist.

Many people may face this situation. More than 40% of people over 50 have precancerous polyps in the colon, according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Someone whose cancer risk is above average may face higher bills and not be protected by the law, said Anna Howard, a policy principal at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

Having a family history of colon cancer or a personal history of polyps raises someone’s risk profile, and insurers and providers could impose charges based on that. “Right from the start, [the colonoscopy] could be considered diagnostic,” Howard said.

In addition, getting a screening colonoscopy sooner than the recommended 10-year interval, as Melville did, could open someone up to cost-sharing charges, Howard said.

Coincidentally, Melville’s 61-year-old husband had a screening colonoscopy at the same facility with the same doctor a week after she had her procedure. Despite his family history of colon cancer and a previous colonoscopy just five years earlier because of his elevated risk, her husband wasn’t charged anything for the test. The key difference between the two experiences: Melville’s husband didn’t have a polyp removed.

Resolution: When Melville received notices about owing $2,185, she initially thought it must be a mistake. She hadn’t owed anything after her first colonoscopy. But when she called, a Cigna representative told her the hospital had changed the billing code for her procedure from screening to diagnostic. A call to the Dartmouth Health billing department confirmed that explanation: She was told she was billed because she’d had a polyp removed — making the procedure no longer preventive.

During a subsequent three-way call that Melville had with representatives from both the health system and Cigna, the Dartmouth Health staffer reiterated that position, Melville said. “[She] was very firm with the decision that once a polyp is found, the whole procedure changes from screening to diagnostic,” she said.

Dartmouth Health declined to discuss Melville’s case with KHN even though she gave her permission for it to do so.

After KHN’s inquiry, Melville was contacted by Joshua Compton of Conifer Health Solutions on behalf of Dartmouth Health. Compton said the diagnosis codes had inadvertently been dropped from the system and that Melville’s claim was being reprocessed, Melville said.

Cigna also researched the claim after being contacted by KHN. Justine Sessions, a Cigna spokesperson, provided this statement: “This issue was swiftly resolved as soon as we learned that the provider submitted the claim incorrectly. We have reprocessed the claim and Ms. Melville will not be responsible for any out of pocket costs.”

The Takeaway: Melville didn’t expect to be billed for this procedure. It seemed exactly like her first colonoscopy, nearly six years earlier, when she had not been charged for a polyp removal.

But before getting an elective procedure like a cancer screening, it’s always a good idea to try to suss out any coverage minefields, Howard said. Remind your provider that the government’s interpretation of the ACA requires that colonoscopies be regarded as a screening even if a polyp is removed.

“Contact the insurer prior to the colonoscopy and say, ‘Hey, I just want to understand what the coverage limitations are and what my out-of-pocket costs might be,'” Howard said. Billing from an anesthesiologist — who merely delivers a dose of sedative — can also become an issue in screening colonoscopies. Ask whether the anesthesiologist is in-network.

Be aware that doctors and hospitals are required to give good faith estimates of patients’ expected costs before planned procedures under the No Surprises Act, which took effect this year.

Take the time to read through any paperwork you must sign, and have your antennae up for problems. And, importantly, ask to see documents ahead of time.

Melville said that a health system billing representative told her that among the papers she signed at the hospital on the day of her procedure was one saying that if a polyp was discovered, the procedure would become diagnostic.

Melville no longer has the paperwork, but if Dartmouth Health did have her sign such a document, it would likely be in violation of the ACA. However, “there’s very little, if any, direct federal oversight or enforcement” of the law’s preventive services requirements, said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF.

In a statement describing New London Hospital’s general practices, spokesperson Timothy Lund said: “Our physicians discuss the possibility of the procedure progressing from a screening colonoscopy to a diagnostic colonoscopy as part of the informed consent process. Patients sign the consent document after listening to these details, understanding the risks, and having all of their questions answered by the physician providing the care.”

To patients like Melville, that doesn’t seem quite fair, though. She said, “I still feel asking anyone who has just prepped for a colonoscopy to process those choices, ask questions, and potentially say ‘no thank you’ to the whole thing is not reasonable.”


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

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

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

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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Donald Trump, criminal mastermind: Scholar Gregg Barak on the supreme con artist of our time

Donald Trump can fairly be described as a political crime boss. His contempt for democracy and the rule of law is reminiscent of the legendary organized-crime leaders found in both fiction and reality. He used his presidency (and its aftermath) to enrich himself, along with his family and other members of his inner circle. Trump is deeply attracted to violence, although — like the head of a crime family — does not personally engage in it. He may be a sociopath or a psychopath, but regardless of clinical definitions is certainly antisocial and destructive.

Despite his uneven recent record of political endorsements, Trump remains the obvious leader of the Republican Party and the larger fascist movement in and around it. For millions of Americans, his orders and wishes are not to be disobeyed, and at least some of his loyal foot soldiers are willing to commit acts of violence at his command and perhaps to kill or die for him.

Trump runs his crime family from his Mar-a-Lago headquarters in Palm Beach. Republican candidates, party leaders and other members of his MAGA movement arrive there to make offerings of cash and undying loyalty, and to receive his praise (or admonition) and receive their further orders.  

