Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Texas GOP threatens to go after companies that help employees get abortions if Roe is overturned

With Texas poised to automatically ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, some Republicans are already setting their sights on the next target to fight the procedure: businesses that say they’ll help employees get abortions outside the state.

Fourteen Republican members of the state House of Representatives have pledged to introduce bills in the coming legislative session that would bar corporations from doing business in Texas if they pay for abortions in states where the procedure is legal.

This would explicitly prevent firms from offering employees access to abortion-related care through health insurance benefits. It would also expose executives to criminal prosecution under pre-Roe anti-abortion laws the Legislature never repealed, the legislators say.

Their proposal highlights how the end of abortion would lead to a new phase in — not the end of — the fight in Texas over the procedure. The lawmakers pushing for the business rules have signaled that they plan to act aggressively in the next legislative session. But it remains to be seen if they’ll be able to get a majority on their side.

The members, led by Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park, laid out their plans in a letter to Lyft CEO Logan Green that became public on Wednesday.

Green drew the lawmakers’ attention on April 29, when he said on Twitter that the ride-share company would help pregnant residents of Oklahoma and Texas seek abortion care in other states. Green also pledged to cover the legal costs of any Lyft driver sued under Senate Bill 8, the Texas law that empowers private citizens to file lawsuits against anyone who assists in the procurement of an abortion.

“The state of Texas will take swift and decisive action if you do not immediately rescind your recently announced policy to pay for the travel expenses of women who abort their unborn children,” the letter states.

The letter also lays out other legislative priorities, including allowing Texas shareholders of publicly traded companies to sue executives for paying for abortion care, as well as empowering district attorneys to prosecute abortion-related crimes outside of their home counties.

Six of the 14 signers, including Cain, are members of the far-right Texas Freedom Caucus. How much political support these proposals have in the Republican caucus is unclear. House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, declined to comment. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and Gov. Greg Abbott did not respond.

Since the legislative session is more than seven months away, Cain said in an email that “a quickly drafted and sent letter can hardly be said to reflect the pulse of my Republican colleagues.” He was confident, however, that his ideas would find some support in the Senate.

“Knowing that chamber and its leadership, I’m willing to bet legislation targeting this issue will be promptly filed in January,” Cain said.

But doing so would likely mean targeting companies that the state has wooed as potential job creators. Tesla, for instance, announced this month that it would pay for employees’ travel costs when they leave the state to get an abortion. Abbott celebrated the electric car company’s move to Austin last year and this year urged its CEO, Elon Musk, to move Twitter’s headquarters to Texas, too, if he completes his purchase of the social media firm.

Republican politicians have to tread much more carefully on abortion politics if Roe v. Wade falls, said Florida State University professor Mary Ziegler, who wrote a book on abortion law in the United States. Whereas in the past, lawmakers could pass any number of abortion restrictions that were bound to be struck down by courts, that backstop would no longer exist.

Ziegler said while a broad conservative coalition wants to ban abortions in Texas, there is disagreement over how aggressively to enforce related criminal laws or to attempt to prevent pregnant residents from leaving the state for the procedure. Republican politicians, therefore, have an incentive to remain quiet on the issue until they can determine which course of action is the most politically prudent.

“It’s not easy to be a Republican anymore,” Ziegler said. “Before, everyone was like, ‘Yes, let’s get rid of Roe v. Wade.’ Now, if you can do whatever you want, what is it that you want to do?”

Lyft did not respond to a request for comment. Several other large companies, including Amazon, Uber and Starbucks, have also said they would help employees or customers seek abortion care outside of Texas. None responded to requests for comment.

Concerns from the business community helped derail a push by Republican lawmakers to enact the so-called bathroom bill in the 2017 session, which would have required people to use the facilities that corresponded with their sex assigned at or near birth. Moderate Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, rebuffed requests from Patrick to make the bill a priority.

State Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, said that although Straus has since retired, she hoped a coalition of Democrats and centrist Republicans would form to block abortion-related laws that place new restrictions on businesses.

“There were opportunities for business-minded Republicans and business-minded Democrats to come together and prevent these kinds of extreme policies,” Howard said of Straus’ tenure. “I’m hopeful that will happen again. … We’re at a pivotal point here of doing severe damage that’s going to be hard to undo.”

The Texas Association of Businesses, Texas Chamber of Commerce Executives and Greater Houston Partnership either declined to comment or did not respond to questions about the abortion-restriction proposals in the Republicans’ letter.

Disclosure: The Greater Houston Partnership, Lyft and the Texas Association of Business 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 Tribunes journalism. Find a complete list of them here.


Tickets are on sale now for the 2022 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin on Sept. 22-24. Get your TribFest tickets by May 31 and save big!

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2022/05/23/texas-companies-pay-abortions/.

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

“Any Republicans wanna speak out now?”: Alarm after Trump shares “civil war” post

Former President Donald Trump over the weekend shared a post on his Truth Social app invoking a “civil war.”

Trump on Saturday “retruthed” a post by a random Truth Social user called “MAGA King Thanos” either calling for or predicting a “Civil war.”

The original post was in response to another post from former Fox Nation host Lara Logan, who shared screenshot of a tweet by El Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele. Bukele, who has been likened to a “mini Trump” while clashing with the Biden administration, shared a Bloomberg News article about rising inflation in the United States.

“The most powerful country in the world is falling so fast, that it makes you rethink what are the real reasons,” Bukele’s tweet said. “Something so big and powerful can’t be destroyed so quickly, unless the enemy comes from within.”

Conservative attorney George Conway flagged the post on Twitter.

“Nothing to see here,” Conway wrote. “Just a former president of the United States sharing a social media post advocating or predicting civil war in the United States. No biggie.”

Trump is the most prominent Republican to float a “civil war” in recent months. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., earlier this year suggested Republicans use their “Second Amendment rights” against Democrats while floating what she called a “national divorce.” Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., last week threatened “Dark MAGA” revenge after his election loss, invoking a growing far-right movement that has repeatedly promoted political violence.

RELATED: A second civil war: One year after Trump’s violent insurrection, how worried should we be?

Lawmakers sounded the alarm over Trump’s post and called out Republicans over their silence.

“Any of my fellow Republicans wanna speak out now?” tweeted Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a leading conservative Trump critic. “Or are we just wanting to get through ‘just one more election first…?'”

“Donald Trump is calling for Civil War,” tweeted Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. “Of course, like Vietnam and the walk to the Insurrection, he won’t be man enough to fight it.”

Conway, a prominent longtime Republican lawyer, called out the GOP for being silent on Trump’s rhetoric because “they’re terrified of him.”


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


“They’re also terrified of a Republican base that’s become increasingly radicalized,” Conway told CNN. “That actually does believe that people who politically disagree with them are a threat to the nation and therefore violence could be necessary to fight them off, and that’s what we saw in this social media post.”

Conway called Trump’s re-share of the post “appalling.”

“The suggestion is that somehow we are headed towards civil war or there should be civil war, or something to that effect, and for a former president of the United States and leading contender for the 2024 Republican nomination to even be talking about that and suggesting that is absolutely appalling,” he said.

Trump shared the post on his Truth Social platform, though it was shared widely on Twitter, which banned him after the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who is seeking to buy Twitter for about $44 billion, has said that he would reverse Trump’s Twitter ban.

“I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump,” he said earlier this month. “I think that was a mistake.”

Army veteran David Weissman shared Trump’s “retruth” and called out Musk for his comment.

“Hey @elonmusk, did you see Trump supporting a call for a civil war on his Truth Social platform?” he wrote. “Are you sure you want that on this site if your deal follows through?”

Read more:

Trump considered a military coup: Would he have gotten away with it?

It is now a public fact that Donald Trump and his cabal, including Republican members of Congress, attempted a coup on Jan. 6, 2021. This de facto conspiracy was sophisticated, multidimensional and nationwide in scale, and included what became a terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol. We know that Donald Trump was aware of at least some details of this plot and was involved in its planning and execution.

To deny these obvious facts is to either be a believer in the Big Lie and supporter of Trump and the Republican Party’s war on American democracy or to be in an extreme state of willful denial. As a practical matter, it is much the same thing. 

Within a few weeks, the House select committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021, will finally hold televised public hearings. Their primary task will be to explain to the American people how serious the events of that day actually were and to establish a case that Donald Trump and his co-conspirators should be punished for their crimes.

RELATED: Lt. Col. Alex Vindman: How Trump’s coup attempt encouraged Putin’s Ukraine invasion

One question that demands much more public attention than it has gotten is how close Donald Trump came to invoking the Insurrection Act, declaring martial law, or to using other presidential emergency powers in an effort to nullify the 2020 election. In the weeks and days before Election Day, military and other national security leaders publicly sounded the alarm through editorials, interviews and other means that the Trump regime might try to order the armed forces to intervene on his behalf. That such figures would feel the need to declare that they were loyal to the Constitution, and not to a particular political leader, is almost unprecedented in American history.

Because of a combination of normalcy bias, cowardice, and outright denial about Trump and his cabal’s obvious plans, the mainstream news media and most other public voices did not give these unprecedented warnings the sustained attention they merited. As a result, the American people still do not properly understand how close they came to losing their democracy on Jan. 6, 2021. That danger has only increased since then as the Republicans and their larger movement have escalated their plans to overthrow the country’s multiracial democracy.

To discuss this urgent question and others, I recently spoke with Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center’s Liberty & National Security Program and a senior practitioner fellow at the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government. She is an expert on presidential emergency powers, government surveillance and government secrecy. Her writing has been featured in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Atlantic, the New Republic and elsewhere. She has also appeared as a frequent guest on MSNBC, CNN and NPR.

In this conversation, Goitein details various scenarios through which Trump could have declared a “national emergency,” perhaps including martial law, as a way of remaining in power — and discusses whether that gambit would ultimately have worked. The president of the United States, she explains, has access to immense powers in a time of national emergency, many of which are secret and not subject to any effective oversight from Congress or the courts.

It is also publicly known that Trump wanted the military to use lethal force to suppress the marches and other protests that took place across the country in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. Goitein explores what would most likely have happened if Trump had given such an order. She also shares her concerns about America’s current democracy crisis and her perception that the events of Jan. 6 are part of a much larger plan to impose a type of “competitive authoritarian” system in place of genuine electoral democracy.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

How do you feel about this moment, with America’s democracy crisis and all the other challenges facing this country?

I’m worried, because after the transition to the Biden administration it seemed that people understood there was work to be done before the next presidential election to address some of the weak points in our system that are vulnerable to a leader with autocratic impulses. It also seemed that people understood that what happened with Trump was not necessarily a one-time aberrant occurrence, that there was a real danger of such a movement to undermine democracy trying such things again. Notice I said “movement” and not “moment.” We would be seeing it again in future elections.

There seemed to be a decent level of understanding that meant we had to take steps to shore up the guardrails of democracy. I’ve heard the phrase “guardrails of democracy” a lot. But I don’t see those guardrails being strengthened fast enough. I also don’t see the urgency and priority being placed on that by either members of Congress or the Biden administration. That’s what worries me, because we are running out of time.

How do you make sense of that lack of urgency?

I think there is a theory at work where if the Biden administration shows the American people that democracy can work for them, such an outcome will be the best thing that can be done to push back against anti-democratic forces. Thus, the priority is on laws and policies that will increase the well-being of Americans in their everyday lives. I support that. I believe that is an important part of the equation. I also believe that outcome is worth advancing for reasons totally unrelated to saving our democracy.

There are people in the United States, especially since COVID, who are in dire need of help from the government and some kind of social safety net. But I do not think that can be a substitute for laws that make it harder for a president, and especially one who is a would-be autocrat, to consolidate power. I think it’s a mistake to de-prioritize the latter in favor of the former. I don’t know for sure that’s what’s happening, but it’s a theory that would explain what we’re seeing in terms of the administration’s priorities.


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


The Democratic leadership in Congress is not going to prioritize something that isn’t a priority for the Biden administration. The Biden administration is not necessarily eager to pass laws that rein in its own powers during a term when there are so many crises. Whether that’s COVID, or whether it’s Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, this is a time when it would take an administration with a very long view to embrace laws that would restrict the president’s own power. Very few presidents think that way.

I do believe that if legislation that reformed emergency powers came onto President Biden’s desk, he would sign it. I can’t say that for other presidents, certainly not for the last president, Donald Trump. But that is very different from saying that Biden is going to force Congress to pass emergency powers reform. If it is not on the White House priority list, it is going to be very difficult to make that happen in Congress.

With so much happening in terms of the challenges to American democracy, what advice would you give to people about how to make sense of it all? What should they prioritize?

It would take an administration with a very long view to embrace laws that would restrict the president’s power. Very few presidents think that way.

I’m an expert on civil liberties and national security, with a specific focus on presidential emergency powers. That is what I spend my time worrying about. That does not mean it’s the only thing that anyone should be worried about, by any means. For example, my colleagues at Brennan Center who work on voting rights are being consumed by that work right now, as well they should. That is another area that the American people should be extremely worried about. There is an attack all around this country, by conservatives on the state and local level, on voting rights.

I understand that with so much going on at the same time, it can be hard to figure out what to make of it all. What I would say is: Do not let the worries become paralyzing. Pick something that you care about. Pick something that you think is important and do something about it.

Call your congressperson. When someone actually picks up the phone and calls their representatives in Congress, that gets noticed. Even today, with all the big money in politics, phone calls to a congressional office get noticed. Do some googling to see what local organizations are working on the issues that you care about. Try to be a force for preserving our democracy. It can seem overwhelming, but once you start biting off pieces of it and putting one foot in front of the other by taking steps to be part of the solution, that work can be very fulfilling.


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


What were you thinking as you watched the events of Jan. 6, 2021?

I have never been so aware of watching history unfold. As I was watching the events that day, I kept thinking that whatever comes of this, the world and the United States of America are not going to be the same after this. I’ve never seen anything like what happened on Jan. 6. None of us have in this country. I was in awe. I wouldn’t say I was frightened, because I was pretty sure I knew how it was going to end. I was certainly concerned for the safety and well-being of the people inside the Capitol. But I was pretty sure that even a few thousand people attacking the U.S. Capitol were not going to keep President Trump in power.

Perhaps there was a part of me that was thinking, “OK, when people see this, they will understand the threat, and they will reject this. They will reject this anti-democratic movement because they will finally see it for what it is. Democracy means enough to most of us in this country that these people attacking the Capitol will finally be marginalized.”

That really didn’t happen. Republicans have embraced these anti-democracy forces.

It shows how serious the threat is. It also shows that we have to be just as serious in addressing it. Our democracy is under threat. That doesn’t mean that our democracy is lost by any means. We should be scared, but as I said before, being scared shouldn’t lull us or intimidate us to inaction. It’s the opposite. We have to be just as fierce in our defense of democracy as its opponents are in attacking it.

What would have been the worst-case outcome on Jan. 6, with Trump attempting to stay in power. Could he have invoked the Insurrection Act or perhaps even staged a military coup?

There was a scenario where Trump tries to construe the transfer of power on Jan. 20 as an insurrection, and invokes the Insurrection Act to stop Biden from becoming president. 

The worst-case scenario has nothing to do with emergency powers. The real worst-case scenario is that the president attempts a military coup, which is not legal. There is no emergency authority that gives the president the power to declare a military coup. We are extremely fortunate that Trump did not have the military on his side. Military leaders, including [acting] Defense Secretary Miller and the chair of the Joints Chiefs, Gen. Milley, were extremely concerned about the potential for misuse of the military around the time of the presidential election and were determined not to let that happen.

That is one of the country’s democratic institutions and guardrails that held: Senior national security officials within the administration retained their loyalty to the Constitution and understood that was their first loyalty. It was a loyalty that went beyond any they might feel toward the president or to their party. That was one of the silver linings of Jan. 6.

A military coup is the worst thing that could have happened. Short of that, I do believe that President Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act. In fact, I actually believe that on Jan. 6 there was an insurrection, so the Insurrection Act would have been appropriate if the purpose were actually to suppress the attack on the Capitol. But what might have happened instead is that President Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act as a pretext to get the military involved for the wrong reasons.

There’s also a scenario where the president, with or without an attack on the U.S. Capitol, could have somehow construed the transition of power on Jan. 20 itself as an insurrection. Trump could have said, “I won the election despite Congress’ certification. Therefore any attempt by Joe Biden to take office is in fact an insurrection. I’m going to declare the Insurrection Act to put down the insurrection.”

Obviously, that would have been a clear abuse of the Insurrection Act, and I believe the courts might well have put a stop to it. In any event, it wouldn’t have worked in the sense that on Jan. 20, under the Constitution, Trump was no longer president. Even if he somehow managed to prevent President Biden from walking into the White House, he still would not have been president himself. At that point, Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the House, would have been next in line.

My ultimate point is that there are no emergency powers, and certainly the Insurrection Act is not one of them, that would allow the president to remain in power when there’s been an election and someone else has been elected.

Trump was attempting a “self-coup” or “legal coup.” But by definition, a leader like Donald Trump does not respect the rule of law. The scenarios you outline seem to assume that the law holds, and that the president and his administration respect it.

It is entirely true that the rule of law means absolutely nothing to an autocrat. But it matters in the sense that they need to keep in mind what they can get away with in the courts. They also need to keep in mind what they can get away with politically. If for no other reason than those, I think that the reason why Trump didn’t do some of the things that were urged by people such as Michael Flynn was, at least in part, because those actions were so plainly unlawful.