RELATED: Merrick Garland “fears no person,” says legal scholar Norm Eisen — and he’s coming for Trump

Crime as politics, or “criminogenic” politics, to use the academic term, is a distinguishing feature of autocratic and authoritarian regimes. Real or aspiring strongman-type leaders, Donald Trump very much included, have no conception of public service that extends beyond accumulating money, power and personal glory. Politics and governance are but means to that end, and the law is not understood as a leveling force that applies equally to all. Instead, it is an instrument of power, tailored to serve the personal needs of the autocratic-dictatorial leader and the most loyal members of his regime.

There exists a literal mountain of scholarship, research, reporting, commentary and analysis by people from a wide range of disciplines — journalists, mental health professionals, philosophers, lawyers, historians and political scientists, to name a few — on the subject of Donald Trump and what his rise to power has meant for American democracy and society. But to this point, very few experts in crime and criminal behavior have specifically addressed the Trump phenomenon and its larger consequences. 

Gregg Barak has tried to fill that void with his new book “Criminology on Trump,” published in May by Routledge. Barak is an emeritus professor of criminology and criminal justice at Eastern Michigan University and was formerly a visiting distinguished professor in the College of Justice & Safety at Eastern Kentucky University. He is also the author of “Violence and Nonviolence: Pathways to Understanding” and “Violence, Conflict, and World Order,” among other works, and is co-founder and North American editor of the Journal of White Collar and Corporate Crime.

In this conversation, Barak explains his view that Donald Trump is not a hapless fool or idiot, as some have depicted him. For Barak, Trump is a consummate con artist and perhaps a criminal mastermind who has spent decades mastering the law and learning how to escape accountability for his criminal actions and other transgressive behavior. Barak says that Trump had a mentor in this regard, the legendary fixer and right-wing political operative Roy Cohn, who taught Trump that even legal defeats or setbacks can be spun as symbolic victories. 

Barak also argues that Trump was in all probability central to the planning and execution of the Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt — and took great joy in watching the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol. Barak also warns that Donald Trump is such a skilled performer that he is likely to evade responsibility for his criminal misconduct no matter what evidence is presented later this month by the House select committee investigating Jan. 6. Donald Trump’s followers have not been duped into supporting him, Barak concludes, but greatly enjoy his antisocial behavior and live vicariously through it.

How are you feeling given all the crises we have faced in America during the Age of Trump and beyond?

I’m emotionally stressed. I’m anxious. I’m seeing the end of democracy. I’m just totally absorbed in writing about and thinking about Donald Trump. I began thinking about writing a book about Donald Trump in 2017. I got sucked in. Everyone else had been talking about Donald Trump from the perspective of journalists, lawyers, therapists and other points of view. But where were the criminologists? Donald Trump is a matter of crime and justice.

You say that you “got sucked in,” that Trump pulled you into his orbit, in effect. I have heard many people say that about him. How did this happen? What is so compelling and intriguing about him? That’s a big part of his power.

I’m sucked in because I study deception. I study mistrust. I study the con. Donald Trump is the archetype of all those things. He’s a grifter, he’s a racketeer. He’s all of those things in one persona and one individual.

I have also described Donald Trump as a con artist, as well as a professional wrestling “heel,” a carnie and a street hustler. What’s the con that Donald Trump is running — and why are so many people suckered by it?

Donald Trump is all of those things. But how does he get away with all the lawlessness. be it as a candidate or as occupant of the White House? He’s a media-savvy showman. He offers himself up as a subject of both enjoyment and pain, and that helps him to elicit effective identification among the public. Ironically, Trump’s positive attraction is fundamentally derived from his negativity, cruelty and deviance.


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


Trump’s political attraction has to do with his chauvinistic attitudes of white supremacy, cultural racism, and misogyny. In other words, Trump has become a superb agent of obscene, transgressive enjoyment. This is true whether he’s vilifying immigrants, denigrating women or trying to humiliate a former ally.

His fake populism is all about style and attitude. It has absolutely nothing to do with any belief system, set of values or ideologies. Trump has no principles or ethics that he truly subscribes to. The only thing that matters to Trump is the accumulation of power and glorification.

People are not really being conned by Trump: They know it’s a con. But they admire the fact that he’s basically saying “f**k you” to everyone and getting away with it.

Trump’s basic con is that he’s going to bring something to people who feel aggrieved or that they need something. That he is fighting on their behalf. But again, it’s not even that Trump doesn’t deliver what he promises. Those people are not even really being conned: They know that Trump is a con artist. But they admire the fact that Trump can push back, that he can thumb his nose at the law and rules and norms, that he can abuse the law — and everyone else, for that matter — and get away with it. A big part of why Trump’s followers are captivated by him is because he’s basically saying “fuck you” to everyone and getting away with it. Donald Trump is a type of outlaw.

As a criminologist, what do you see when you look at Donald Trump?

I am looking at how Trump, throughout his lifetime, has been involved with fraud and deception. I see Trump as one of America’s most successful outlaws. Why? Because he’s been violating the law virtually every day of his life. He has not been charged once with a criminal offense. That’s genius. That is just phenomenal.

This man’s been accused of sexual assault, tax evasion, money laundering, nonpayment of employees and defrauding of tenants, customers, contractors, investors, bankers and charities. Yet has never been charged with any crime.

Donald Trump knows the law inside and out. When you’ve been a litigant who has been involved with 4,000 lawsuits, and have been the plaintiff in most of those cases, you get to know the law. Donald Trump knows how to play the law. In part, that is why he has been successful in weaponizing it.

What is the secret of Trump’s success, in terms of never being held truly accountable for his crimes and all his fraudulent or unethical business activities? 

Trump hooked up with Roy Cohn back in the 1970s, during the first lawsuit involving Trump and his father, Fred Trump Sr. It was for housing discrimination. Fred Sr. gave Donald the job of going out and finding an attorney, and Donald connected with Cohn, who he had admired from a distance.

Cohn became a surrogate father and a mentor, in a sense. Trump learned how to deny things, how to sensationalize things, how to weaponize the law and how, even when you lose, you can still win by spinning events in the public eye. More than anything else, Donald Trump learned that, if possible, you never settle. Well, Trump settles sometimes, but he has only lost a small percentage of his cases. He has won the overwhelming majority of them because he wears people down. He goes on for so long that most people don’t have the deep pockets to go the distance.

Trump enjoys litigation. He doesn’t even care if he wins or loses a case, because whichever it is, he spins it as though he won. Why do Trump’s lies work? Because he says them so many times, that after a while, people quit trying to repudiate the lie. They give up.

Some of the psychologists and other mental health experts I’ve spoken to have said that in other circumstances Trump would have been a petty criminal and gone to jail. What are your thoughts?

Perhaps Donald Trump would have gotten into trouble and gotten caught. But given how introverted he really is, with all his insecurities, I don’t know that he would have even aspired, or had the nerve, to be a hood or a criminal. I’m not sure Donald would have been doing street crime. I just don’t see it. I don’t think he has the nerve.

What do you make of Trump’s likely defense that he didn’t really know what was happening on Jan. 6, 2021? That other people were acting without his knowledge, and that he is innocent or ignorant about such things?

On Jan. 6, Trump knew precisely the whole time what was going on. He was loving every minute of it. Everything he has done in his whole life has been with malice aforethought.

He knew everything. Donald Trump knew precisely the whole time what was going on. He was aware. Donald Trump is such a great performer that if he wanted to plead that he was crazy or that he was insane — and I am saying that tongue in cheek — I believe that he could pull it off. And we know how hard it is to pull off an insanity defense. He would be successful, and he’d tell you, “This is the greatest insanity defense you’ve ever heard.” Yes, I am saying this as a joke, but Trump does not lack the knowledge to do this. And he doesn’t lack the intent. Everything Trump has done in his whole life has been with regularity and malice aforethought.

One of the issues that comes up about Donald Trump and his apparent crimes is the question of whether he is actually capable of knowing right from wrong.

Donald Trump certainly knows the difference between right and wrong. On Jan. 6, Trump was sitting there when everybody was telling him, “Donald, you’ve got to stop this.” He was loving every minute of it. He knew what was going on. The fact that he didn’t stop what was happening at the Capitol is evidence of consciousness of guilt or intent. He knew what was transpiring. It’s what he wanted to happen!

So many people are going to testify before they even get to Donald Trump. They won’t even need him at that point. Donald Trump will not be able to successfully defend himself by saying he was an idiot.

You said you were joking about this, but could Trump mount a successful insanity defense?

Here is an important distinction. “The Donald,” the persona and the character, could pull it off. But Donald Trump the real person can’t. Donald Trump the real person cannot reveal that side of his vulnerability. He couldn’t conceive that he wasn’t a genius. He couldn’t acknowledge that he was crazy. The Donald Trump character could do all of those things.

So at the end of this long story, does Donald Trump go to jail? There are folks who have convinced themselves that such an outcome is inevitable, that he will finally be punished for his crimes. I am of the mind that there is no way that happens. Rich white men like Donald Trump are largely above the law in America.

If Trump is acquitted, then he doesn’t go to jail. If there’s one juror who says no, then Trump is a free man. If there’s a unanimous verdict, I believe that he’ll be punished. If Trump is not actually incarcerated, he’ll be on a short leash. He’ll be under supervision. Perhaps he will be allowed to stay at Mar-a-Lago. Donald Trump is a stain on the presidency. He deserves to be locked up.

How dangerous is Trump? I have consistently tried to warn people that he is very dangerous, quite likely the most dangerous person in America. But you are a criminologist: Am I exaggerating?

He’s as dangerous as anyone could be.

Read more on our 45th president and his never-ending campaign:

There’s a way to defeat the billionaires: Kshama Sawant has been doing it

Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant and the Socialist Alternative (SA) party have, for nearly a decade, waged one of the most effective battles against the city’s moneyed elites. She and the SA have adopted a series of unorthodox methods to fight the ruling oligarchs and, in that confrontation, exposed the Democratic Party leadership as craven tools of the billionaire class. Her success should be closely studied and replicated in city after city if we are to dismantle corporate tyranny.