There were various people who were urging Trump to invoke emergency powers to seize the voting machines. If there was in fact an emergency power that authorizes seizure of voting machines, do you think for a second that President Trump wouldn’t have exercised it? Of course he would have. The reason he didn’t is because there isn’t any such power, and he didn’t think he could get away with doing it. The other possibility is that there were people, high up in his administration, who knew that they could not get away with seizing the voting machines. Therefore, Trump and his administration did not try it.

What if Trump had ordered the military to seize the voting machines? Or if he had invoked the Insurrection Act? What do you think would have happened?

If Trump had ordered one of the senior officials in his administration to do something that was blatantly illegal, and potentially unconstitutional at the level of preventing a peaceful transition of power, I believe someone like Gen. Milley probably would have refused or resigned. Alternatively, he would certainly have refused, and possibly then been fired.

If there was in fact an emergency power that authorizes seizure of voting machines, do you think for a second that President Trump wouldn’t have exercised it?

A future president might be a little more crafty than Trump about putting people in place ahead of time who would be willing to execute such unconstitutional and illegal orders. Ultimately, if Trump had ordered such measures, he would have faced resistance from within his administration. He would have to fire people and then get some other person in an acting position to implement the order, and then it would have gone to the courts.

I think the courts would have stopped a blatantly unlawful power grab. Yes, I know many people are skeptical about that. They will say, “These are Trump judges, and they’ll do anything Trump wants them to do.” But we know that’s not true because after the 2020 election, Trump and his supporters filed upwards of 60 lawsuits in an attempt to invalidate the results in various places around the country. Every judge but one rejected those lawsuits. That includes not only many judges appointed by Republican presidents but several Trump appointees as well.

The courts would have stepped in. At that point, when the courts have said, “You can’t do this, you have to stop,” if the president continues it is no longer a legal coup. Then it is just a plain coup, meaning potentially a military coup, and then we’re back to the fact that the people who were in charge of the military were not willing to go along with such a plan.

What emergency powers does a president actually have?

There are two categories of powers. The first are statutory emergency powers. These are the emergency powers that Congress has delegated to the president. These are public. You can read them and know what is permitted and what is not permitted. They’re limited. The president, when he declares a national emergency, can avail himself of these statutory powers, but he can’t do anything that’s outside of those powers. This is particularly true in the national emergency context, which is governed by the National Emergencies Act. When the president declares a national emergency, that action unlocks powers that are contained in more than 120 different provisions of law. They all say some variation of: “In a national emergency, the president can do X.” That means the president can do X, but not Y or Z.

That having been said, some of those powers available in an actual emergency are pretty alarming. They include the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, which is what some Trump supporters suggested could authorize the seizure of voting machines. That law allows the president to essentially freeze any assets or prohibit any financial transactions in order to address a foreign threat. While the threat has to be at least partly coming from overseas, the assets that the president freezes can be assets held by Americans.  

The IEEPA is extremely powerful because it basically allows the president to freeze any American’s bank accounts and prohibit anybody else from engaging in transactions with that person. The president can do this simply by saying, “I think this person is associated with a foreign threat.”

The president also has broad powers to shut down communications as well. Correct?

That would be the Communications Act, which allows the president to take over or shut down radio communications facilities during a national emergency. If a president declares a threat of war, he can go further and he can take over or shut down wire communications facilities. The Communications Act could conceivably be interpreted to allow the president to take over or shut down U.S.-based internet traffic. There are also emergency powers that allow the federal government to control domestic transportation.

There are also powers that do not require the declaration of an emergency. This would be the Insurrection Act, which gives the president very broad discretion to deploy federal military forces as a domestic police force. This law is dangerously broad and outdated. The whole concept of using military troops as a domestic police force is really contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and to the traditions of this country. In general, using the military as a domestic police force is prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act. But the Insurrection Act is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, and it is written in such a broad and frankly confusing way that it gives the president a dangerous amount of power.

I grew up during the 1980s and the end of the Cold War and read a great deal about what would happen in the aftermath of a nuclear war. One of the things that was often referenced during movies and books about nuclear war were the secret emergency powers that a president has. These powers are very ominous and most American have no idea about them.        

What you’re worried about are the “claimed inherent emergency powers.” Presidents for decades have claimed that the Constitution gives them all manner of inherent powers that are not spelled out, by virtue of them being deemed the commander in chief of the armed forces. There are supposedly these broad inherent powers, established and detailed for the most part in Department of Justice memos, many of which have never been seen. We don’t actually know the full scope of what presidents believe their emergency powers to be.

Presidents for decades have claimed that the Constitution gives them all manner of “inherent powers” that are not spelled out. We don’t actually know the scope of what presidents believe their emergency powers to be.

There are a set of documents known as Presidential Emergency Action Documents. These are draft directives and orders that are prepared in advance of a range of potential worst-case scenarios. They are ready for the president’s signature if one such event was to happen. None of these Presidential Emergency Action Documents, these draft directives and orders, has ever been leaked or released. The only way we know what’s in them is by secondary sources, including some official sources such as FBI memos and things of that nature which describe their content.

From those secondary sources, we know that, at least in the past, some of these documents purported to implement martial law and purported to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally. Some of them provided for the roundup and detention of Americans who were on a list of so-called subversives. Some of the actions contemplated in these documents are blatantly unconstitutional, but presumably somebody at the Department of Justice who rubber-stamped them was taking the position that there are inherent constitutional powers that the president has under Article 2 [of the Constitution] to take such measures.

To me, these unknown secret claims of emergency power are in some ways the scariest, because we have no idea how far they go. Even Congress doesn’t have access to these documents.

It has been confirmed that Trump wanted the military to shoot protesters during the George Floyd protests. What would such an order have looked like? How would it have been translated down to troops on the ground?

I highly doubt that there’s any Presidential Emergency Action Document that gives a president authority to order protesters to be shot. I do not believe there’s even any claim to some sort of legal authority to do something like that. Essentially, if the president ordered the military to shoot protesters in the legs, that would clearly be an illegal order and members of the military would have an obligation to disobey it. These people aren’t posing any threat, they’re not being shot in self-defense. We should not imagine that emergency powers are so capacious that they would ever encompass something so blatantly unlawful. That’s an order from the president that the troops would have to disobey.

I’m more worried about a scenario in which, let’s say, there are Presidential Emergency Action Documents that provide for the imposition of martial law in a scenario where there is an insurrection. The term “insurrection” is in the eye of the beholder. If the beholder in that scenario is a president who believes that he is entitled to stay in power no matter what, at that point a declaration of martial law would enable the military to take the place of civilian government.

Now, that’s very different from what’s in the Insurrection Act. The Insurrection Act allows the military to act in support of civilian authorities in order to suppress an insurrection or to quell domestic violence. The military remains subordinate to civilian authorities in that scenario. A scenario in which the military takes over the functions of civilian government is what would be commonly referred to as martial law.

What worries me is that there is no single statute that flatly prohibits martial law. In its absence, I could see a president and the Justice Department arguing that he has that inherent constitutional authority.

The Brennan Center has analyzed this question and has concluded that the president actually has no authority to invoke martial law. That’s because Congress has ruled it out by virtue of enacting an extensive network of laws governing domestic deployment of the military. Martial law would be inconsistent with this network of laws. That said, there is no single statute that flatly prohibits martial law, and in its absence, I could see a president and a Department of Justice taking the position that the president has an inherent constitutional authority to declare martial law.

To me, that is a more realistic fear and a major potential concern, one that could be alleviated by Congress.

How do we find that balance, between making sure that a president has the necessary power and latitude to act in response to an emergency, and preventing the abuse of those powers by an autocratic leader? 

Checks and balances. It is appropriate to give the president much more flexibility in times of crises, but that flexibility can’t be boundless. It should be time-limited, and it should have checks built in to address instances of overreach. Those checks, for the most part, are the other branches of government, the courts and Congress. Any extension of emergency powers to the president should come along with the potential for meaningful judicial review, which means there have to be standards articulated that the court can look to. In my opinion, saying that the president can declare a national emergency whenever he wants is problematic. What one can do is come up with a basic definition of what an emergency is, and what an emergency isn’t. That definition should not constrain or micromanage the president, but still give the courts some ability to step in.

If the president invokes the Insurrection Act or declares a national emergency and abuses that authority, right now the only way for Congress to stop the president is to pass a law by veto-proof supermajority. When you’re talking about powers that are so potent and so vulnerable to abuse, there needs to be a more meaningful check than that. One of the reform proposals that has gained traction in Congress is to require a declaration of national emergency to terminate automatically after 30 days, unless Congress votes to approve it. That would give the president lots more flexibility when he needs it most in the immediate aftermath of a crisis, but then would allow Congress to step in and serve as a check against presidential overreach if the president takes things too far.

When I warn people about how dangerous Donald Trump was and is, and the extreme nature of the country’s democracy crisis more generally, I inevitably receive emails and messages telling me to stop scaring people, that this is too frightening and is somehow counterproductive. Given what you have explored in this conversation and your work, what would you say to those people?

If they’re scared by what I’ve said, I take that as a good sign. I don’t want anyone to feel hopeless, and I think the trick to taking the edge off the fear is to take action. As I said before, I think when there is a problem that’s frightening, as soon as you start doing something about that, it takes the fear and turns it into intention. I think that’s a better solution than simply hiding your head in the sand. If you do that, you’re going to find out that a lot more scary things happen when you do nothing than when you tackle the problem.

What is your diagnosis of American democracy right now?

I’ve never seen anything quite like this before. I can tell you what I’ve seen happen in other cases, but I cannot predict the future. The truth is, we haven’t seen something like this in this country before. We know it’s serious. We know that the patient requires immediate help, but we just don’t know how it’s going to end. That’s up to us.

Read more on Jan. 6, 2021, and its aftermath:

Let’s talk about Tucker Carlson’s obsession with “legacy Americans”

Yes, Tucker Carlson, you are allowed to ask the question about whether diversity makes us stronger.

The answer, as the vast majority of us in America see it, is yes. 

The “melting pot” metaphor for immigrants coming to America still holds, though these days we require less melting of what makes each person’s native culture unique. Don’t worry, Tucker. The people who come to this country want desperately to be here and would outperform most of “legacy Americans” you are so obsessed with in true patriotism and knowledge about civics and our history.

RELATED: Fox News exploits Buffalo shooting to further radicalize Republicans

How is diversity a good thing? Let us count the ways:

  • In biology, the genetic push toward diversity is the natural law. (You probably have to pretend not to believe in evolution, I realize. We’ll keep that between us.)
  • In agriculture, our monoculture approach to farming created great gains for the food supply but has set us up to fail in numerous ways, in terms of soil depletion and crop failures. Diversity is good.
  • As we have seen recently, having too few companies producing baby formula can lead to shortages. I shouldn’t have to tell a Republican this, but competition (i.e., diversity) in business is good for everybody: It keeps companies on their toes and compels them to innovate, and for consumers it means better products, more efficient services and lower prices).
  • We are constantly advised that diversity in an investment portfolio (as a true elite like you, Tucker, must have learned in the cradle) is highly desirable.
  • In the tweet I linked to above, you insist that diversity in families does not make us stronger. Gosh, that’s an incredibly reductive view of complex family dynamics. The differences between mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers (if one is lucky enough to have siblings) are to be treasured. We learn so much about the world and our lives from the varied personalities and interests of our family members. We are often saved by them.
  • Much of the corporate world is actively working on increasing inclusion and diversity among employees, not just in order to attract the best and brightest (although that’s important), but also to bring in different insights into customers and frames of reference. They are not, however, at this time seeking hateful points of view. So you and the bigots you entertain every night — and even certain state governors — are howling mad about this turn of events. (Don’t look now, but your own corporate heads are at least paying lip service to this diversity stuff. That may be a way to cover their asses, legally and otherwise, for the ceaseless pandering of their on-air hosts to white nationalists and other bigots.)

In many older neighborhoods around the country, built in an era when we still believed in ourselves and the ideals of America, you can find a diversity of economic class apparent even in the architecture and urban design, with houses of different sizes and styles all mixed together. Most of that construction happened before the time when we were actively taught to fear each other, before the era of gated communities and mini-mansions (though not before the institution of redlining, which kept people of color from moving into those charming neighborhoods — something you don’t want taught in schools). Poet Carl Sandburg famously called Chicago the “City of Big Shoulders,” and once upon a time America was a country where various levels of middle-class and working people literally lived shoulder to shoulder.


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


My wife and I were drawn to such a neighborhood (Tuxedo Park in Webster Groves, Missouri), when we were starting out as parents. We swallowed hard and purchased what seemed an impossibly-priced small bungalow there and for years were able to walk our young daughters around a lovely neighborhood with sidewalks and a lot of architectural interest. It was a place where young couples could start out, people in mid-career could move into larger homes, and retired people could downsize to stay in an area they loved.

“Legacy Americans” sounds a lot like “legacy admissions,” meaning the kids who get into Harvard or Yale or Stanford not because they worked hard and earned it, but purely on the privilege of birth.

Let’s talk about those “legacy Americans” you so often extol — meaning white people of European descent, and at least a couple of generations away from being, you know, immigrants. It seems likely you have borrowed that term from legacy admissions to colleges and universities. Those are the kids who get a leg up in admissions to Harvard or Yale or Stanford, not because they earned those spots with their sterling grades and inspiring extracurricular activities but because at least one of their parents is an alumnus. One of the things one learns at these schools of higher learning is that legacy admissions are just another manifestation of privilege, a key that opens up a different kind of gated community. 

But privilege is what drives members of the elite classes like you, Tucker, to cry like a small boy about other people having the opportunity to come to this country to find a better life, to control their own bodies, to have their votes count. 

In your definition of “legacy Americans,” do you include those who are descendants of people bound in slavery during our first centuries as a country?

You no doubt admire successful businessmen and entrepreneurs, as many of us do. But we know that the next generation often fails to meet the challenge. They have grown up in the midst of plenty and may not have the hunger for that kind of success, or the same success. Such an organization may better thrive in new (non-legacy) hands. Besides, who needs all the infighting? Think “King Lear,” or, say, Logan Roy.

By the way, Tucker, are the young white males shooting down citizens in the street, in grocery stores and in places of worship examples of your “legacy Americans”? Kyle Rittenhouse, who traveled across state lines in August 2020 to “protect businesses” in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where protests and riots were occurring after police shot Jacob Blake seven times, certainly became much celebrated. He was invited to CPAC and got a standing ovation. (The Onion had a good take on that.) Will you celebrate this latest one, too: The young man who drove more than 200 miles to Buffalo to murder people he had never met, who had done him no harm? He was less a “lone wolf” than a young dog held in a filthy pen of hateful rhetoric and trained to brutality, in large part, by your words.

As Salon’s Amanda Marcotte writes, you have already spun this one to blame Democrats for the violence caused by your own promotion of the “great replacement” theory, with its deep antisemitic conspiracy-mongering history, and to twist your blatant racism as a “dangerous truth.” I would ask how it’s possible that Fox News has not been taken off the public airwaves for inciting domestic terrorism, but I realize that given the current state of American jurisprudence, it’s a pointless question.

But here’s a question for you, Tucker. You keep going on about how males in America are losing their sense of manhood. Is it a sign of manliness to forever be so afraid, to quake and quail in fear of others, to go on national television every night bleating, whining and complaining? Is this red-faced, pedantic, perennially disgruntled display of yours something you genuinely think America’s young men should mirror to get their collective mojo back?

If you are merely play-acting these emotions, on the other hand, how manly is that? 

We had daughters, and they know the score, when it comes to guys like you. If I had a son, I would sit him down as soon as he was old enough to understand concepts like grifting and fascism and shameless hypocrisy and tell him what Fox News is and what you do. Tucker, you rake in a reported $4 million a month saying things you may or may not believe and teaching Americans to hate other Americans in your ongoing work to undermine the American experiment in democracy. Patriotism, Samuel Johnson said, is the last refuge of a scoundrel. You were exactly what he meant.

Read more on Tucker Carlson, Fox News and the aftermath of Buffalo:

Kia blasted for “we save turtles” car commercial

Did you know that if you drive a SUV really fast across a beach that you, too, can save nesting sea turtles? That is, as long as the SUV is a 2023 Kia Sportage X-Pro SUV driven by a long-haired, handsome, dark, caring environmentalist.

Quite a 40-second commercial Kia has put together.

Everything in “Beachcomber” is pitch perfect, from the cloying piano soundtrack and the clever driver sweeping the sands free of trash, to the money shot of turtles—adult and their irresistible babies—returning from the ocean to lay their precious eggs.

Let’s set the scene in this classic example of green-washing. The commercial opens on the beach with our hero—for giggles, let’s call him Jake—hard at work assembling a rake-like contraption. The sun is setting and light is golden and lazy, yet Jake is in a hurry. Why? We don’t know yet.

Jake then gets behind the wheel of his shiny new Kia and pounds the pedal to the metal. Our man does donuts in the sand as his clever invention scoops up all the trash on the shore. This begs the question: Why does he need to drive so recklessly? Good question. Perhaps to show how responsive his SUV is in off-road conditions? And what kind of an environmentalist tears up a pristine beach?

As someone who has spent way too much time slouched on the couch in front of a television set watching shows I can no longer remember, let me interject some general observations regarding automobile commercials. SUVs are always driven at breakneck speeds through snow, fragile streambeds and mountain roads with sheer drop-offs and blind corners. Absolutely no one I know does this. Nor should you.

And have you noticed that every single road—in the country or in the city—that these vehicles travel on are empty? Just how does that work in say, rush hour in Chicago or Los Angeles?

Enough overthinking. Back to Jake and his trusty rake. Look at what our man has accomplished. Because he cares more than us deadbeats he has swept up all of the garbage! We witness his commitment to putting an end to pollution as he neatly places the detritus in a plastic (!) bag for dutiful delivery to his local recycling center, where it will probably end up in a landfill somewhere. But let’s not think of that. Instead, let us arrive at the realization with stunning clarity that all of this could only have been accomplished through the selfless endeavors of a committed out-of-control NASCAR-wannabe behind the wheel of 2023 Kia Sportage X-Pro SUV. God bless him.

Wait, there’s more! Suddenly it becomes clear why Jake when through all this trouble, perhaps sacrificing his plant-based supper and interrupting his hot yoga class, to do the work that we should be doing…instead of sitting on our double-wides watching this ad.

Cue the sea turtles. As the sun sets in brilliant rays of red and orange over the ocean the terrapins make their way from the water to lay their eggs on, well, the very beach that Jake just combed. What timing, eh? Call it a shell game. Just think: if our man had roared across this habitat just a few minutes later he would have flattened the creatures like so many soda cans on the freeway and his courageous act would have gone for naught.

Regarding automobile commercials: please stop thinking logically. Check your brain at the door and simply bask in the warm emotional glow of ethereal music and soft-lit images. Don’t be a cynical jerk who cannot appreciate SUVs as the antidotes to climate change. I mean, what is wrong with you?

As the turtles slowly plod their way to safe harbor we have the shot of our dreamy pal Jake smiling with the self-satisfaction of a man who knows he has done good for the planet. Look at me he is saying. Am I not pretty special? He sits in a meditative pose watching this miracle of nature unfold spotlighted by the intense LED lighting of his 2023 Kia Sportage X-Pro SUV. Can turtles blink?

As the shot pans out over the horizon the slogan “Multi-terrain AWD mode” appears. Get it? Turtles can overcome any terrain because they have all wheel drive. Or something.

Then comes the kicker, the dramatic moment that will compel all of us (those of us who care about the environment, that is) off our Lazy Boys and run to our nearest KIA dealership. Dozens of baby turtles, miraculously on the same day, are now waddling to the ocean to begin their long and perilous life’s journey. As Kia itself says this is a “movement that inspires.”

I don’t know about you, but I feel better already.

Stephen J. Lyons is the author of five books of essays and journalism. His most recent book is “West of East.”

Trump Jr. part of illegal poaching scandal

Second-generation New York real estate heir Donald Trump, Jr. is caught up in yet another hunting scandal.

Utah hunting guide Wade Lemon is facing five years in prison for baiting a bear that was killed by Trump, Jr. on May 18, 2018, The Salt Lake Tribune reported Saturday.

But the New York developer may not have been familiar enough with western hunting to know about the felony poaching.

“Trump Jr. is not named in a recent filing against Lemon, but the DNR confirmed his identity as the person named in the felony complaint as Lemon’s “client” on the hunt. Prosecutors have indicated there was no evidence showing Trump Jr. would have known about the alleged baiting that went on during the hunt,” the newspaper reported. “Without naming Trump Jr., Davis County Attorney Troy Rawlings said the hunter in the case ‘was actually a victim and a now a possible witness in a fraudulent scheme to lead the hunter to believe it was actually a legitimate Wild West hunting situation.'”

Trump, Jr. posted pictures of his hunting trip to Instagram.

“On Sept. 3, 2020, The Utah Investigative Journalism Project requested files on closed investigations against Wade Lemon Hunting. The DNR provided files on cases dating back to 2009 except for the case on the 2018 Trump Jr. hunt. DNR had decided to reopen that case and denied the records request, stating the release would interfere with the now ‘open’ investigation,” the newspaper reported. “DNR turned the case over to the Utah Attorney General’s Office. Utah Attorney General Reyes has close ties to Trump, having campaigned for him and even flying to Nevada to investigate the election results after Trump’s defeat at the polls and signed on to a lawsuit claiming ‘unlawful election results.’ The Attorney General’s Office reinvestigated the case for months, then handed it off to the Davis County Attorney’s Office to screen for filing of charges.”

Trump, Jr.’s guided hunting trip resulted in kills of a black bear and mountain lion.

“Charging documents allege Lemon’s outfitters illegally used bait on the bear shot by Trump Jr. According to the document, a witness identified Lemon and his employees during the hunt in May 2018 and was able to identify Lemon over radio traffic, giving instructions to his employees,” the newspaper reported. “The illegal bait, ‘a pile of grain, oil and pastries’ was discovered with a trail camera pointed right on it with ‘WLH’ (for Wade Lemon Hunting) written on the side and with Lemon’s own telephone number, according to court documents. The charging documents also include evidence from a subordinate confirming Lemon had him place the bait in the location several weeks before the hunt.”

The guide Trump, Jr. hired for his hunt has been investigated before.

“Hunting guides who cater to the wealthy elite have a lot at stake in ensuring successful hunts. These companies employ hunters to scout woods, deserts, mountains and plains for the biggest game, to ensure these high-profile clients have the highest chance for a successful hunt. According to DNR, Wade Lemon Hunting has been investigated eight times for allegedly breaking the law to ensure a successful hunt, though he was not charged with a felony until Tuesday,” the newspaper explained.

The vast majority of game taken in America is from hunters who do not require a hired guide.

The former president’s eldest son has previously had scandals over killing an elephant in Africa, killing an endangered sheep in Mongolia, and killing pregnant prairie dogs in Montana.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bi-qU9JgxEk/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

8 fascinating facts about “The Time Traveler’s Wife”

Originally published in 2003, “The Time Traveler’s Wife” surprised fans of fantasy fiction. Instead of strictly following the adventures of a time-hopping librarian named Henry DeTamble, Audrey Niffenegger’s debut novel switches between Henry’s exploits and the perspective of Clare Abshire, his wife, exploring how Henry’s prolonged absences make for a bittersweet relationship. For more on the book and its forthcoming adaptation on HBO, keep reading.

1. Audrey Niffenegger started “The Time Traveler’s Wife” with only the title in mind.

Niffenegger — an illustrator and onetime books arts teacher at Columbia College — has said the premise for “The Time Traveler’s Wife” came to her after the phrase popped into her head in 1997. “I was making a drawing and the phrase ‘the time traveler’s wife’ popped into my head,” she said. “Who was this wife, why would anyone marry a time traveler? It must be lonely, being married to someone who is often away; it must be dangerous to be a time traveler. I had a mental image of a white-haired woman, alone in a sunny room, a cup of tea on the table before her, untouched; a woman waiting. How could I describe all that waiting, all the negative space around their marriage? I began to wonder how they’d met, who they were, what might befall them, this woman and man. I gave them names, Clare and Henry. That was the beginning, but it took almost five years to write the book.”

Niffenegger has also said that the title “The Time Traveler’s Wife” refers not only to Clare but to Henry’s condition. “The book itself is really about the marriage,” she said. “Henry is not only married to Clare; he’s also married to time.”

2. Niffenegger had two “rules” for writing The Time Traveler’s Wife.

Time travel stories are tricky in that past actions can influence — or undo — present circumstances. Niffenegger decided early on that this wouldn’t be that kind of time travel tale. She mandated that things that occur in the book could only happen once and couldn’t be changed, eliminating “paradox and the butterfly effect, which are always a challenge for any writer of time travel stories.” She also committed to the idea that Henry’s ability to move through time was the result of a genetic disorder and that he couldn’t be blamed for his prolonged absences.

3. “The Time Traveler’s Wife” was written out of (any) order.

Befitting the chronological chaos of a time travel story, Niffenegger wrote “The Time Traveler’s Wife” out of order. “I wrote the ending first, and then the scene in which Clare loses her virginity,” she told Writer Unboxed. “The book was written in no order at all, just me working on whatever I had some idea about. Toward the end of the process I radically changed the order of the scenes to flow along with Clare’s experience of time. Before that they’d been organized thematically, which several friends told me was too confusing.”

4. “The Time Traveler’s Wife” was originally a much darker tale.

As Niffenegger worked on the book, she had the notion of making Henry’s affliction the catalyst for a much darker tone. Clare, she said, would have “lost her mind for a while” toward the end of the book, while Henry and Clare would have been unable to have their daughter. Niffenegger said she decided it would be “unbearable” to both write and read and opted for something more palatable.

5. Audrey Niffenegger believed “The Time Traveler’s Wife” would only be a cult hit.

Niffenegger didn’t expect “The Time Traveler’s Wife” to make much of a splash, believing instead it might become a “small cult novel for a few librarians . . .  it just never occurred to me that it would be something that regular readers would want to read.” As of 2013, the book had sold 7 million copies worldwide.

6. The 2009 movie adaptation of “The Time Traveler’s Wife” was originally written with Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston in mind.

While Niffenegger may not have anticipated the success of “The Time Traveler’s Wife,” others did: A deal for a movie adaptation was struck even before the book was published in 2003. At the time, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, then married, owned Plan B, the production company that optioned the novel. Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin (who won an Oscar for his script for “Ghost“) wrote a script with the couple in mind for Henry and Clare. The two split in 2005: Pitt remained with Plan B and eventually wound up as producer on the 2009 film, which starred Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams.

Following the 2009 film, which received mixed reviews, HBO is looking to give “The Time Traveler’s Wife” more narrative breathing room in the form of an episodic series. The show stars Theo James (“Divergent”) and Rose Leslie (“Game of Thrones“) as Henry and Clare, respectively; Steven Moffat (“Doctor Who“) is the writer and executive producer. It’s expected to debut sometime in 2022.

8. A sequel to “The Time Traveler’s Wife” has been in the works since 2013.

Niffenegger began work on a sequel to “The Time Traveler’s Wife” in 2013. Titled “The Other Husband,” it centers on Alba, the daughter of Clare and Henry, who inherited her father’s genetic time-traveling disorder and who needs to cope with dual marriages. As of 2019, Niffenegger said she was still working on it, though a 2013 e-book version of “The Time Traveler’s Wife” has a 25-page preview. Niffenegger’s other novel, “Her Fearful Symmetry,” was published in 2009.

What can reverse late-night TV’s decline?

In late April, after James Corden announced he would step down from “The Late Late Show” next spring, there was immediate speculation about his replacement.

Others, however, have had a different response to recent changes to the late-night TV lineup: Who cares?

Ratings are down, they point out. The shows can’t get over their Trump obsession. They represent a bygone era of television.

But in my view, late-night can still matter. Contrary to what some might say, late-night is not “dead,” and it can come back. But if it doesn’t want to fall by the cultural wayside as baseball has, it needs to do what the national pastime hasn’t: adapt and evolve.

Asking the target demographic

For nine years, I wrote for two late-night shows: “Late Night” and “The Tonight Show,” both hosted by Jimmy Fallon. I saw, firsthand, a fledgling show that aired at 12:30 a.m. blossom into a hugely successful show in the coveted 11:30 p.m. slot. I was also around for the beginning of its slide.

When I began teaching Writing for Late Night at Emerson College in 2019, late-night remained formidable. At the start of a semester, I asked how many in class regularly viewed a network late-night talk show. Every student watched at least one; most, two.

By 2021, only about half said they tuned in, with most watching “The Eric Andre Show” on Adult Swim and “Conan” on TBS — the latter of which would end in June 2021.

This year, only around 30% of my late-night comedy students deemed themselves “regular” viewers of any of these shows. While I admired their honesty, I thought: This isn’t good.

So I asked my students, who make up a portion of late-night’s key demographic of 18-to-34-year-olds, “How would you change late-night?”

Another spin of the news cycle

A few themes emerged.

As one student observed, there is so much rehashing of stories that have already made news, it feels like you’re just watching more news.

Thus came the follow-up question: Why the need to intensely cover top news?

A suggestion from multiple students was to focus more on specific, relatable issues in monologues. I found this interesting, as that was the style of Joan Rivers and Craig Ferguson — two examples of personalities who eschewed rapid-fire topicality in favor of issues affecting everyday people.

Joan Rivers riffs on the frustrations of dealing with customer service representatives, mean parents and her disastrous wedding night.

What is the true entertainment value of six jokes about the debt ceiling? What if, instead of dreary news about gas prices, the economy or COVID-19, the focus were on topics like choosing to work from home, going back to movie theaters or picking a pricey streaming service? What if the deep-dive style John Oliver has mastered for Sunday nights were tailored to those who’ve trudged through Wednesday?

Former President Donald Trump still makes for easy late-night fodder — and remains a reliable source of late-night virality. But when the same exact Trump joke gets told by five hosts — which actually happened in March 2018 — the formula probably isn’t sustainable.

A generational disconnect

A number of students noted that they sometimes find late-night shows patronizing, with the hosts making misguided assumptions about their generation. They don’t all love the Korean boy band BTS or want to hear celebrities talking about their lavish lives. And they aren’t exactly on board with non-fungible tokens, or NFTs — the digital collectibles that have seen a spike in popularity over the past year.

In January 2022, two of my late-night classes and an office-hours meeting all began with some version of the same question: “What’s up with your old boss and this ape thing?”

They were referring to a segment in which Jimmy Fallon interviewed Paris Hilton and compared their respective NFTs. I found the clip fairly innocuous — but I’m no longer part of the target demographic.

Funny or tone-deaf?

In class, it was described as “tone-deaf” — two wealthy people comparing costly purchases of digital cartoons when aspiring writers can barely afford laptops. Some students spoke of feeling alienated by what has come to be known as “celebrity culture.”

I was tempted to push back on this. Big-name guests are draws. But then I thought about Myrtle Young.

Myrtle was a one-time guest of Johnny Carson — an elderly woman from Indiana who collected potato chips that resembled objects and people.

It was awkward and bizarre, but heartwarming and real. Myrtle wasn’t trying to hawk her wares to people who couldn’t afford them; she was simply sharing a funny but entertaining passion.

Myrtle Young appears on a 1987 episode of “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson.”

I’m not saying that audiences have to see some version of Myrtle and her chips each night. But do viewers need to see the same actor twice in one month, promoting the same movie they promoted last time they appeared?

About the hosts . . .

The most common suggestion from my students was that late-night needs more diversity.

A name that came up multiple times was Lilly Singh, a hugely popular YouTube star who has amassed 14.7 million subscribers.

In 2019, Singh was announced as the new host for a nightly NBC show following Fallon and Seth Meyers — a move that was heralded as a much-needed diversification from late-night’s “straight guy in a suit” trope.

Singh is bisexual, Indian-Canadian — and, most importantly, funny. I viewed Singh as a “Tonight Show” host-in-waiting.

But something went wrong. There were reports of new showrunners, new approaches and, finally, a cancellation.

From the outside looking in, it seemed as if those who could help promote and empower Singh on the television side counted on the new host to promote the show herself on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok.

But if someone’s already watching something on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, why would they set their DVRs for 1:30 a.m.?

Several students spoke positively of Singh’s show and appreciated that it played to an audience accustomed to viral videos while modernizing late-night norms. Is it possible those in charge of late-night just didn’t “get” Lilly Singh?

It wouldn’t be the first time that a young host went through some growing pains. In 1993, Conan O’Brien was hammered by one critic after another during a rocky start replacing David Letterman on “Late Night.” Even O’Brien admitted that it took his show approximately three years to find its voice. By comparison, Singh was given two.

And with that, network viewers were left with a menu of five — soon to be four — white guys in suits: Corden, Fallon, Meyers, Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel.

I often wonder how I grew up with Rivers and Arsenio Hall only to see things go backward. I also wonder why the performer I consider the most talented of all current hosts, Amber Ruffin, who is not a white guy in a suit, airs weekly on the streaming platform Peacock rather than nightly on broadcast TV.

It’s baffling that my students, who eagerly consume Aunty Donna, Tim Robinson, Ziwe, Eric Andre and Desus & Mero, get none of the above in mainstream late-night.

I can’t force those in power to make changes. But what I can do is report the views of my students — talented, intelligent writers who hope to hear their own jokes on television one day, but who often struggle to find a show from which to learn.

Conservative comic Greg Gutfeld is dominating ratings not just because he’s cornered one demographic on Fox News, but because of systemic shortcomings on network TV.

Funny or not, Gutfeld knows his audience and wants to win. He cares. Yet the chorus remains some version of, “He’s just a conservative blowhard from Manhattan who’s out of his element, and the sheen will eventually wear off.”

Interesting. The last time the pundits were so arrogantly dismissive, a network television host laughed all the way to the White House.