Sawant, who lives on $40,000 of her $140,000 salary and places the rest into a political fund that she uses for social justice campaigns, helped lead the fight in 2014 that made Seattle the first major American city to mandate a $15-an-hour minimum wage. Following a three-year struggle against Jeff Bezos, one of the world’s richest men, she and her allies pushed through a tax on big business that increased city revenues by an estimated $231 million a year. She was part of the movement that led to Seattle’s successful ban on school-year evictions of school children, their families and school employees. She was one of the sponsors of a bill that protects tenants from being evicted at the end of their term leases, requiring landlords to provide tenants with the right to renew their leases and a bill that prohibits landlords from evicting tenants for nonpayment of rent if the rent was due during the COVID emergency and the renter could not pay due to financial hardship.

The billionaire class has targeted her since Sawant assumed office in January 2014. It has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into a corporate PAC called “A Better Seattle” and saturated television and digital platforms with negative advertising. Sawant and the SA have been denied ads by Google, YouTube and Hulu. Amazon alone spent more than $3 million to defeat her when she ran for re-election in 2019. In December, Sawant defeated a well-funded campaign by the city’s business community to remove her in a recall vote. The Democratic Party in Seattle is currently trying to gerrymander her district to separate her from working-class supporters.

RELATED: Progressive Caucus goes full “PINO”: Dumping Nina Turner was a turning point

You can watch my full interview with Sawant, who has a PhD in economics from North Carolina State University, here. Below I have summarized some of her guiding principles.

Always be on the offensive

The billionaire class orchestrated a recall vote last year which they expected would put Sawant on the defensive and remove her from office. Rather than let the oligarchs define the themes of the recall, she and her party used it to collect 15,000 signatures to establish rent control. She rejects the attempt to placate the centers of power by resorting to “moral persuasion and prioritizing peaceful” opposition. This, she says, is a recipe for failure. She is not interested in “cordial relationships” with big business, establishment politicians, the Democratic Party and business lobbyists. They are the enemy. We will not succeed, she says, by “talking nicely” to “convince rich people to hand a little bit of crumbs to those of us who don’t have any.”

The capitalists, she says, along with the media outlets they control, promote the idea of cooperation so that the public is “lulled into this idea that we’re all on the same side, this is a shared situation, that COVID was a shared sacrifice.” This belief disempowers working men and women.

“The very essence of capitalism is that the very wealthy at the top make this enormous profit at the expense of ordinary people,” she says. “The only way to address the class war is through class struggle.”

The Democratic Party cannot be reformed from the inside

Sawant is one of nine city council members. The other eight are Democrats. The Democrats often rhetorically support progressive reforms, but as is true nationally, they have little intention of implementing them. Sawant’s radicalism has exposed the Democratic Party’s duplicity. The Democratic Party has repeatedly joined forces with the oligarchs, many of whom are their donors, to destroy Sawant. The self-identified progressives in the Democratic Party, she says, play “a role which is contrary to the interests of working people. Every step of the way they have placed obstacles in the path of winning these victories.” She notes that every victory she and her allies achieved, including raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour and the renter’s rights laws, “has come about despite the overt or backroom opposition and tactics by the Democrats.” These victories were won not by appealing to the Democratic Party leadership, but by mobilizing union members and workers to fight for them.


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


“One of the first things that happened when I took office was these two prominent Democrats, Democratic council members who came into my office, sat me down, and said, ‘Well it’s all well and good’ — I mean, I’m paraphrasing, obviously I don’t remember the exact words — but paraphrasing, ‘It’s all well and good, you roused the rabble and got elected as a socialist, but we’re here to tell you that City Hall runs on our terms,'” she says. “‘You are not winning any wage increase, let alone $15 an hour.’ And less than six months later, we had won the $15 an hour minimum wage. So that about sums it up for the Democrats.”

Sawant is one of nine city council members. The other eight are Democrats. As is true across the country, they rhetorically support progressive reforms, but have no intention of implementing them.

“The Biden administration has completely failed,” she says. “You don’t have to take the word of a socialist. You can see the approval ratings for Biden are as low as they’ve ever been throughout his presidency. It’s not just him. The Democratic establishment, including his regime, has completely failed in passing any kind of progressive program, whether it is $15 an hour or Medicare for All. He promised to cancel student debt and not even a fraction of that measure has been carried out. This is exactly the reason why now we are staring into potential clobbering of the Democrats by the Republicans and by the right wing in the midterm elections.”

If radical New Deal-type reforms are not implemented, right-wing populism and Christian fascism will flourish

Sawant and the SA have not only been targeted by the billionaire class and the Democratic Party but by the extreme right. Campaign volunteers have been harassed and threatened. The former police union president Ron Smith, who like many in law enforcement is sympathetic to the extreme right, called for Sawant to be handcuffed as Seattle police actively worked to have her removed via the recall vote. The best way to battle the extreme right, she argues, is to implement reforms that ameliorate widespread suffering. If this is not done, the extreme right will grow.

“The extent to which right populism succeeds is a testament to the failures of the Democratic Party and the infancy of the left, the U.S. left,” she says. “How much the right succeeds, and how much of a clash there will be, is dependent on how the balance of forces adjusts itself. If the agenda for a living wage adjusted for inflation, for Medicare for All, for canceling student debt, for a real Green New Deal policy agenda, if all of this were put forward by the Democrats, they would be able to win over a big section of the voting population that ends up either staying out of the elections or voting for Republicans and the right wing. There is a genuinely dangerous and reactionary current on every continent, but to the degree to which they get traction, that entirely depends on what else is on offer.”

“Working people in America right now are searching for answers,” she says. “It is because of the disappointments in the electoral arena, the disappointments from … being unable to deliver on the promise of this enormous Black Lives Matter movement that happened in 2020, because of all these reasons that young people are testing the avenue of labor organizing. It’s amid this complete failure and disarray that the Democrats are in, that the workers at the Amazon warehouse on Staten Island were able to win the first-ever union in Amazon. And the reason they were able to win is precisely, again, because they used class-struggle methods to convince their co-workers.”

Identity politics will not win over the working class

The Democratic Party and the liberal class have replaced a genuine political agenda with what Sawant calls “woke soundbites.” 

She describes this tactic as “dangerous” and argues that most of the American working people “are already won over to the ideas of a society that genuinely respects everybody around us.” Two-thirds of Americans, for example, support the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which is likely to be overturned any day now. The barrier for progressive change, Sawant argues, is not racism but the leadership of the Democratic Party, including the “Squad,” the labor movement and the leadership of social movements such BLM. Identity politics “is not the way to win over working-class people,” she says. “That is handing a weapon to the right wing on a golden platter.”

Be wary of labor leaders allied with the Democratic Party

Sawant warns that most labor leaders, along with social activists such as the Rev. Al Sharpton, who are allied with the Democratic Party exist for photo-ops and to “co-opt our movements.”

Amid the “complete failure and disarray” of the Democratic Party, she observes, Amazon workers on Staten Island were able to win a union contract.

“We should be wary of them,” she says. Our best hope lies in the mobilization of rank-and-file workers. She points out that the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) succeeded at the JFK warehouse “because they did not use what I would call business unionism, basically the conventional ideas that have existed in the labor movement, in the Democratic Party, and even among social movement and NGO leaders, that the way to organize for change and even to win a union election or to win a good contract is to think about the margins — this mythical idea of a few labor leaders at the bargaining table, and not mobilizing the rank and file.”

The ALU “led with concrete demands and “didn’t talk about the union as an abstract entity,” Sawant says. The ALU focused on winning a $30-an-hour starting wage, job security, a say in scheduling and the ability to work full-time if desired. “The other thing that they did right was to make it very clear that the bosses are not on your side. They didn’t cultivate illusions that somehow they could convince management and Jeff Bezos to be nice just by making morally persuasive arguments.” 

Political campaigns must be organized around demands, not personalities

Politicians, even self-identified progressive politicians, she says, have “made peace with the capitalist system.” They falsely believe they can negotiate with the billionaire class and barter for a few progressive reforms. This tactic, she says, has failed. “The Biden administration is in shambles precisely because that approach does not work. And it also calls into question how far we are going to aim to change society.”

“If you look at the data on the climate crisis, it is very clear,” Sawant says. “We have a very small window in which we need to make a fundamental shift away from capitalism. And for that, we will need mass movements of workers. We will need mass revolutionary struggle led by working people, ordinary people, to bring about that kind of change. That kind of change, flowing from the needs of the planet itself, cannot happen through elections.”

“If we look at the data on the climate crisis, we need to make a fundamental shift away from capitalism. For that, we will need mass revolutionary struggle led by working people.”

“Campaigns need to be organized around demands, not around personality politics,” she says. “The way to run a strong electoral campaign is to, as I said, completely reject personality politics, completely reject careerism and build political organizations like Socialist Alternative. Except we need far bigger organizations where we can hold our elected representatives and other leaders in the organization accountable in the program of demands that we are fighting around. This becomes the central focus, not those individuals who could then use those positions to build their own careers by making themselves useful to the ruling class. That’s what we need to reject.”

Focus campaigns on the 80 million people who do not vote

Sawant and the SA reject the Democratic Party’s tactic of focusing on centrist or likely voters. They mobilize those who are often part of the 80 million eligible voters who don’t cast ballots, including immigrants, those living in public housing and marginalized communities. She and her party distribute campaign material in eight languages. This tactic has built a new political base. In one heavily East African building in Seattle, for example, turnout was nearly 10 times what it was in the general election.

The Democratic Party, she claims, lacks a commitment to disillusioned and disenfranchised voters. Its “primary task is to be useful for the ruling class under capitalism, but the way they do it is by speaking from both sides of their mouth. For example, they will talk about $15 an hour. Every so often you will see Pramila Jayapal, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, tweet out saying it’s time for Medicare for All. But then, when it comes time to fight for it, they will use their progressive status to give cover for the Biden regime.” They do not, for this reason, have any interest in mobilizing workers. “We would not have won our elections had we not mobilized a whole section of the population that is typically disenfranchised. Not because they don’t have the legal right to vote, but because there’s nothing for them to vote for.” 

The engine for change will be a militant labor movement independent of the Democratic Party

Sawant expects the Democrats to take “an absolute shellacking” in the midterms.

“The prospect of a Trump resurgence is also a very real one, unfortunately, at this point,” she says. “That’s how dangerous the whole debacle of the Biden regime has been. The only way to cut across that and create a genuine alternative to right populism that could unite most working-class people in America is through working-class politics.”