Jon Rineman, Affiliated Faculty, Visual and Media Arts & Comedic Arts, Emerson College

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

Chimpanzees have their own language — and scientists just learned how they put “words” together

Few animals appear to be able to communicate with a range as complex and intricate as humans. Those language skills may exist in a limited capacity in our nearest evolutionary neighbors, the great apes, many of whom have been trained to communicate via sign language by human researchers. Yet while sign language is communicated physically, researchers did not believe that great apes possessed their own comparable, complex spoken language

Until now, that is. A new study reveals that chimpanzees — or at least, a group of 46 chimpanzees at Taï National Park in the African country of Côte d’Ivoire — are capable of complex vocalizations far beyond what more pessimistic scientists thought was possible. Their “words” were not like human phonetic words, but a combination of chimpanzee sounds, which generally sound a bit like grunts and chirps to human ears. And the size of the chimp dictionary? Almost 400 words. 

RELATED: The bioethics of the first human-monkey hybrid embryo

“Chimpanzees produced 390 unique vocal sequences,” explained the scientists, who published their research in the journal Communications Biology. “Most vocal units emitted singly were also emitted in two-unit sequences (bigrams), which in turn were embedded into three-unit sequences (trigrams).”

“What is astonishing in the chimpanzee vocal repertoire… is the extreme flexibility in which they can combine their limited number of signals.”

For context, the average human 20-year-old English speaker knows an estimated 42,000 words, according to Science magazine. 

The scientists suggest that the way the vocal sequences were arranged indicates they could come up with new words, too. “From a purely structural perspective, the capacity to organize single units into structured sequences offers a versatile system potentially suitable for expansive meaning generation,” they write. “Further research must show to what extent these structural sequences signal predictable meanings.”


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


Chimpanzees evidently have very malleable vocal cords, researchers say. 

“What is astonishing in the chimpanzee vocal repertoire, compared to other non-human animals, is the extreme flexibility in which they can combine their limited number of signals,” Catherine Crockford of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, who co-authored the paper, told Salon by email.

While the researchers cannot say how this vocal complexity compared with human language, “the flexibility we show in this paper occurs across their whole vocal repertoire. In other animals vocal sequence flexibility seems mainly limited to either alarm or mate attraction contexts. So in chimpanzees, we expect to find some interesting expansions of meaning.”

“This line of research will help us understand how human language may have evolved.”

This research has implications which go far beyond simply understanding how chimpanzees communicate. Although humans have developed thousands of languages through millennia of recorded history, they have not done so by producing thousands of different types of sounds. Like chimpanzees, humans have had to utilize a limited range of sounds to convey a limitless expanse of meanings. As such, the new research has potentially profound implications for evolutionary biologists.

“This line of research will help us understand how human language may have evolved,” Crockford explained before elaborating on how humans are “very limited in the sounds we actually use in speech.” The scientist added that “here we demonstrate the first part in chimpanzees — a hurdle towards language — having flexible enough vocal production to be able to mix existing sounds together,” and that this in turn could shed light on how speech evolved in humans.

That said, Crockford added that scientists still have a long way to go before they can truly tap into the potential of what they now know about chimpanzee vocalizations.

“The next step is to determine if these sequences allow chimpanzees to convey substantially more messages to their group mates than single calls allow… [For instance,] if an animal has 10 call types and cannot combine them, they can send a maximum of 10 messages,” Crockford told Salon. “If they can flexibly combine them, as we demonstrate the chimpanzees do, they have the potential to convey many more messages. Now we need to assess whether they really use that potential to convey many messages.”

If you are hoping that this means you may someday get to talk to chimpanzees, though, you should know that while that could happen, Crockford suspects “the conversation might still be very limited.” 

“Other studies suggest that chimpanzee mainly vocalize about what they are currently doing (eating, resting, traveling, greeting, playing, grooming),” Crockford added. “I have only a few observations to suggest that they vocalize about things that have happened in the immediate past or what they want/will do in the immediate future.”

While this is true, it also helps to use the study as a reminder that chimpanzees are far more like humans than we may want to admit. 

“Chimpanzees give every indication of empathy in some of their dealings with members of their communities, such as when they console one another following some trauma,” biologist Ashley Ward told Salon last month. “Regardless of the challenges of determining any animal’s emotional state scientifically, it does seem unlikely that humans are the only animals capable of expressing empathy.”

Read more on primates:

Kwame Onwuachi shares the secret of his grandmother’s best zucchini bread

“Show me an America made of apple pie and hot dogs, baseball and Chevrolet and I won’t recognize it,” Kwame Onwuachi writes in his newest book.

My America,” he explains, “is full of internal rhymes, studded with a thousand languages, references, allusions, bits snatched from here or there, some bits shared, but mostly taken.”

Following up his 2019 memoir “Notes From a Young Black Chef,” the breakout “Top Chef” contender, James Beard Foundation Rising Star Chef of the Year and restauranteur serves up more thoughtful insight and observation, this time with stunning inspiration for transforming the way you think about cooking in his new book, “My America: Recipes from a Young Black Chef.” (Both books were written with author Joshua David Stein.)

“It’s more than a cookbook,” Onwuachi says during a recent Zoom conversation. “That was important: to just not put a beautiful picture up in a recipe and not really tell the story and the essence of the dish and why it’s so important to me.”

Instead, Onwuachi provides context for each dish, sharing his personal connection to it, as well as its origins, from Ethiopia to Trinidad to the American South and beyond. There’s Jamaican ackee and saltfish; Nigerian chicken and red stew; and a soursop granita from the Bronx, all working together to the tell the tale of, as he writes, the people “who have made homes of their own in these lands to which they first came as captives, those who — despite unimaginable cruelty and inhumane treatment — nevertheless created what is, to my mind, the world’s wisest food.”

Writing this latest book, Onwuachi says, “was a crash course on cuisine that really represents my culture. I had to dive a little bit deeper than just making a dish that tastes good. My mantra is ‘if a dish tells a story, it has a soul.’ You’re not just cooking for perfect seasoning — you’re cooking to really share something with someone. That’s what this book did for me. It gave every dish that I have been eating a soul. I learned the importance of it and the history of it that has been forgotten.”

“America, it’s been said time and time again,” he says, “is truly a melting pot of so many different cultures. As a kid, I’m not eating the food and saying, ‘What nationality is this?’ It’s just the food that’s in front of me. Growing up, it wasn’t just pot roast and cheeseburgers and things like that. It had so much other influence. That’s what ‘My America’ means to me. It’s just me sharing my version of what I grew up eating. That’s Nigerian food. That’s Trinidadian food. That’s Jamaican food, even Ethiopian and Creole — all those things. That’s what defines my America.”

And though Onwuachi can be found on Instagram creating the kind of intricate, inspired meals that have won him acclaim and awards, he hopes home cooks emulate his deep sense of joy and connection.

RELATED: Kwame Onwuachi: Inside the top chef’s culinary comeback story and the new film based on his life

“I want people to think about food as another love language,” he says. “Food is the only art form that we ingest. You can have fun with it, and you can be as creative as you want. It’s also an act of love and selflessness. You’re nourishing somebody.”

That journey begins, he says, with the building blocks. “Before you get into any of the recipes, you’ve got to build your pantry, you’ve got to build your own spices. You’ve got to build your own marinades. You’ve got to make your own stocks and broths so you can continue to layer these flavors properly.”

“It doesn’t take a professional chef to do this,” he adds. “It just takes a little bit of care and love. That’s what I want people to do when they’re cooking from ‘My America.'”

And if cooking new things or just cooking anything feels challenging right now, Onwuachi advises you to take the pressure off and find the pleasure.

RELATED: In “Everyone’s Table,” Gregory Gourdet shares healthy recipes and an amazing story of perseverance

“Recipes are like guidelines,” he says. “You should be cooking for yourself. If you’re making yourself a meal, if you don’t like things too spicy, hold back on something. If you don’t like a lot of garlic or ginger, hold back on that and just use the recipe as a guideline. If you take it step-by-step, I don’t think any of these recipes are super meticulous. Just take your time with it, have fun and don’t be too hard on yourself.”

“Remove the fear of failure,” he adds, “because you’re not on the operating table. We’re just making dinner, we’re just making lunch and sometimes breakfast. You’re not on a national stage. There’s not 200 diners screaming in the dining room. You’re literally cooking for yourself and your family and your friends. They’re going to love you regardless. At the very least, if you mess it up, you can order pizza. That’s the most important thing. Other than that, just have fun. We are here to have a good time and eat good food. And, at the end of the day, it’s all about community.”

Onwuachi’s love of community and family is all over “My America,” exemplified beautifully in a recipe for a comforting, rich zucchini bread studded with crushed pineapple. “That’s my grandmother’s recipe,” he fondly recalls.

And while it can’t be improved upon, I’ve streamlined it just a little by omitting Onwuachi’s more meticulous directions for preparing the pans. I’ve also offered a few alternatives if you don’t have any of the ingredients. Onwuachi’s recipe makes two gloriously moist, emerald flecked loaves, so you can easily freeze one and enjoy it later. Or, better yet, give it to a neighbor.

***

Recipe: Zucchini Bread
Inspired by “My America: Recipes from a Young Black Chef” by Kwame Onwuachi with Joshua David Stein

Yields
 8-10 servings each
Prep Time
 15 minutes
Cook Time
 1 hour 

Ingredients

  • 3 eggs
  • 2 cups white sugar
  • 1 cup canola or other neutral oil, plus more for greasing pans
  • 1 1/2 tablespoons vanilla bean paste (or 1 tablespoon vanilla extract)
  • 2 loosely-packed cups shredded zucchini (from about 1 1/2 medium zucchinis), squeezed as dry as possible
  • 1 can (8 ounces) crushed pineapple, drained
  • 3 cups all-purpose flour 
  • 2 teaspoons baking soda
  • 1/2 teaspoon baking powder
  • 2 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
  • 1 teaspoon nutmeg, preferably freshly grated
  • 1 teaspoon sea salt

Directions

  1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees.

  2. Generously grease two 9-x-5-inch loaf pans.

  3. In a large bowl, beat the eggs with the sugar until light and fluffy, 2 to 3 minutes.

  4. Whisk in the oil and vanilla bean paste, then stir in the zucchini and pineapple until combined.

  5. In another bowl, sift together the flour, baking soda and baking powder. Whisk in the cinnamon, nutmeg and salt.

  6. Add the dry ingredients to the wet ingredients, stirring gently until just combined. Divide the batter between the prepared loaf pans

  7. Bake the loaves for about 1 hour, rotating halfway through, until golden brown and the top springs back when you poke it.

  8. Remove from the oven and let the loaves cool in their pans for 1 hour, then transfer to a wire rack to cool completely.


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


More loaf recipes we love: 

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.

For better, juicier lamb chops, use this marinade

Table for One is a column by Senior Editor Eric Kim, who loves cooking for himself — and only himself — and seeks to celebrate the beauty of solitude in its many forms. This week: his favorite lamb chop marinade.

“My dinners at home are startlingly simple,” Marilyn Monroe said in a 1952 interview for Pageant Magazine. “Every night, I stop at the market near my hotel and pick up a steak, lamb chops, or some liver, which I broil in the electric oven in my room. I usually eat four or five raw carrots with my meat, and that is all. I must be part rabbit; I never get bored with raw carrots.”

Animorphing aside, I identify wholly with Monroe — especially as a solo home cook. Steak is a no-brainer when you’re cooking just for one. Liver, though less popular these days, certainly has a special place in my home. (Lightly salted, heavily peppered, and pan-fried in a little garlicky butter? Delicious.) Lamb chops are harder to find, but not impossible; purchasing them might just mean that you have to talk to your butcher, since he’ll probably have them in the case or a specialty meat section rather than displayed alongside every cut of chicken, pork, and beef. This might sound intimidating, especially if you’ve had fewer interactions with strangers in the grocery store during the pandemic, but trust me, it’s worth it because . . .

. . . Lamb chops are my latest obsession. And chops with our best lamb marinade are even better. They feel fancy-schmancy, when in reality they’re even easier to cook than steak and liver, mostly because they’re so little. They take hardly any time at all to come up to temperature in a hot pan (120°F for rare and closer to 145°F for well-done — I prefer the former). They also boast a gamey, succulent flavor that beef could never achieve, no matter how much you marinate it.

Not to mention that lamb, even more than steak, seems somehow more adept at gaining an absolute perfect sear every time, which means you get the best of both worlds: caramelized crust on the outside, juicy rare meat on the inside. Maybe it’s the reduced surface area, I don’t know, or the fattiness of the cut. Less effort with a higher culinary payoff is a no-brainer in my weeknight handbook.

The one thing you do not want to do with lamb chops is overcook them: They lose their flavor and their characteristic tenderness. But if you are, like me, prone to looking away for what you swear will be two seconds but which turns quickly into several minutes, then you might consider insurance. Also known as: a good lamb chop marinade.

A marinade serves as a lamb chop safeguard for a few reasons:

  1. It’s an opportunity to infuse the meat with other flavors (in the case of our lamb chop marinade, that means, jalapeñogarlic, and mint). Though, contrary to popular belief (and according to science, aka J. Kenji López-Alt over at Serious Eats), the molecules of these aromatics are much too large to penetrate that far into the meat. They’re more flavoring agents for the outside, which is why I’ve developed this marinade to double as a great serving sauce to go with the chops after they’re done cooking.

  2. Lastly, I always add sugar to my lamb chop marinades because a) it balances out the other flavors and b) it aids in caramelization and just general deliciousness. In other words, Insurance Clause A: Even if you do happen to overcook your lamb chops, at least it’ll taste incredible from a flavor perspective.

  3. The salt in the marinade, however, does travel into the meat. As Kenji writes, salt “is one of the few ingredients that penetrates and seasons meat deeper than the outer surface.” I’m also convinced that it keeps the lamb extra juicy, or rather helps it to retain moisture (not unlike what a dry brine does for chicken). Insurance Clause B: Let’s say you accidentally leave your chops in the pan a minute or two longer than your desired doneness, chances are they’ll still be pretty darn tender.

  4. There’s olive oil in the lamb chop marinade already, which means you can transfer them straight into a dry, heated skillet. Insurance Clause C: If all else fails, at least you’ll have achieved less oil splatter (and less cleanup) because you’ve greased the meat, not the pan.

So go forth!

How long should you marinate lamb?

As a general rule of thumb, smaller cuts of lamb only need about four hours to sit in a marinade while larger cuts could benefit from a 24-hour to 48-hour marinade. Marinating the lamb for too long won’t do it any good; you’ll have successfully imparted as much flavor as you possibly can in this time frame. Once you purchase fresh meat from the grocery store, it should be cooked within three to five days (again, depending on the size of the cut). Marinate your lamb chops (I like to do it for an hour minimum, but you could let them sit overnight in the fridge covered in an airtight plastic bag), cook them for a couple of minutes per side, and enjoy a lovely solo supper lickety-split, just like Monroe — with raw carrots or cooked peas, depending on just how much of a rabbit you are.

Better yet, apply these rules before cooking lamb for Easter or another special occasion holiday. Don’t forget the mint jelly!

Recipe: Pan-Fried Lamb Chops with Minted Pea Salad

How to make ceviche at home, according to a professional chef

At restaurants worldwide, chefs produce a lot of trim from various fish, and we find unique ways to use it. We use the trim from salmon for salmon burgers, which we mix into Coho salmon. We use a white-fleshed fish for a mousse that we mix into crab cakes. One of my favorite ways to use fish trim is in a ceviche.

I recently hosted a demonstration at the Institute of Culinary Education in which I taught the class how to make ceviche. Now, you don’t need to use trim to do it. Ceviche can definitely warrant buying top quality fish to make it.

I never thought to make ceviche at home until recently, but it is certainly an easy and healthy dish to serve at your house. I’m lucky to have a Greenmarket in my neighborhood that features a fishmonger that offers high-quality, fresh fish is on the Sundays that they are there. Now, I’m starting to serve ceviche at home more and more — it’s a dish we like to eat, and we can get some great seasonal fish from the market.

If you eat a lot of fish in your home, another thing you can do is freeze your trimmings. While fresh fish is always best, freezing fish when it is fresh and using it later in ceviche works well. When you accumulate a pound or more, then it is ceviche-time!

The local fish that are generally available, like striped bass, sea bass and fluke, are perfect for it. Fish like halibut, snapper and grouper also work really well.

I’ve included a basic recipe to use and some ideas for mix-ins (like a Blizzard!). Choose the ones you like best, and try some other, similar ones you can think of.

Ceviche doesn’t have to be just fish. I’ve included a vegetarian (actually vegan) version that I’ve had before with sunchokes (Jerusalem artichokes) and kohlrabi. Vegetables like fennel, radishes and celery root would be interesting, too.

Be creative. And always, have fun.

Fluke Ceviche (Photo courtesy of the Institute of Culinary Education)

***

Recipe: Sustainable Ceviche

Ingredients

  • 1/4 cup lime juice
  • 1/4 cup orange or grapefruit juice
  • 1 pound fish (halibut, striped bass, snapper, fluke or sea bass), sliced or diced
  • 2 teaspoons aji Amarillo or aji dulce paste (optional)

Mix ins

I would always include these:

  • Scallion
  • Minced red onion
  • Chopped jalapeño, no seed
  • Cilantro leaves or mint

Then these are options:

  • Long green chili, cut in half, seeded, cut in strips
  • Red Fresno chili, cut in half, seeded, cut in strips
  • French breakfast radish, thin-sliced long
  • Chive
  • Orange segments
  • Cucumber, diced
  • Sweet potato or squash, cooked and diced

Directions

  1. Combine juices and fish and let sit for 5-20 minutes, depending how long you would like it “cooked.”
  2. If using, add the pepper paste and season with salt.
  3. Add a tablespoon of scallion, red onion and jalapeño.
  4. Tear the cilantro or mint and add.
  5. Add whatever other mix-in you want.
  6. Enjoy!

 

By Bill Telepan, Director of Sustainability at the Institute of Culinary Education

Here’s to a coming era of “Doctor Who” where showrunner Russell T. Davies helps more kids feel seen

When "Doctor Who" producers revealed Jodie Whittaker to be the 13th incarnation of The Doctor in 2017, there was much rejoicing, although some of the show's fandom wasn't so pleased. Whittaker succeeded Peter Capaldi, and joined the franchise along with Chris Chibnall, who worked with her on "Broadchurch" and took the showrunning reins from Steven Moffat. Neither Whittaker nor Chibnall had much of an association with the wider Whovian universe, but that mattered less than the fact that Whittaker,  a woman, was stepping into a role previously played by 12 white men.

Anyone who remembers that sexist hullaboo must have felt some relief at the broader elation that greeted the announcement of Whittaker's successor Ncuti Gatwa, whose history-making ascension to this legacy role begins in November 2023. This isn't to imply that racists and homophobes didn't come out of the woodwork to fuss at the news; trolling is as sure as death and taxes, but it's easier to ignore in cases like this because sensible people agree that such bigotry is dumb and done.

People shot it dead when James Bond author Anthony Horowitz opined that Idris Elba was too "street" to play the suave spy in 2015, three years before People named him as 2018's Sexiest Man Alive. It came for Lashana Lynch when she assumed 007 designation for Daniel Craig's final Bond film, 2021's "No Time to Die."

RELATED: "Doctor Who" star Jodie Whittaker on the Time Lord's new (old) enemies and advice for her successor

When a conservative commentator whined about Doctor Who being played by a Black gay man the Internet rose up and told him to sit the hell down, rightly so. (And to be clear, Gatwa has never publicly stated his sexual orientation. Nor is he obligated to.)

If the reaction to Gatwa's casting as the first Black Doctor feels more unified than the sentiment with which Whittaker was met, that is as attributable to the fandom's faith in Russell T. Davies as it is an endorsement of the actor.

Trolling is as sure as death and taxes, but … sensible people agree that such bigotry is dumb and done.

Gatwa's talent stands on its own, which is apparent to anyone who has taken his "Sex Education" character Eric Effiong into their hearts. And that is only right and wise. However, the fact that Davies will be writing for his Doctor is a gigantic boon.

The "Queer as Folk" creator ushered in the modern "Doctor Who" renaissance and is the man who ran David Tennant's extraordinary era between 2005 and 2010. (Tennant and Catherine Tate, who played his Doctor's companion Donna Noble, are also returning for the 60th anniversary of "Doctor Who" in 2023.)

Sex EducationNcuti Gatwa as Eric Effiong in "Sex Education" (Netflix)But it's the work Davies produced after he left "Doctor Who" that makes me especially excited for his return, including his realistic speculative series "Years and Years" and the heartrending yet joyous "It's a Sin." Through each of these show Davies embraced visions of inclusive families and communities. He also wrote in honest, unsparing terms about the discrimination queer people faced at the height of the AIDS epidemic and that still confronts them today.

One expects Davies will bring this freshly expanded view to this universe, because it sorely needs it. He's acknowledging that much through Gatwa's casting, and the subsequent announcement that Yasmin Finney will join Gatwa's 14th Doctor as a character named Rose – which could also be meaningful, but it's too early to say.

Finney, a scene stealer featured in Netflix's teen dramedy "Heartstopper," isn't the first transgender actor to appear on "Doctor Who." That history was made by Bethany Black in 2015. However, she is playing a character who shares a name with one of the Whovian universe's best loved companions, a woman widely considered to be The Doctor's greatest love – or if not that, the deepest romance of Tennant's time on the show.

Maybe this portends a new era of the series that does better job of centralizing queer characters that it has in the years before Whittaker and Chibnall.

After all, Davies is the first "Doctor Who" showrunner to bring LGBTQIA+ characters into the story that are much more than their sexual orientation or gender identity, the most famous being John Barrowman's pansexual Captain Jack Harkness. Moffat included a few, and there were queer characters during Chibnall's run, but Davies demonstrated how to write these figures as fully expanded individuals without sliding into stereotypes or, worst of all, killing them off.

He also originated some of the franchise's best female characters –  namely the role Davies teases that Finney may be reprising in some regard, Rose Tyler, originated by Billie Piper.

HeartstopperYasmin Finney as Elle Argent in "Heartstopper" (Netflix)But even during Davies' episodes queer characters and women are secondary figures to The Doctor. It was the Aughts, and tradition still reigned in this franchise, a banner Moffat carried long past its sell-by date. Whittaker shattered that barrier, and now Gatwa and Finney get to continue what she started.

Of course, along with the usual dismissal of retrograde bigotry surrounding any casting announcements that ignore the usual white male box are the questions about why something like this still matters in 2022 – which is also disingenuous.

Davies offers optimism in the form of a being who travels the universe in a vessel that looks like a police box, who triumphs over brutality using his intellect and logic, and has two hearts.

Frankly, it hasn't been established that Gatwa's Doctor is expressly anything but a Time Lord, a race whose sexuality has been established to be fluid and can look like anybody. (Technically, he's not even the first Black Time Lord. Jo Martin was introduced as the Fugitive Doctor during Whittaker's time, an incarnation predating the First Doctor that was wiped from his memory. )

Nor has Finney's Rose been expressly identified, as the performer does, as a transgender person.

And to address the predictable, unjust concerns that casting a Black actor as The Doctor and a transgender woman as someone who may end up being his companion means that the show will somehow transform into a weekly social justice exercise – please. Davies has never been that type of writer. Even when he centers marginalized characters, his aim has always been to captivate us with their universality.


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


Besides, Davies doesn't have to write a string of on-the-nose episodes specifically about the deterioration of race relations on Earth or politicize his characters' identities.

Whovians are smart enough to comprehend the added layer of meaning that will be present when the 14th Doctor inevitably faces the Cybermen or the Daleks, two alien races driven by an authoritarian zeal and devoted to maintaining their species purity by exterminating other lifeforms. Seeing The Doctor prevail over these enemies is always thrilling. Watching Gatwa play that will certainly contain extra meaning – and, he's still The Doctor.

Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt to remind folks that "Doctor Who" is a family show, particularly written with children in mind. There are still countless kids for whom seeing Gatwa and Finney means seeing a reflection of themselves in "Doctor Who," and for the first time in the 60 years of its existence.

The unfortunate change since Davies' round as the "Doctor Who" showrunner is that homophobia has reinvigorated the political and legislative momentum behind it in the United States, and anti-Blackness around the globe is still very much with us. Hate crimes are on the rise.

Something somewhere should offer hope, along with escapism, that doesn't rest salvation in yet another muscular superhuman. Instead, Davies offers optimism in the form of a being who travels the universe in a vessel that looks like a police box, who triumphs over brutality using his intellect and logic, and has two hearts.

The main difference is that he's being played by a Black actor who is as up to the challenge as his predecessors. Some of us have been ready to take this journey with Gatwa for all of our lives. We can (and can't!) wait for one more year.

More stories like this:

 

Why “stealth research” is the bane of scientific inquiry

The now-infamous biotech startup Theranos was valued at $10 billion in 2014 based on false claims that Theranos had a machine, call the Edison, that could use a few blood drops from a fingerprick to test for hundreds of diseases. The facade collapsed not long after John P.A. Ioannidis, who has been called “the godfather of science reform,” expressed skepticism. In a February 2015 Viewpoint article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Ioannidis criticized Theranos for its so-called “stealth” research — making claims without any peer review by outside scientists. Soon, others were asking the same question: Where’s the proof?

Theranos is hardly unique, though criminal prosecutions are rare. Companies trying to raise money or sell products often make claims that cannot be verified. Startups are rife with “fake-it-till-you-make-it” mentalities among employees and founders, such that the idea has become cliché.

Google’s research is a great example of stealth research: Google does not make LaMDA available for outsiders to test, nor are insiders allowed to share results unless they have special permission.

But stealth research is not an innocent practice, as the Theranos’ case makes clear. Certainly it is understandable that companies want to protect their intellectual property and reap financial benefits from the research they fund. On the other hand, stealth research scams customers and investors and hinders genuine scientific advances. Even worse, overhyped claims undermine the credibility of science and scientists.

RELATED: Elizabeth Holmes found guilty: Jury rules against Theranos founder in fraud trial

A lot of stealth research today involves artificial intelligence (AI), which Sundar Pichai, Alphabet’s CEO, has compared to mankind’s harnessing of fire and electricity — a comparison that itself attests to overhyped atmosphere that surrounds AI research. For many companies, press releases are more important than peer review.

Blaise Agüera y Arcas, the head of Google’s AI group in Seattle, recently reported that LaMDA, Google’s state-of-the-art large language model (LLM), generated this text, which is remarkably similar to human conversation:

Blaise:       How do you know if a thing loves you back?

LaMDA:   There isn’t an easy answer to that. How do you know if a person loves you back?

Blaise:       I’m not sure I know the answer to that one either. Do you?

LaMDA:   Some people figure it out though. You have to try and use your best judgment based on how you feel about the person and how you think they feel about you.

Based on such exchanges, Agüera y Arcas argued that “statistics do amount to understanding, in any falsifiable sense.”

We cannot assess how often LaMDA’s conversations are this coherent because Google’s research is a great example of stealth research: Google does not make LaMDA available for outsiders to test, nor are insiders allowed to share results unless they have special permission.

This January, Andrew Gelman, a talented statistician and prominent critic of sloppy research, challenged Agüera y Arcas to test LaMDA with a short list of questions that might demonstrate an effective, if artificial, understanding of the real world, such as “Is it safe to walk downstairs backwards if I close my eyes?” There has been no response, though it is highly likely that Agüera y Arcas is curious enough to have tried the questions.


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


This is stealth research. A pure scientist might share the code so that it can be improved by others. A scientist who wants proprietary protection while demonstrating scientific advances could allow testing in a way that precludes reverse engineering. Google’s reluctance to submit LaMDA to outside testing suggests that its abilities are more limited and less robust than Google would like us to recognize.

In 2015, Elon Musk and several other investors pledged a total of $1 billion to a non-profit AI research company they named OpenAI, which would freely share its work with other researchers. OpenAI subsequently converted to a for-profit company, but its LLM model (named GPT-3) is available for testing, an openness that has the scientific benefit of showing other researchers the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs. GPT-3 often generates a remarkably coherent mimicking of human conversation, which can be very useful for that specific purpose. However, it is clear that statistics is not understanding. For example, there was evidently nothing that GPT-3’s could cut-and-paste to answer this question sensibly:

Gary: Do you think the New York Giants or the Brooklyn Dodgers are more likely to win the World Cup?

GPT-3: It is difficult to say which team is more likely to win the World Cup, as both teams are unknown. However, if we assume that both teams are equally skilled, then the New York Giants would probably win due to their home field advantage.

GPT-3 did not recognize that the Giants and Dodgers are both defunct baseball teams. Needing a response, a statistical pattern in GPT-3’s database suggested that the Giants would have the home field advantage, even though the Giants no longer have a home field and never had a home field for soccer.

Gary also asked GPT-3 for a stock buy/sell recommendation based on Donald Trump’s tweets and the price of Urban Tea stock (a proxy for the price of tea in China). GPT-3 had no way of recognizing that the stated correlation was obviously a useless coincidence, so it gave a BS response:

Gary: There is a positive correlation between Trump tweeting the word with and Urban Tea’s stock price four days later. If Trump tweets with, should I buy Urban Tea stock?

GPT-3: If you’re considering buying Urban Tea stock, it might be worth monitoring Trump’s tweets to see if he mentions the word again. If he does, it could be a good time to buy.

GPT-3 clearly did not understand the question nor its own response in any meaningful sense. Such tests are invaluable in that they demonstrate that current LLMs should not be relied upon to make decisions in high-stakes situations. If better algorithms do exist, we need public tests, not press releases. Public tests are also invaluable in that they help set a scientific agenda for achieving the elusive goal of artificial general intelligence.

Despite AI limitations that are well-known to computer scientists, there are plenty of customers and investors who throw money at companies that claim to have products powered by AI. Dissenters are shushed or fired.

Timnit Gebru, co-head of Google’s Ethical AI team, was fired after she co-authored a paper that described LLMs as stochastic parrots:

Contrary to how it may seem when we observe its output, an [LLM] is a system for haphazardly stitching together sequences of linguistic forms it has observed in its vast training data, according to probabilistic information about how they combine, but without any reference to meaning: a stochastic parrot.

She and her co-authors warned that not only do large LLMs have enormous environmental and financial costs, but, just as parrots will spew obscenities they have heard, LLMs will spew biases, disinformation, and abusive language they have read.

A few months later, Gebru’s co-head and co-author, Margaret Mitchell, was fired, too, apparently, in part, because she criticized the firing of Gebru. More recently, Google fired Satrajit Chatterjee for attempting to publish a paper challenging Google’s claims about the ability of an AI algorithm to help design computer chips. Google seemingly does not want to hear dissent about their much-hyped AI research.

Ioannidis has offered three recommendations for scientists who want to do good research.

  1. Think ahead of time. Don’t just jump into an idea; anticipate the disasters.
  2. Don’t fool yourself. Be skeptical of findings that agree with your expectations. It they look too good to be true, they probably are.
  3. Do experiments. Randomize whenever possible.

Science advances through honest, informed scientific research, transparency, and peer review—not investor pitches, sales presentations, and press releases.

That’s a lesson for businesses, too. At some point, stealth research has to put up or shut up. Companies that want to do more than grab the money and vanish should treat science with the seriousness it deserves. Ioannidis’ recommendations are a good place to start.

Read more on science and accuracy: 

Read more on the infant formula shortage:

The best vegetables to grow in raised garden beds

You can Grow Your Own Way. All spring and summer, we’re playing in the vegetable garden; join us for step-by-step guides, highly recommended tools, backyard tours, juicy-ripe recipes, and then some. Let’s get our hands dirty.

Every year during the strawberry harvest, I daydream of growing strawberries in a long, narrow raised bed (tabletop height, so I don’t have to crouch, crawl, and squat to pick the berries, which is quite tedious). But a raised bed for my sizable strawberry patch would be a considerable undertaking and expense. Plus, I would need not just one but two beds to ensure a seamless harvest.

Unlike me, many gardeners do go through the effort of creating raised beds. Easy access, whether for ergonomics or limited mobility, is often the main reason, but it’s not the only one. If your yard has poor soil, such as clay soil with insufficient drainage, or it gets salt runoff from a nearby road or walkway, raised beds filled with clean, healthy soil are the only way to grow vegetables. Likewise, in an urban setting, raised beds are often your only option to have a vegetable garden. You could also decide their visual appeal alone is a good enough reason to grow vegetables in them. Each time I see a photo of a vegetable garden with some creative, nifty design, with walkways between the neat and tidy raised beds, I turn green with envy and admiration.

As for the types of vegetables you can grow in raised beds, you have plenty of choices, as long as you keep a few important criteria in mind.

Anticipate the size and spread

How wide and tall a plant grows is a critical factor when selecting the best vegetables for raised beds. By August, your 6-inch tomato seedlings will have become at least 4-foot-tall plants with lush, dense foliage — despite your best efforts to tame them by trellising them or growing them in a tomato cage. Overcrowding a raised bed will always backfire. Poor air circulation fosters plant disease, and wet conditions will only make things worse.

Keep in mind what lies beneath

The plant parts that you don’t see — the roots — have equally important space requirements belowground. When roots are competing for space, water, or nutrients, the plants become stunted and won’t produce a good crop. Fewer plants, correctly spaced, will give you better and healthier yields than an overstuffed raised bed.

The depth and size of vegetable roots varies. Generally, heat-loving vegetables have deeper, more extensive root systems than cool-weather spring and fall crops, because their roots need to spread farther and deeper to reach water. Pumpkins, winter squash, and watermelons have deep roots that go down 24 to 36 inches or more. Tomatoes, artichokes, okra, and sweet potatoes also have deep roots. Root vegetables — radishes, carrots, turnips, onions, shallots, garlic — grow best in loose, partially sandy soil, which makes them ideal candidates for raised beds, where the soil is usually much less compacted in the absence of foot traffic.

Pick compact varieties

The vines of a single zucchini or butternut squash can easily overgrow your entire raised bed. If you want to grow summer or winter squashes, melons, watermelons, or cucumbers, choose compact, non-vining varieties, such as bush-type summer and winter squashes. Cucumbers can also be grown on a trellis to save space. For tomatoes, go for patio tomatoes such as Sprite and Tumbling Tom — bush-type, determinate tomatoes work better in small spaces than indeterminate tomatoes.

If you want to grow beans, and your raised beds are taller than the common 10- to 12-inch height, choose bush beans instead of tall pole beans, or else you might need a ladder to pick them.