New labor leaders, she says, will need to rally workers around a common working-class based program in defiance of traditional unions and the Democratic Party. She points to the labor uprisings by teachers in West Virginia in 2018 “who won an enormous victory by standing up not only to the Republican-led legislature in the state, but also to the leaders of their own unions, who were not willing to take a fighting approach to winning a strong contract, and to maintaining solidarity across the board among public school employees.” She is also encouraged by the example of Starbucks workers now in nationwide unionization drives in hundreds of stores. “All of this is telling us the way to push back against corporate politics, to push back against the failures of the Democrats and to defeat the rise of the right wing is to build struggles of the working class where we’re able to unite a majority of working people on a common working-class-based program.”

None of this, she cautions, is going to be automatic. “We need a courageous rank and file leadership to make that happen. A labor leadership that is tied at the hip to the Democrats is not going to be the force of change. The force of change will be a revival of the militant labor movement.”

Read more on progressives and the Democratic Party:

What if Joe Biden actually abolishes student loan debt? Experts weight the consequences

White House officials are expected to make a final decision on whether to cancel at least $10,000 in student debt per borrower after months of internal back-and-forth about the political and legal implications of such a jubilee. 

The expected announcement would come after a years-long effort by progressive activists. Since President Biden’s term began, countless lawmakers and advocates of wealth equality have demanded that the president partially or fully issue a debt cancellation, arguing that the move could be carried out through executive order. But despite promising $10,000 relief from the outset of his campaign, the Biden administration has thus far been loath to act, staying relatively hush on a subject that many commentators say could boost his popularity in the polls.

“No decisions have been made yet,” Vedant Petal, a White House spokesman, told The Washington Post on Thursday. 

There is significant disagreement among Democrats and Republicans around whether Biden could actually abolish the debt, which currently sits at $1.7 trillion. Republicans, for their part, have argued that debt forgiveness would be illegal and have already introduced legislation designed to block it from happening. 

RELATED Republicans’ rush to block Biden from forgiving student debt backfires

But even if Biden does have the legal authority to get rid of the debt, experts are still splintered over whether such a move would be ethical.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, adjunct professor of economics at George Washington University, said that a jubilee would unfairly privilege those who have outstanding debt because thousands of Americans have already paid down the entirety of what they owed. 


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


“Forgiving student loans is unfair to students who have paid off their loans; unfair to students who have chosen less expensive community college options; unfair to taxpayers whose dollars are paying off the loans and who have no college education; and it will not rescue students from large amounts of debt,” she told Newsweek. 

Others critics contend that wiping the debt away might also contribute to inflation, which has skyrocketed over the past year, making the cost of food and fuel soar. As commentator Matthew Yglesias recently wrote in Bloomberg, resuming debt collection would help “reduce the volume of customer demand in the economy,” even if it comes at the expense of a “disproportionately high-income minority of the population.” 

According to the Committee for a Federal Responsible Budget, canceling all student debt would increase inflation by anywhere from 0.1% to 0.5% over the 12 months after repayment is set to begin. However, some experts have said that the hike is negligible in the face of the benefits reaped by debt holders. 

RELATED: Dark Academia and debt: University thrillers are the literary subgenre of the student loan crisis

Sandy Baum, an economist and senior fellow at the Urban Institute, told Money that “inflation is one of the least important problems” in the debate around debt cancellation. Rather, Baum stressed that debt forgiveness would be a regressive federal action, mostly because the 40% of houses with the highest-income hold 60% of America’s student loans. 

Still, just because total debt relief might benefit relatively affluent people, that may not be a reason to jettison the idea altogether. 

“Wealthy individuals and individuals likely to become wealthy in the future do hold the most student debt,” wrote journalist Annie Lowrey. “But millions of low-income and middle-income families, as well as young people without the fallback of familial wealth, are also burdened.” 

“As a broader point, giving money to rich people does not erode the benefits of giving money to poor people; and the government should not avoid giving money to poor people because it would also entail giving money to rich people, at least not in this unusual case,” she added. 

One study from this month found that while a jubilee might help the rich, it would decrease the wealth gap between low-income and high-income borrowers, making it a progressive policy. Researchers found that canceling just $20,000 for each borrower would decrease half the amount of debt held by those in at bottom 40% of wealth in America. “Higher levels of cancellation would go further towards reducing wealth and racial inequalities in student debt,” they argued. 

RELATED: “Cancel it. Every penny”: Poll shows 83% of Democrats want Biden to nix student debt

Numerous advocates of debt cancellation have said $10,000 is not nearly enough to make a substantial financial impact. 

“The average Black borrower has $53,000 in student loan debt four years after graduation, nearly twice the amount as their white counterparts,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson told CNBC, arguing that the move “won’t do anything” for Black borrowers.

A $10,000 cancellation would reportedly wipe out $321 billion in student debt, forgiving the loans of one-third of all borrowers, according to the Education Department.

“I’m mad at him”: Herschel Walker accuses Trump of lying by “taking credit” for his election win

Georgia Republican nominee for U.S. Senate Hershel Walker said this week that he is “mad” because former President Donald Trump has allegedly lied about asking him to run for office.

In an interview with Revolt TV host Michael Santiago Render, better known as Killer Mike, Walker revealed that it was God, not Trump, who inspired him to run for U.S. Senate.