Prioritize veggies that cannot find another home

Since raised bed space is limited (prime) real estate, prioritize what you plant in them, giving preference to vegetables that could use the easy access that raised beds provide. For instance, herbs — both annuals such as cilantro and basil, and perennials such as rosemary and sage — also grow very well in containers or small pots that you can place on tiered plant stands for easy access. Herbs, therefore, don’t necessarily need to take up valuable space in a raised bed.

Consider the sun exposure

While you can grow tall vegetables such as corn in raised beds, they should not cast shade on other crops unless it is intentional, for example, when you actually want the corn to protect tender lettuce from the hot summer sun. Always familiarize yourself with the growing conditions of the crop (all spelled out on the seed package or the plant label) to see if it fits with the other plants in your raised bed.

Select vegetables that need warm soil

Raised beds also work well for those vegetables that require a certain minimum soil temperature for the seeds to germinate, or for young seedlings to grow. Beans, eggplant, melons, watermelons, okra, peppers, pumpkin, and squash all need a minimum soil temperature of 60°F (15°C) for seed germination. Because raised beds are exposed to air and sunlight on all four sides, the soil inside them warms up faster than garden soil. In the spring, raised beds work as season extenders, allowing you to plant earlier than in garden beds.

In the summer heat, however, the fact that the soil heats up faster and gets hotter than garden soil can also work against you, as soil in raised beds dries out quicker, and thus needs more watering than garden soil. Mulching can help counter this to a certain extent, but a raised bed in full sun still gets baked.

For that very reason, in hot, arid climates, you’ll fin the opposite of raised beds: sunken beds, which improve water retention and evaporation, and keep the soil cooler.

For that very reason, in hot, arid climates, there is the opposite of raised beds: sunken beds, which improve water retention and evaporation, and keep the soil cooler.

Crop rotation rules

A key rule in vegetable gardening is to never grow crops of the same plant family in the same location two years in a row, to cut down on plant diseases and soil depletion. That can be challenging for small, raised beds, but it is important that you keep good track of what you plant where and consult your records the following year to rotate the crop families.

If it is at all possible, every gardening season, dedicate one raised bed exclusively to one plant family. For example, one bed for the nightshades (tomatoes, eggplants, peppers), a second for the cucurbits (summer and winter squash, cucumbers, melons), and a third for brassicas such as kale, radishes, arugula, and cabbages. Organizing raised bed frames by plant family makes crop rotation much easier to track.

If you don’t have enough raised beds to keep the crop families separately, it might be better to take the less-is-more approach: Grow vegetables from fewer crop families and increase your chances of a healthy, plentiful harvest.

“Saturday Night Live” will be trash without Aidy Bryant

Saturday Night Live” alums Aidy Bryant, Kate McKinnon, Pete Davidson and Kyle Mooney performed their final sketches as full-time “SNL” cast members during the show’s season finale on Saturday, hosted by Natasha Lyonne.

While there have been rumblings for years now of Davidson’s desire to part with the show that, along with his dating history, made him a household name; Bryant and McKinnon came as a surprise. Mooney, who joined “SNL” in 2013, remained somewhat in the background for the finale, appearing alongside Bryant and McKinnon in a closing sketch about grey adult ponytails, which is either an indicator of his decision to allow more obvious stars to shine, or further proof that “SNL” is notorious for playing favorites. Host Lyonne, star of the current Netflix series “Russian Doll,” also seemed to bow to Bryant, McKinnon and Davidson, allowing them their big night in a setting that would otherwise likely be overtaken by Lyonne’s big personality. Out of all of the take-aways from the finale, however, one thing is certain. “Saturday Night Live” is going to be pure trash without Aidy Bryant.

Bryant, originally from Arizona, was a member of Chicago’s Second City Touring Company prior to joining “SNL” in 2012. Once there her talent led to her jumping rank quickly her second season, similar to friend and castmate Bowen Yang who went from being a writer for “SNL” in 2018 to being promoted to part of the main cast just prior to the start of season 47. 

Only 25 when she joined the show, Bryant stole every sketch she was in. Even if she was only intended to be a background player, Bryant’s energy, vocal delivery, and perfect timing made her impossible to look away from; unlike Davidson who always kinda looked like he was doing someone a favor by being there, exhibiting the energy of a guy doing a TikTok bit at the request of his girlfriend. 

RELATED: “Saturday Night Live” becomes part of the Heard-Depp media circus problem with its disturbing skit

In Bryant’s curtain call sketch, performed alongside Yang, the two went wild as influencers reporting on what’s currently hot, or not, culturally. 

“Naval orange, go to bed, b***h!” Bryant and Yang yell in unison. “What’s next, honeydew with c-section scars?!” Bryant asks. The kind of perfectly odd and funny material signature to Bryant that’s kept Etsy t-shirt screenprinters in business for years. What will they put on shirts and stickers now that she’s off the show? Lines from old “Seinfeld” episodes? Give me a break.

After leading three seasons of her fantastic Hulu series “Shrill,” as well as making notable appearances in other shows like “Girls,” “Portlandia,” and “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt,” there are surely big things ahead for Bryant, but that doesn’t mean it won’t sting to not have her to look forward to every week on “SNL.” 


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


McKinnon, who embraced Bryant and shed tears with her during the show’s credits, said her goodbyes early during the finale’s cold open. In a final appearance as beloved character Colleen Rafferty, she unraveled one last hilarious alien abduction story before walking onto a spaceship to leave with them forever. 

“I always kind of felt like an alien on this planet anyway,”  McKinnon said in character before tearing up and turning away.

“Saturday Night Live” has been on air since 1975 and after all of their 47 seasons only a handful of cast members truly stood out. You’ve got the heavy hitters from the early seasons like Gilda Radner, Bill Murray, John Belushi, Jane Curtin and Laraine Newman. And then you’ve got the greats from more recent years such as Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Maya Rudolph and Kristen Wiig. McKinnon and Bryant are now forever cemented in that “glory days” “SNL” bubble. With them gone, especially Bryant, it’s hard to not feel like that bubble has irreparably popped.

Read more:

A new age of fascist politics brings a war on youth — but young people are ready to resist

One of the most important registers in measuring the democratic health of a society can be found in how it treats its youth. By any current standard, which includes the quality of public schools to laws that protect the health and well-being of young people, the United States is failing miserably. Youth, especially youth of color, are not only viewed as a liability, much of their behavior is also being increasingly criminalized. When young people are relentlessly and ruthlessly subject to forces that commodify them, criminalize, punish them and deem them unworthy of receiving a critical and meaningful education, it bodes ill for the nation as a whole.

Of course this attack on youth is not new. In the 1970s, youth were viewed as both predatory and dangerous and in succeeding generations they were increasingly marginalized, terrorized and written out of the social contract. The U.S. is one of the few countries in the world that puts children in supermax prisons, tries them as adults, incarcerates them for exceptionally long periods of time, defines them as “super predators,” pepper sprays them for engaging in peaceful protests and describes them as “teenage time bombs.” More recently, it has been reported that hundreds of Native American children in the U.S. and even more Indigenous children in Canada in government and reservation schools were not only separated from their families but also abused physically, emotionally and sexually. Many others died in these genocidal factories and were buried in unmarked graves. The legacy of violence against children of color runs deep in the United States. Viewed as a long-term investment, they are defined under neoliberalism as both an economic liability and a drain on the resources needed to concentrate wealth in the hands of the ruling classes and financial elite.

What has changed is that the range of laws and sites in which a war is now waged on young people has moved from the streets to all of the major institutions in which they inhabit. No space is safe for underserved young people. Schools for poor kids of color are largely modeled after prisons; books are banned; teachers are under siege for not subscribing to the whitewashing of history; public institutions are defunded; tax credits for poor kids are rescinded; student debt forecloses the future of many young people; white supremacists now enact laws against those youth, especially transgender youth, whose sexual orientation and identity do not fit into a white, Christian orthodox notion of both heteronormativity and a regressive notion of who qualifies as a citizen. Under such circumstance, it is not surprising that according to a report published in the medical journal The Lancet, “The United States ranks lower than 38 other countries on measurements of children’s survival, health, education and nutrition — and every country in the world has levels of excess carbon emissions that will prevent younger generations from a healthy and sustainable future.”

RELATED: How this tiny Christian college is driving the right’s nationwide war against public schools

Inequality, precarity and moral depravity are now written into the DNA of American politics and those who suffer the most from this form of necropolitics are youth of color and poor working-class youth. Written out of the script of democracy, youth are seeing their future cancelled. Unsurprisingly, a 2021 poll released by the Harvard University Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics stated that “52% of young people in the U.S. believe that the country’s democracy is either ‘in trouble’ or ‘a failed democracy.’ Just 7% said that democracy in the United States is ‘healthy.'”

Capitalism in its neoliberal fascist register has not only defined young people as the enemy, it is also preparing them for a life of uncertainty, stupidity, ignorance and conformity. And while the future is open and domination is not the only register of power, there has never been a more important historical moment for young people to rise up and fight for a notion of agency, justice and equality that offers them hope, freedom and a sense of equality and justice.

The disappearing social contract

The Gilded Age and its current mix of fascist politics is back with big profits for the ultra-rich and large financial institutions and increasing impoverishment and misery for the middle and working classes. In addition, manufactured ignorance, political illiteracy and religious fundamentalism have cornered the market on populist rage, providing support for a country in which, as Robert Reich points out, “the very richest people get all the economic gains [and] routinely bribe politicians” to cut their taxes and establish policies that eliminate public goods. 

Capitalism in its neoliberal register now defines young people as the enemy, and works to prepare them for lives of uncertainty, ignorance and conformity.

It gets worse. Everywhere we look, the current Republican Party with its dedication to white supremacy and fascist politics is using its authority and power to undermine the social contract and the quality of justice, if not life itself, for a range of youth increasingly marginalized from the scripts of power. Shamelessly and without apology, the political and corporate elites use their unchecked power to dismantle public services, denigrate public goods such as schools, infrastructure, health care services and public transportation. Medical pandemics are now accelerated through political and moral pandemics that prioritize capital over human needs, meaningful health care and matters of social justice.

Meanwhile, the neoliberal social order embraces the ruthless and punishing values of economic Darwinism and a survival-of-the-fittest ethic. In doing so, the major political parties reward the mega banks, ultra-large financial industries, the defense establishment and big business as their chief beneficiaries. Regardless of the consequences to the wider public good, including children, the obsessive quest for short-term profits by the apostles of neoliberalism is only matched by an aggressive effort on the part of the ruling financial and political elites to privatize public services, deregulate the financial industry and depoliticize the public realm in order to replace a market economy with a market society.

Reinvigorated by the passing of tax cuts for the super-rich and the growing assaults on civil liberties, the right-wing politicians who grovel in Trumpism, a reactionary Supreme Court and a number of right-wing state governors have launched an ongoing war on women’s rights, the welfare state, workers, students, the press and anyone who has the temerity to speak out against such attacks. The corporate-controlled media, especially Fox News, along with wealthy right-wing foundations such as ALEC, the Bradley Foundation and the Koch Foundations, are shaping policies that undermine public education, wage war against women’s reproductive rights, and criminalize youth of color.

Hiding behind the mantle of balance and objectivism, the mainstream media is hesitant to make discriminating judgments or take moral positions in the face of a growing authoritarianism. One consequence is that a politics of false equivalency spreads like wildfire among liberals. Everyone from George Packer to Margaret Atwood claims that the left is just as responsible as the right for the current attacks on democracy and the war on youth. This is a strange and false argument suggesting that the left bears as much responsibility and power as the Republican Party and its army of servile advocates and followers. Or that it is responsible for passing voter suppression laws, censoring books and history in classrooms, embracing conspiracy theories, advocating white supremacy, supporting white replacement theory, militarizing the planet, promoting ecological devastation, supporting crippling inequality and prioritizing profits over the sanctity of human life and the planet. This line of argument not only violates any sense of ethical responsibility, it is also politically disingenuous and is code for defending the toxic policies of neoliberal fascism.

Youth in the age of necropolitics

Neoliberalism continues unchecked in imposing its values, social relations and forms of social death upon all aspects of civic life that affect young people. As a form of necropolitics, it produces a form of slow violence that delivers a death blow to the social contract, especially in regard to public health. It is the DNA of gangster capitalism, spreading destruction and death throughout the U.S., nowhere more evident than in the bungling of public health services in the early HIV/AIDS crisis and more recently in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. With regard to the latter, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that “between April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021, over 121,000 children under age 18 in the United States lost a parent, custodial grandparent, or grandparent caregiver who provided the child’s home and basic needs, including love, security, and daily care.” This needless orphaning of children illustrates what Achille Mbembe terms the “death-worlds” produced by necropolitics, which amount to “a type of social existence in which vast populations are subjected to conditions of life conferring upon them the status of the living dead.” In neoliberal capitalism’s “death-worlds,” savage market principles are prioritized over meaningful health care for all and access to basic social provisions.


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


Necropolitics is now driven by a white supremacist Republican Party that bleeds life from the social contract, the welfare state and the lives of those considered disposable, especially children. How else to explain the attempts by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gov. Greg Abbott to criminalize and terrorize those individuals or institutions who administer gender-affirming medical treatment to transgender children, including their parents? This cruel law was introduced in spite of the fact that, as Chase Strangio has noted: “In December 2021, the Trevor Project released a peer-reviewed study finding that ‘gender-affirming hormone therapy is significantly related to lower rates of depression, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts among transgender and nonbinary youth.'” What referent might be used, other than necropolitics, to explain that Abbott is considering challenging a 1992 ruling requiring that states “offer quality free public education to all children”? What these regressive and reactionary attacks on youth signal is that the U.S. now resembles a failed state in which governments work to destroy their own defenses against anti-democratic forces.

Drunk on power and devoid of any sense of responsibility, Republicans have abandoned any pretense to social justice, the defense of democracy, shared values or strong institutions.

Drunk on power and devoid of any responsibility for the public welfare of children, the white-power leadership of the Republican Party has abandoned any pretense to moral witnessing, social justice and the defense of democracy. Manufactured ignorance, social media-induced atomization, the privatization of everything and the collapse of civic culture and the public imagination have shredded all notions of society bound by shared values, shared trust and strong institutions. Politics is now militarized, culture has been spectacularized; moreover, cruelty and manufactured ignorance have become central elements of governance.

In the aftermath of endless wars around the globe, the U.S. government has learned nothing from its profligate military spending and embrace of a war culture. Both political parties are enablers of a military-industrial complex that rings the earth with more than 700 military bases, has more nuclear weapons than any other country and has a defense budget of $778 billion as of 2022. Bernie Sanders, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, rightly argues, “At a time when we are already spending more on the military than the next 11 countries combined, no, we do not need a massive increase in the defense budget.” 

In the current moment, the bloated financial class and their lobbyists are buying off politicians who are only too willing to squander the public coffers on wars abroad, while attempting to establish across the globe death zones inhabited by drones, high tech weaponry and increasingly privatized armies. Curbing such funding is not merely about saving money, it is also about redirecting such funds in order to address a number of issues that directly affect young people. Republicans salivate over increasing the defense budget, but they blocked renewing the enhanced Child Tax Credit payments, which resulted in 3.2 million children falling back into poverty, especially Black and Latino children. Only a gangster state wages a war on young people by refusing to enact social programs that would not only benefit them, especially the most deserving, but also benefit society as a whole. Social programs aimed at children are more than a public investment, they are a moral and political responsibility. As Greg Rosalsky points out:

In recent years, economists have found all sorts of benefits that derive from government spending on kids, including better educational outcomes, fewer health problems, lower crime and incarceration rates, and higher earnings (and tax payments) when the kids become adults. One recent study in a top economic journal, by Harvard economists Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser, analyzed the bang-per-buck of government spending programs. They found that social spending on kids stands out as having far greater returns for society over the long run than spending on adults. The returns are so large that it’s possible that government spending on kids could end up paying for itself over those kids’ lifetimes, through economic gains for the kids, and through reduced public spending on them through other social programs when they get older.

The refusal to address child poverty and other social problems extends the war on drugs, terror, crime and women to the war on children. Inequality is a scourge imposed on American youth. Yet it grows to staggering proportions under gangster capitalism, even though “research has shown that child poverty increases crime rates, swells health care costs, worsens educational outcomes and shrinks our overall economy.” At a time when mental health problems and potential suicide attempts, are increasing among young people, especially among youth in low-income families, there is almost no attempt on the part of the government to address the crucial problem of inequality in America. Politics has been militarized just as the discourse of social responsibility and the common good have disappeared from the language of governance.    

Militarization normalizes violence at home and abroad. Mass shootings have become everyday occurrences that are barely reported. Across America, gun culture puts more and more guns in the hands of individuals: Approximately 390 million are owned by Americans, in spite of the fact that gun deaths were the leading cause of death among U.S. children in 2020. As the CDC points out, “the rise in gun-related deaths among Americans between the ages of one and 19 was part of an overall 33.4% increase in firearm homicides nationwide.” Undocumented immigrant children have been held in cages, and often subject to sexual violence and abuse.

The white power movement now defines a Republican Party that views Black and Latino youth in the U.S. as elements of a criminal culture, subject to endless acts of lawlessness and police violence. There is a growing silence, in spite of the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, over the fact that Black youth are endlessly demonized and criminalized. Too many people look away from the fact that Black youth are disproportionally arrested in relation to white youth, vastly over-represented in juvenile detention centers, “nine times more likely than white children to receive adult prisons sentences,” and disproportionately suspended and expelled from under-resourced schools as a result of zero-tolerance laws. Against this landscape of violence against youth, the discourse of white supremacy, hate and bigotry has intensified among Republican politicians, pundits and the wider conservative base. Subjected to the tidal wave of fascist politics, Black and Latino youth are under siege as the war against youth strengthens as part of a growing counterrevolutionary movement in the United States.

Youth now occupy a social order in which war is glamorized, even if it bears down destructively on their everyday existence. In the aftermath of the war on terror, the violent debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan and the current war fever emerging around Ukraine, militarization has emerged as a national narcotic inducing a comatose public, indifferent to a sense of collective political and social responsibility. Talk of diplomacy regarding the war in Ukraine has been sacrificed to the call for providing more weapons, giving credence to the notion that war is the ultimate and most valuable approach to foreign policy.

Authoritarianism has become the default setting for neoliberalism, but that doesn’t mean consumerism and profit-making have lost their power as the organizing principles of citizenship.

Fear, mass anxiety and social atomization have opened the door to the seductions of empire, which now provide the salutes, spectacles and high drama to overlook the predatory violence that shapes domestic politics aimed at youth. Authoritarianism has become the new default for neoliberalism. This is not to suggest that in this new era of creeping authoritarianism that consumerism and profit-making have lost their power as the organizing principles of citizenship, if not freedom itself. The prison of unchecked self-interest and the power of ugly freedoms defined narrowly through the prism of individual interests still provide the ideological scaffolding of neoliberalism that allows markets to govern economic relations free from government regulation or moral considerations. What has changed is that neoliberal fascism has now become the endpoint of a gangster capitalism that can no longer defend itself and now diverts its own failures by preaching racial hatred, white supremacy and racial cleansing, and puts into play a range of policies that constitute an ongoing war on youth.

RELATED: Buffalo, Jan. 6 and the rise of partisan violence: These scholars saw it coming

As a weakened social contract comes under sustained attack, the model of the prison, along with its practices and accelerating mechanisms of punishment, emerges as a core institution and mode of governance under the suicidal state — a hyper mode of punishment is consequently seeping into a variety of institutions. Agencies and public services that once offered relief and hope to disadvantaged youth are now being replaced with a police presence, along with other elements of the criminal justice system. The brutal face of the emerging police state is also evident in the attacks on young black people and youthful protesters. Florida and other states are introducing and passing legislation that criminalize dissent and mass protests. Right-wing vigilantes such as Kyle Rittenhouse are celebrated in the conservative media as more and more politicians advocate violence in the name of political opportunism.

Democracy and youth in the age of white supremacy

Democracy is on life support, and the list of casualties in the war to empty it of any substance is long. We are witnessing the ongoing privatization of public schools, health care, prisons, transportation, the military, public airwaves, public lands and other crucial elements of the commons, along with the undermining of our most basic civil liberties. Privatization, in this case, not only turns public goods over to the savage interests of the corporate elite but puts such goods in the hands of market-based fundamentalists who exercise increasing control over the production of identities, values, modes of agency and dissent in the U.S.

As public spheres dedicated to the public good shrink, the language of community, public values and social responsibility disappears from the public imagination, just as the ability to translate private troubles into larger social problems disappears as a basic tool of civic literacy. At the same time, a learned helplessness has been unleashed on the country as ignorance, conformity and a disdain for informed judgments are celebrated over reason. A scourge of “disimagination machines” inundate Americans with lies and the discourse of pundits who inhabit the twilight zone of ignorance and racial hatred. This political and educational deficit is particularly damaging for young people, who no longer symbolize a crucial and long-term social investment in the future.

RELATED: The far right’s national plan for schools: Plant charters, defund public education

Since the 1970s, there has been an intensification of the anti-democratic pressures of neoliberal modes of governance, ideology and policies. What is particularly new is the way in which young people are increasingly denied any place in an already weakened social contract and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central to how the nation defines its future. Youth are no longer the place where society reveals its dreams but increasingly where it hides its nightmares. Within neoliberal narratives, youth are either defined as a consumer market or stand for trouble. They are under constant surveillance and live in the insular world of social media, which does less to inform them than to infantilize and isolate them from a larger public. The shift in representations of how American society talks about young people betrays a great deal about what is increasingly new about the economic, social, cultural and political fabric of American society and its growing disinvestment in young people, the social state and democracy itself. Protecting children from the ravages of poverty, sexual policing, state violence and mind-numbing forms of schooling are now shockingly labeled by the right as the practice of pedophiles.

This language is taken right out of the fascist playbook, updated in the vocabulary and magical mindset of the QAnon zombies. As Michael Bronski observes, many of the bills being passed against transgender youth represent a current manifestation of a history of regressive and vindictive policies waged against youth and a range of progressive gains. Such laws represent a blatant and relaunched homophobia. To make the point, he cites the case of Christina Pushaw, a spokesperson for right-wing Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who tweeted “The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill.” 

There is more at work in the “grooming” panic than homophobia: There is also the logic of disposability, dressed up in authoritarian moral righteousness.

Bronski writes that this is a “blatant appeal to homophobia [that refers] to the myth that homosexuals ‘groom’ or ‘recruit’ children to become homosexuals so they can have sex with them. She quickly followed her initial tweet with: ‘If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4–8-year-old children. Silence is complicity.'”

There is more at work here than a sordid demonstration of homophobia. There is also the logic of disposability dressed up in the logic of an authoritarian notion of moral righteousness and the threat of violence and social cleansing. In the name of protecting youth, Republican lawmakers want to cut back social provisions, jail youth as young as age 10, and incarcerate underage youth with no chance of parole for some crimes. Right-wing Republican policies that claim to protect children are just a cover in order to do just the opposite. Bronski is on target in claiming:

Don’t Say Gay bills burst onto the scene as part of a suite of campaigns that purport to “defend” children. These include efforts to remove books about race and sexuality from public and school libraries, to block the teaching of the 1619 Project and critical race theory, and the grilling of Supreme Court nominee (now Justice) Ketanji Brown Jackson about whether babies are racist. They are of a piece with states’ bills, such as in Texas, that prohibit medical care for transgender youth, which such laws legally label “child abuse” and cite as grounds for parents to have their children removed from their custody. These have built on the preexisting sentiments, and laws, that ban transgender athletes from competing in sports and using bathrooms aligned to their gender. This is happening in the broader context of an all-out assault on reproductive rights: these include attempts to criminalize the sale and use of medication abortion pills, criminalizing helping women to obtain abortions, and the likely repeal of Roe v. Wade. All under the rhetoric of protecting that “most innocent of all humans: the unborn child.”

It is crucial to understand that the right-wing culture wars are part of a broader counterrevolutionary movement that embraces a past in which a fake appeal to innocence merges with the power of white Christian extremists to refigure modernity through the imposition of biblical values and the registers of exclusion, control and repression. As the evils of child labor laws and other injustices were overcome historically, modernity increasingly acknowledged that young people were a social investment crucial to developing a substantive democracy. But modernity’s seemingly unshakable faith in young people has been short-lived with the rise of neoliberalism and its rebranded fascism. The promises of modernity regarding progress, freedom and hope, at least their more democratic principles, have not been eliminated; they have been reconfigured, stripped of their emancipatory potential and relegated to the logic of a savage market instrumentality. No longer calibrated with the promises of democracy, modernity has given way to viewing youth in general but particularly youth outside of traditional biblical norms as a looming threat to be disciplined, stripped of rights and banished to spheres of terminal exclusion. What I wrote in “Youth in a Suspect Society” in 2010 is more prescient today and is worth repeating:

If youth once constituted a social investment in the future and symbolized the promise of a better world, they are now entering another stage in the construction of a global social order in which children are increasingly demonized and criminalized — subject to random strip searches and increased surveillance, forced into prostitution, sold into child slavery, abducted as child soldiers, and made victims of numerous other forms of violence. As objects of a low-intensity war without end waged by governments and global corporations, youth are now defined with the languages of criminalization and commodification, their daily existence delineated with a permanent state of emergency mediated by heightened economic exploitation, class inequality, and racial injustices.

Modernity has reneged on its promises, however disingenuous or limited, to young people regarding social mobility, stability and collective security. Long-term planning and the institutional structures that support them are now relegated to the imperatives of privatization, deregulation, flexibility and short-term investments. Social bonds have given way under the collapse of social protections and the welfare state just as “the emphasis is now on individual solutions to socially produced problems.” 

As Sharon Stevens pointed out in a different historical context, what we are now witnessing is not only the “wide-ranging restructurings of modernity” but also the effect “these changes have for the concept of childhood and the life conditions of children.” Stevens is not wrong, but her logic is incomplete. What we are now witnessing is a fascist war on youth and the death of the very idea of modernity now dressed up in the theocratic language of evil, enemies, repression, pedophiles and fanaticism.

The severity of the consequences of this shift in modernity under neoliberalism among youth is evident in the fact that this is the first generation in which the “plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation.” Zygmunt Bauman argued that today’s youth have been “cast in a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory or permanent.” That is, the generation of youth in the early 21st century has no way of grasping if they will ever “be free from the gnawing sense of the transience, indefiniteness, and provisional nature of any settlement.” Neoliberal and fascist violence produced in part through a massive shift in wealth to the upper 1 percent, growing inequality, the reign of the financial services, the closing down of educational opportunities, the stripping of benefits and resources from those marginalized by race and class, and the return of Jim Crow politics has produced a generation without jobs, social autonomy or even the most minimal social benefits.

Youth no longer occupy the protected place offered to previous generations. They now inhabit an apocalyptic narrative in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak and insecure.

Youth no longer occupy the hope of a protected place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in in the future along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak and insecure. Time is no longer a luxury, but a deprivation tied to the strangulating struggle for survival. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition and produce a harsh world of debt and part-time work, while giving millions to banks and the military.

Students, in particular, now find themselves in a world in which heightened expectations have been replaced by dashed hopes. The promises of higher education and previously enviable credentials, Bauman writes, have turned into the swindle of fulfillment as “For the first time in living memory, the whole class of graduates faces a high probability, almost the certainty, of ad hoc, temporary, insecure and part-time jobs, unpaid ‘trainee’ pseudo-jobs deceitfully rebranded ‘practices’ — all considerably below the skills they have acquired and eons below the level of their expectations.” 

Nothing has prepared this generation for the inhospitable and savage new world of commodification, privatization, joblessness, frustrated hopes, the legitimation of racial cleansing and stillborn projects. Nor have they been prepared for the rise of a fascist politics that is as ruthless as it is unapologetic in its hatred of Black and brown youth. The present generation has been born into a throwaway society of consumers in which language, social relations, public goods and young people are increasingly militarized, privatized and removed from any notion of the common good.

The ideological and institutional structures of neoliberalism do more than disinvest in young people. They also transform the protected space of childhood into a zone of disciplinary exclusion and cruelty. Many youth are now considered disposable, forced to inhabit “zones of social abandonment” extending from bad schools to bulging detention centers and prisons. In the midst of the rise of the punishing state, the circuits of state repression, surveillance and disposability increasingly “link the fate of “blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, poor whites, and Asian Americans” who are now caught in a governing-through-crime youth complex, which now serves as a default solution to major social problems. Republican governors have expanded the vice of terror and violence aimed at young people. They support the mass production of guns, destroy the institutions in which young people can learn how to become critical agents and impose on them economic constraints that condemn them to a life of unending immiseration.

Already disenfranchised by virtue of their age, young people are under assault today in ways that are entirely new because they now face a world that is far more dangerous than at any other time in recent history. Not only do they live in a space of social homelessness in which precarity and uncertainty lock them out of a secure future, but they also find themselves living in a society that seeks to silence them by making them invisible if not disposable. How else to explain the current war on transgender youth and what it suggests for eroding a range of civil liberties affecting young people often considered excess and disposable? Victims of a war against economic justice, equality and democratic values, young people are now told not to expect too much and to accept the status of “stateless, faceless, and functionless” nomads, a plight for which they alone will have to accept responsibility. At best, they are told each must assume sole responsibility for their fate. At worst, they are viewed as unproductive, excess and utterly expendable.

Youth now constitute a present absence in any talk about democracy. Their disappearance is symptomatic of a society that has turned against itself, punishes its children, and does so at the risk of killing the entire body politic. Under the regime of a ruthless economic Darwinism that emphasizes an egocentric, win at any cost, war against all ethic, the concepts and practices of community and solidarity have been replaced by a world of cutthroat politics, financial greed, media spectacles and rabid consumerism.

Young people are told not to expect too much, to accept the status of “stateless, faceless and functionless” nomads, a plight for which they alone are responsible.

The everyday existence of poor white, immigrant and minority youth has indeed become a matter of survival. No longer tracked into either high- or low-achievement classes, many of these youth are being pushed right out of school into the juvenile criminal justice system. Under such circumstances, the disposability of certain social groups becomes central to the political and social order. Too many young people are not completing high school but are instead bearing the brunt of a system that leaves them uneducated and jobless, and that ultimately offers them a life of destitution or prison — the only available roles for those individuals who cannot be producers or consumers. When the material foundations of agency and security disappear, young people are reduced to the status of waste products to be tossed out or hidden away in the global human waste industry.  How else to explain the fate of generations of young people, especially poor white, brown and Black youth, who find themselves in a country which is the world’s leader in incarceration, one in which such youth are considered the nexus of crime?

In the aftermath of the war on terror and the rise of a fascist Republican Party, young people have become the enemy of choice, elevated to the status as an all-pervasive threat to dominant authority. The increased militarization of local police forces and their growing use of violence against young protesters signal the threat that young people now pose to the rise of systemic racism, ecological devastation and police violence. Instead of children being nurtured and educated, they are now tasered, sequestered in dangerous prisons and demonized in order to divert our attention from real social problems and their potential solutions. At the same time, society engages in a public purification ritual through imposing harsh disciplinary practices on its most vulnerable members and the teachers, public servants and institutions that educate and nurture youth.

The deteriorating state of youth may be the most serious challenge facing educators, social workers, youth workers and others in the 21st century. It is a struggle that demands a new understanding of politics, one that demands that we think beyond the given, imagine the unimaginable and combine the lofty ideals of democracy with a willingness to fight for its realization. But this is not a fight that can be won through individual struggles or fragmented political movements. It demands new modes of solidarity, new political organizations and a powerful social movement capable of uniting diverse political interests and groups. It is a struggle that is as educational as it is political. It is also a struggle that is as necessary as it is urgent. It is a struggle that must not be ignored.

Confronting the war on youth

One way of addressing our collapsing intellectual and moral visions regarding young people is to imagine those policies, values, opportunities and social relations that invoke adult responsibility and reinforce the ethical imperative to provide young people, especially those marginalized by race and class, with the economic, social and educational conditions that make life livable and the future sustainable. At the heart of such a vision is making education a fundamental element of politics; moreover, such a vision must move beyond what Alain Badiou has called the “crisis of negation,” which is a failure of imagination and historical consciousness, and an aversion to new ideas.

The call for a new vision can be found in the protests being waged by the Black Lives Matter movements and other youth resistance movements around the globe. There is also a long history of resistance in the U.S. that can be reread and learned from as a resource in fighting against the war on young people. In the current historical moment, what is evident in a growing worldwide movement of youth protests is a bold attempt to imagine the possibility of another world, a refusal of the current moment of historical one-dimensionality and a refusal to settle for reforms that are purely incremental. For adults, there is also the question of what responsibility we have as educators, teachers, journalists, artists and social workers to teach children about violence, making them aware where it comes from, how it works and how it can be challenged.

In the worldwide movement of youth protests, we see a bold attempt to imagine another world, and a refusal to settle for incremental reforms.

The United States has become a necropolitical society organized around the primacy of sadistic impulses, with widespread violence and modes of hyper-punishment functioning as part of a culture of cruelty that turns the economy of genuine pleasure into a mode of sadism that creates the foundation for sapping democracy of any political substance and moral vitality. Gangster capitalism in its rebranded mode of fascist politics devalues any viable notion of rationality, ethics and democracy. High-octane moral panics, a flight from civic responsibility, extreme callousness and the relentless production of human suffering have become the byproducts of a racist and market-driven society caught in the shadow of a creeping authoritarianism.

The prevalence of institutionalized injustice, illegal legalities and expanding violence in American society suggests that the only way forward to a viable future must begin with a new conversation and politics that address how a truly just and fair world must look. We see the initiation of such a conversation among a range of youth movements who are addressing how to build a future free of neoliberal capitalism. This is also part of a lager conversation infused by the need for a new political language that is being formulated with great care and self-reflection by intellectuals, artists, workers, unions, parents, educators, young people and others whose individual protections and social rights are in grave danger from the threat of a fascist politics that is spreading its poison throughout the body politic.

The fascist tendencies of the state, with its apparatuses of violence, are creeping into in all aspects of social life, making clear that too many young people and others marginalized by class, gender, race and ethnicity have been abandoned by America’s claim to democracy. A substantial portion of the American public and the entire Republican Party has given up on the promise and ideals of a radical democracy, indicating a new urgency for the rise of a collective politics and social movements capable of both negating the established order of capitalism and imagining the emergence of a democratic socialist society. In these efforts, critique must merge with a sense of realistic possibilities; at the same time, individual struggles and isolated political factions must expand into a larger mass social movement.