“One thing that people don’t know is is President Trump never asked me,” Walker said. “I need to tell him that he never asked. I heard it all on television that he’s going to ask Herschel, saying Herschel is going to run.”

“President Trump never came out and [said], ‘Herschel, will you run for that Senate seat?'” he continued. “So, I’m mad at him because he never asked but he’s taking credit that he asked.”

Walker suggested that his decision to run was inspired by God.

“I prayed about it,” he explained. “And to be honest with you, I was praying that God would bring somebody else because I’m happy. My life is doing well.”

“But I love the Lord Jesus,” Walker added.

Watch the video below from Revolt TV.

“Toothless”: With stock trading ban stalled, lawmakers continue to violate “ridiculously weak law”

A running tally updated Tuesday shows that more than 60 members of Congress have recently violated a federal law aimed at preventing insider trading, a finding that comes as proposals to bar federal lawmakers from trading stocks languish in the House and Senate.

According to Insider‘s “Conflicted Congress” project, 63 sitting members of Congress—31 Democrats and 32 Republicans—have “failed to properly report their financial trades as mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, also known as the STOCK Act.”

The list includes prominent lawmakers such as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., and Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., who lost his primary race last week.

Riddled with loopholes and largely toothless, the STOCK Act requires lawmakers to disclose stock transactions and other securities trades worth more than $1,000 within 45 days, a rule aimed at shining light on members of Congress attempting to profit off nonpublic information.

“While lawmakers who violate the STOCK Act face a fine, the penalty is usually small—$200 is the standard amount—or waived by House or Senate ethics officials,” Insider notes.

The lawmaker tally was updated after the investigative outlet Sludge identified three more senators who have recently run afoul of the STOCK Act’s timely reporting mandate: Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas.

“As Congress stalls on a congressional stock trading bill, its members keep breaking the ridiculously weak existing rules,” tweeted Walter Shaub, senior ethics fellow at the Project on Government Oversight and former head of the Office of Government Ethics.

Sludge‘s David Moore and Donald Shaw reported on May 25 that “the deadline for members of Congress to file their annual financial disclosures for 2021 was last week, May 16.”

“But as usual, most members availed themselves of a 90-day extension that will give them until sometime in August to release their reports,” Moore and Shaw noted. “The disclosures list their households assets, as well as other information like outside positions and travel reimbursements, and are often dumped online as hundreds of pages of illegible paper scans.”

Sludge reported that Hickenlooper “was an active stock trader in 2021, his first year in the Senate, filing seven [periodic transaction reports] for transactions including a six-day sell-off of technology company stocks in late October and early November.”

That tech sell-off, according to the reporting, included Hickenlooper “fully unloading” his holdings in Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, and other firms, with a total max value of more than $4 million.

A longstanding issue on Capitol Hill, insider trading gained renewed attention at the start of the coronavirus pandemic as a number of lawmakers were accused of attempting to cash in on the public health emergency using privileged information—such as warnings gleaned from secret meetings with public health officials.

One recent analysis of financial disclosures estimated that members of Congress traded $355 million worth of stock in 2021.

Earlier this year, amid an upsurge of anger over congressional stock trading, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced or re-upped legislation that would impose an outright ban on stock trading by lawmakers and their close family members.

Despite gaining support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.—whose husband is a prolific trader—and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., neither chamber has advanced a proposed ban.

“No compromise”: A Republican tried to pass commonsense gun bill. Then the gun lobby intervened

Cole Wist was a Republican state House member in Colorado with an A grade from the NRA. Then, in 2018, he supported a red flag law, sponsoring a bill to allow guns to be taken away — temporarily — from people who pose an immediate threat to themselves or others.

Wist lost his seat in the legislature that year in the face of an intense backlash from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a gun rights organization in Colorado that boasts it accepts “no compromise” as it battles “the gun grabbers.” The group campaigned against him, distributing flyers and referring to him on social media as “Cole the Mole.”

Wist, an attorney, doesn’t regret trying to enact what he considered a measured response to an epidemic of gun violence in the United States. He acted after a mentally ill man in his Denver suburb killed a sheriff’s deputy. The bill didn’t pass until after Wist was out of office and his successor, Tom Sullivan, shepherded it through. Sullivan is a Democrat who lost his son in the Aurora theater massacre.

Wist left the Republican Party this year, citing the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection as the reason, and is now unaffiliated with any political party. Days after the slaughter of 19 children and 2 adults in an elementary school in Texas, ProPublica talked to Wist about the challenges ahead as proponents once again work to enact gun reforms.

Colorado is one of 19 states, including Illinois, Florida and Indiana, that have red flag laws, sometimes called extreme risk protection orders. Texas does not. After the Robb Elementary School murders on Tuesday, a bipartisan coalition in the U.S. Senate agreed to negotiate over possible anti-violence measures, including expanding red flag laws.

In Colorado, a spokesperson for the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners called Wist “a sellout” on Friday and said the organization had no choice but to work against him. “At the end of the day, my goal is to hold politicians accountable regardless of whether they’re a Republican or a Democrat,” said RMGO’s Executive Director Taylor Rhodes.

Rhodes called the assault on the elementary school a “massive terrorist attack” but said gun control is not the answer.

“We protect everything in our nation that’s valuable with guns. We protect our banks with guns, courthouses … our homes. We protect them with guns.” The group’s logo includes an image of a firearm that resembles an assault rifle.

This interview with Wist has been edited for length and clarity.

Tell me about why you introduced the legislation in Colorado.

Every time we have an incident like this, people tend to go into their camps. We’ve got some folks who say we should ban certain kinds of guns or expand universal background checks or any other number of policy proposals to try to eliminate guns from society. On the other hand, you have folks who say no, these are mental health issues, this is an indication of a larger mental health crisis in the country. But you know, I don’t really hear a whole lot of policy solutions from those folks. So in an effort to try to pair concerns about mental health and the combination of mental health crisis with access to firearms and weapons, I started investigating extreme risk protection orders and how they’ve been passed in other states. And one of the first states in the country to do this was Indiana. And I don’t think you’d really think that Indiana is a hard left state, by any means. … And ultimately, I decided to sponsor legislation relating to extreme risk protection orders.

When you served in the state legislature, the Republicans controlled the state Senate and Democrats had the House. What was the makeup of your district?

I represented a district that at that time was predominantly Republican. It had historically elected Republican legislators, but it was a suburban district becoming more purple. And, you know, look, when you’re elected to represent a district in the legislature, you’re not just elected by the people that voted for you, you’re elected to represent everyone in the district, and that includes unaffiliated and Democratic voters.

Who opposed you when you ran for reelection in 2018?

So there’s a group called the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a very active gun rights organization. They targeted me or targeted my race for campaign activity and actively worked against me. … They put flyers on people’s doors, including my own door, and used their resources to campaign against me.

Are the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners similar to the National Rifle Association?

I think they characterize themselves as being the no-compromise gun rights organization. So I would characterize them as certainly more aggressive on gun rights issues than the NRA, and the NRA is the more well-known organization, the one with more resources. But in Colorado, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is the gun rights group that seems to have the most sway. They’ve been successful in recalling a couple of legislators here.

Did it seem like they sacrificed your seat to send a message to other lawmakers to stay in line?

I guess that’s a fair interpretation, that you either stay in line and vote the party line on this issue, or they will remove you. And that’s what they did. I mean, there were other factors in play in 2018. That was also the midterm election of Donald Trump’s first term in office or his only term in office. … So there were more issues in play than gun policy. But it was certainly a group that worked against my reelection and didn’t help. … It might have been enough to suppress turnout on the Republican side for me.

What was the reaction from the GOP leadership to your sponsorship of the red flag bill?

I was the assistant minority leader in the state House at that point. There was an effort to strip me of that leadership post. That effort failed. I think there’s some reluctance in Republican circles here to take on groups like the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners for fear of getting primaried, for fear of having them work against you. And I suppose people may look at my experience as being something that deters them from even having conversations. I introduced a bill that was very controversial. In those circles, even being open to conversations about gun policy or gun safety legislation creates risk for folks in Republican circles here. So, if your objective is to stay in office for a long time and continue to get reelected … you don’t cross that line.

In the aftermath of Uvalde, what does your experience suggest about the likelihood of our politicians enacting some measures to prevent future atrocities?

I see some of the same signs happening again, in the aftermath of this event, where everyone sort of retreats to the corners. And some people are calling for banning certain kinds of guns and changing the purchase age for certain kinds of guns. If you try to ban AR-15s, I think that’s a policy solution that some people think is something we should do. I don’t agree with that. We’ve got millions of guns already in the possession of gun owners across the country. How much of an impact are you going to have if you ban certain kinds of guns at this point? I think a better discussion is to talk about why people commit these kinds of violent acts with guns and other weapons. … And so I think red flag laws and legislation that focuses on trying to reduce risk and talking about why these kinds of events happen is the most productive conversation for us to have. Let’s give law enforcement and families tools that they can use.

But one of the things that’s lost in this conversation is that — I’ll talk specifically about Colorado — we have one of the highest suicide rates in the country. We also have one of the highest percentages of gun ownership in the country, and the highest percentage of suicides here are committed by guns. So when folks are going through a severe mental crisis, yes, there’s a risk that they might go commit a homicide, but there’s probably a greater risk that they’re going to hurt themselves. So I think there’s this way of characterizing red flag laws as confiscating guns and trying to hurt someone’s constitutional rights. But instead, I think it’s something that’s being used to help protect that person, to prevent them from harming themselves and prevent them from harming family members.

Can you describe the toll this experience took on you and your family?

I received threats as a result of going through that process. And that was very stressful for my family. I don’t miss that part of public life. And, you know, social media and other things have made being in office very difficult. And folks can say just about anything and do say just about anything. So I can choose to do a couple of things. As a private citizen, I can kind of retreat from this and not talk about it, or try to do what I can to raise awareness and just try to encourage folks to come together. I don’t know that you’re ever going to change everyone’s minds. But we don’t solve problems unless we talk to each other and not talk past each other. And every time we have an incident like what happened in Texas this week, there’s sort of the initial, let’s talk, let’s come together, let’s talk about this. But I’m just amazed at how quickly everyone just sort of retreats to the same old political position. I hope this time is different.