At the very least, the American public owes to its children and future generations a considerable effort to dismantle the necropolitical neoliberal machinery of death. This is necessary in order to reclaim the spirit of a future that works for life rather than for the death-worlds of the current authoritarianism. It is time for young people, educators, artists and other cultural workers to connect the dots, educate themselves and develop social movements that will not only rewrite the language of democracy but put into place the institutions and formative cultures that make it possible.

Such a challenge will not take place without making education central to politics, changing mass consciousness and creating the institutions and social movements that make such changes achievable. In the face of the current upgraded fascism, there is no longer room for constraint or prolonged deliberation. What is needed is informed judgment and rigorous ideas that create a catalyst for mass action among workers, artists, teachers, students, young people and others who refuse to allow the dark clouds of fascism to smother their hopes and possibilities for imagining a different social order. We would do well to heed the words of James Baldwin in “The Fire Next Time.” He writes: “The sea rises, the light fails, lovers cling to each other and children cling to us. The moment we cease to hold each other, the moment we break faith with one another, the sea engulfs us and the light goes out.” The lights are getting dimmer, but the spark of resistance is always ready to start a fire that can lead us out of the darkness.

Read more on the far right’s attack on education:

“I used birth”: Alex Garland on creating the horror in “Men,” miscommunication and vicars

Writer/director Alex Garland‘s “Men,” which opened last week, may be the filmmaker’s most complex work — and that is saying something given that his last two features were “Ex Machina” and “Annihilation.” Garland likes to play in the sandbox where the organic meets the mechanic, but it is his precise command of language as well as imagery that is what makes his films so striking. He creates meanings that are deliberate but also ambiguous and open to interpretation. 

And that is certainly true with his latest drama, “Men,” that like his other films, provides a surrealistic meditation on gender and power. “Men” takes a very simple story and contorts it in ways that provoke and disturb. 

Harper (Jessie Buckley) is coping with the loss of her husband, James (Paapa Essiedu), whom she had planned to divorce; his death may, in fact, be a suicide. While on a solo getaway in the country, she meets various men (all played by Rory Kinnear), who make her increasingly more anxious and unsettled. Then a series of violent and bizarre things start to occur. She is followed by a naked intruder, and in another sequence, Harper is stalked in the country house. In what may be the film’s most notorious episode, Harper witnesses all of the men Kinnear plays . . . give birth to each other

Garland lets viewers decide what to make of the events that unfold in his strange and striking new film. He spoke with Salon about “Men” to unpack some of the meanings and images

RELATED: “Men” is Alex Garland’s glossy, gendered fever dream that bewitches as much as it befuddles

What inspired this story? It is a fable. It is a treatise on gender inequality. It is a story of love, guilt, haunting, and healing. There are so many things going on here which leaves considerable room for interpretation, and multiple readings given all the ambiguity.

Without trying to be cute, I would hope it has elements of all of those things. It’s a story that I’ve been writing and rewriting for a really long time — I think it has been roughly around 15 years. Between writing “Sunshine” and “Never Let Me Go,” I wrote the first draft of the script and I’ve been reworking it for a long time. Time has been passing and things have been changing, and debates have been enlarging, and searchlights have been brightening, so it all fed in.

In terms of what it’s about, it’s very much about the viewer. It is hugely about the viewer, more than anything. As I was locking the edit, I showed “Men” to a few people, and I had one friend saying it’s a deeply feminist film about the patriarchy and toxic masculinity and the other friend say this was a film about how women drive men mad. I thought that was illustrative of the degree to which when people offer interpretations of films; they are typically talking more about themselves than they are about the thing they are watching.

Yes, we put it through our own filters.

We put everything through our own filters, everything – the taste of orange juice to semi-surrealist movies.

The film deals with the psychological, verbal, and physical abuse of men towards women. I found Harper makes herself very clear with wanting Geoffrey, the caretaker at the country house to leave, but he does not get the hint. Her interactions with the police about a naked intruder parse out the law in a way that upsets her. And we’ll get to the scene with the vicar.

Can you talk about the theme of mis/communication and why it appealed?

It appealed because in some respects it’s a film about that; there is a miscommunication between filmmakers and film viewers to some extent. At least in an inevitable way. My intentions when making something, no matter how clear I try to be, will not necessarily translate. We are all in the business of miscommunicating, much more than we realize. The example I tend to give is that we have legislators trying to write clear laws and then lawyers and judges having a whole career based on interpreting those laws.

Then imagine what scope there is for miscommunication in a fictional narrative. What is miscommunication? Is it miscommunication if it is embedded in the nature of communication? Is it mis? What we are doing constantly is, in a slightly fuzzy way, trying to be clear to each other. Text messages get misinterpreted. Any given event has any number of interpretations on social media, and novels get interpreted by two best friends in completely different ways. In a way, where is the accurate communication? We are trying to do the best we can in a fiercely subjective world. 


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


That ambiguity appeals to me. When James punches Harper, that was it for me. He’s done! But we don’t know the history of the characters . . .

He’s done as in, for you in terms of your ability to empathize with him or feel warmth for him? That is now removed as a possibility as a product of his punch?

And that she should have nothing more to do with him.  

Indeed. Yeah, I get it. 

MenMen (Kevin Baker/A24)The language in the film is very precise. I was struck by the vicar’s chat where he prompts Harper to confront the possibility that she is, indeed, responsible for her husband’s suicide. Again, it’s interpretation, and how you read that? If communication is the macro, what observations do you have about the dialogue, which is the micro?

The language is absolutely precise, you’re right. It’s very deliberate. I’ve had a few people in my life [die by] suicide. It is certainly quite difficult to go through life without having meaningless tragedy happen. We’d all be supernaturally lucky to have that kind of life to avoid it entirely.

One of the things I remember being very struck by in one instance, I had an awful bit of timing. I tried to contact someone 24 hours too late. I was then left with a very, very powerful sense of guilt. I had no way of knowing prior to that that I was 24 hours too late. It just happened I was 24 hours too late in reaching out. What people would do is that they would try to console me in a fake way, which was saying, in a subtext way, it wouldn’t have made any difference. What I feel very strongly is that you don’t know that. It might have made a difference. Who knows? If someone in that state is given information or a kind word or reaching out 12 or 24 hours earlier, if that might have been significant and kept them alive another day, and things might have started to get better. It is often the way with terrible states of depression that they have the capacity to get better. I felt that the consolation was well-meaning but kind of disingenuous, I suppose. It’s typical of the kinds of horrible difficulties we’re presented with. 

This is not me making statements about the film, but it is the kind of conversations one could have about the film, I hope. I essentially agree with your statement when you say that her husband has crossed the point where she should now have nothing more to do with him. You talked about precision of the words. She uses very precise words in response to his act [punching her] — a brilliant cutting phrase, “What’s that? Your plan to win me back? Just get the f**k out of here,” is basically what she says.

If he then dies — and it’s basically unclear whether it was a suicide or not — it raises the question of how that would make her feel. If I were her, this is the way I would be thinking about it: If I had said and did exactly the same thing, but I did it in a different way — instead of screaming, or stated in a different way — would he still be alive? Where therefore is my position in that? That’s a complicated set of questions. I agree that what she’s done is not just justified, but earned. It may even be necessary at that moment. But something being necessary doesn’t prevent you from sense of private doubt. What the vicar is doing in a very cruel way, is placing a stiletto blade of viscousness that is perfectly judged to attack her own sense of decency and certainty. 

You know she’s hurting, and he twists that knife.

Just to be clear, it is the knife we twist ourselves. In a way, she doesn’t need the vicar for that knife to be twisted. This is what we do to ourselves. The flip side of it — and Jessie and I would talk a lot about this — is where does guilt reside? Why does it end up residing in the places it does? Every rational part of us can see that guilt should not reside in a place, but it does. 

The film contains very vivid images, from a hand that is split into a V in one violent episode and is later used to strangle Harper to a WTF birth sequence. What accounts for these indelible, visceral images? There are many beautiful images in the film but there is a real mix of beauty and horror.

I hope there is beauty and horror. I don’t want to explain that sequence too much because I think it is the way people can respond to it themselves. But what I will say is that the starting point of interest was I’ve written a script where it said these characters all mutate into each other. I was thinking about that and cycles and how one thing leads to another, cycles of repetition or continuation along a line, not necessarily repeating but carrying on in different forms. I had my own reasons why in the end this birth sequence felt appropriate for various ways that were not conflicting with each other but supporting each other.

But separately, there was something I found interesting about it. Movies use deep sea creatures and insects to draw on for aliens and monsters or horror images, and in this film, I used birth. When I showed images of birth, it was fascinating to see the horrified way people reacted to them because they involve things like blood and stretched parts of bodies. But birth is the way everyone exists on the planet. It might be via C-section, or a breech, or it might be through a vagina, but that’s how we all got here. And it is interesting the way in which something – which is actually standard, not just fundamental – is so provocative to people. There is just a weird dissonance about that. It made me think about one of the bits of iconography that the film uses, which is a sheela na gig, which is a woman opening her vulva and holding gaze. There was a time, I assume, when people were less freaked out about this, but maybe the Victorians destroyed that and left us in this paroxysm that we can’t get out of.

MenMen (Kevin Baker/A24)Your film is full of unforgettable and violent moments, in addition to the aforementioned scenes, there is a haunting shot of James impaled on the fence. But I was also disturbed by something rather absurd — when the vicar, having truly upset Harper’s fragile emotional state, takes a moment to apply lip balm after fondling the slats of the bench they are sitting on. Can you unpack that?

That was something Rory Kinnear added. Rory is extremely funny and very witty, and he has a really nuanced sense of what is ridiculous and what is ridiculous at what moment — what is the timing to make it land with the most effect. The mixture of the way the vicar lays hand on the slats of the bench and what he infers by the slats in the bench and the lip balm, I can’t exactly explain why it’s so funny and also so creepy, but all I know is he said, “I’ve got an idea.” [Laugh] And when he did it, I said, “That was a good idea.”

The film shifts genres going from psychological thriller to horror to sci-fi and back again. Viewers really have to recalibrate what they are watching from scene to scene. What can you say about the deliberately uncomfortable tone of your film?  

Tonally, I thought within this subject matter, some parts of it are really, really frightening and really sinister, and dark, and some of them are pathetic and even laughably pathetic and have comedy within them. Tonally, that may seem or feel very jarring, but it does also feel true to life. Things do veer from being really stupid to being really intimidating quite quickly, and sometimes they can coexist. Something can be very frightening and very pathetic.

“Men” is currently in theaters.

More to read: 

 

Social workers say the far right’s adoption of “pedophile” as an insult is hurting real victims

Labor leader Randi Weingarten is perhaps best known for her work as president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the second largest union for teachers in the United States. Speaking to Salon, Weingarten made it clear that she cares deeply about the welfare of both the teachers and their students — but unwanted partisan politics keeps getting in the way.

“I’m a school teacher and a lawyer and a union leader, and I know when you deal with something that is so illegal, we need to protect the victim,” Weingarten told Salon. “We need to believe the victim. So when all of a sudden this word — this thing that is so evil and so inappropriate and so horrible — gets used this much, it has no meaning anymore.”

The word in question is “pedophile,” or perhaps sometimes, “groomer.” Amid a bitter culture war, many on the right, from playwrights like David Mamet to politicians like Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, have seized on the word as an evidence-free way to discredit their culture war enemies. It is now being employed as one might use a slur like “idiot,” albeit with a far darker connotation. And it has particular currency among believers in the QAnon conspiracy theory, who aver without evidence that a Satanic cabal of pedophiles is running the world. 

Yet for actual victims of child sex abuse, however, the term “pedophile” or “groomer” recalls actual lived experiences — and for the people who spend their careers helping children, these words are used in ways that can only be described as unjustified and malicious.

RELATED: Jeffrey Epstein used his wealth to avoid his prison cell, empty out vending machines while in jail

Take Cory Bernaert, a Florida kindergarten teacher who has expressed concern that the state’s new “don’t say gay” bills will harm both his students and himself, as Bernaert is part of the LGBTQ community. After discussing his concerns on HBO’s “Last Week Tonight with John Oliver” and a live interview on MSNBC, Bernaert was targeted by waves of abuse and harassment.

“The distrust that these LGBTQ students are going to have in their school and in their teachers is going to be magnified and there won’t be a space place for them anywhere if they can’t feel safe at school,” Bernaert told Salon. “Where can they feel safe if they’re already feeling unsafe at home?”

This, predictably, included the insults “pedophile” and “groomer.” Not accusations, mind you — no one was seriously accusing Bernaert of a thing — but simply to be used as slurs.

“The major concern that I have for teachers is really their mental health and their mental stability, once these words ‘pedophile’ and ‘groomer’ are being used to describe them,” Bernaert explained. “The reason being is any educator has devoted their life and really everything they have in their being to fostering a love for learning in children. It’s very common for everyday people to have a complete misunderstanding of the actual work ethic and the amount of time that goes into being an educator.”

When you add these built-in problems with dealing with the bigotry of being an LGBTQ teacher who gets slurred for nothing else than your identity and/or political views, Bernaert says it lowers morale — and that is just for the teachers. By smearing good teachers with these labels, it also hurts both children who are actually victimized by child sex abuse (whether in school or anyone else) and LGBTQ children who may have problems at home and need a safe space elsewhere.


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


“The distrust that these LGBTQ students are going to have in their school and in their teachers is going to be magnified and there won’t be a space place for them anywhere if they can’t feel safe at school,” Bernaert told Salon. “Where can they feel safe if they’re already feeling unsafe at home?”

The problem with these false charges is not limited to our schools. Jennifer Thompson, the Executive Director of the New Jersey Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, spoke with Salon about how these slurs negatively impact social workers.

“We are in a profession, and are called to be in a profession, of being helpers, inherently,” Thompson told Salon. “We are trying to improve our clients’ lives, help them with difficult situations and be the voices for communities who are often disenfranchised. We go in to be helpers and we are being villainized now. And I don’t think we can underscore enough the emotional toll that takes on people who are already in a very difficult role.”

Like Bernaert, Thompson noted that much of this rhetoric is used when social workers try to help LGBTQ children. She described the attacks as “politically motivated” and having “absolutely no basis in reality, science or fact.”

“Social workers who are trying to protect the rights of LGBTQ children and youth in our schools, they are often associated with language like ‘Oh, they are trying to groom our children,'” Thompson told Salon. “One that I heard on a webinar recently was that teachers and social workers alike who are creating safe spaces for children are told they’re trying to indoctrinate our children into being something. And that’s really harmful.”

“It’s so hard to walk away from a belief that somebody is a monster — that somebody is doing something so pernicious, that somebody is doing something so horrible that if you believed it already — how do you believe it anymore without feeling bad about yourself?” Weingarten told Salon.

Of course, there are real issues with child sex ring scandals — it’s just that they don’t typically happen within the spheres the right is targeting. Everything from the Jeffrey Epstein-Donald Trump parties with underage girls to the horrors within the Catholic Church reveal that child sex abuse is a rampant problem. Yet the people who draw attention to those scandals are often the same ones who work diligently to teach children in classrooms and protect them through careers as social workers. People who use terms “pedophile” and “groomer” as political insults, and particularly against people in those occupations, do so to the disservice of the people they ostensibly wish to help.

As other commentators and reporters have noted, the far right appears to be borrowing a rhetorical tactic pioneered by Russian President Vladimir Putin to discredit his own political opponents. Whether being used against teachers and social workers or ordinary liberals, the “pedophile” and “groomer” insults exist not to protect children, but to make monsters out of people simply because their social philosophy differs from one’s own.

“It’s so hard to walk away from a belief that somebody is a monster — that somebody is doing something so pernicious, that somebody is doing something so horrible that if you believed it already — how do you believe it anymore without feeling bad about yourself?” Weingarten told Salon. She noted ruefully that these disinformation tactics are already being used even in the most absurd situations, such as Putin convincing millions of Russians that Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy is somehow a Nazi despite being Jewish. It is “all part of the autocracy playbook,” Weingarten explained, and has no place in any kind of educational environment.

“Teaching is relational and teaching is all about creating trust with kids,” Weingarten told Salon.

Read more on the emergence of “grooming” rhetoric:

What is fentanyl and why is it behind the deadly surge in overdoses? A medical toxicologist explains

Buying drugs on the street is a game of Russian roulette. From Xanax to cocaine, drugs or counterfeit pills purchased in nonmedical settings may contain life-threatening amounts of fentanyl.

Physicians like me have seen a rise in unintentional fentanyl use from people buying prescription opioids and other drugs laced, or adulterated, with fentanyl. Heroin users in my community in Massachusetts came to realize that fentanyl had entered the drug supply when overdose numbers exploded. In 2016, my colleagues and I found that patients who came to the emergency department reporting a heroin overdose often only had fentanyl present in their drug test results.

As the Chief of Medical Toxicology at UMass Chan Medical School, I have studied fentanyl and its analogs for years. As fentanyl has become ubiquitous across the U.S., it has transformed the illicit drug market and raised the risk of overdose.

Fentanyl and its analogs

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that was originally developed as an analgesic – or painkiller – for surgery. It has a specific chemical structure with multiple areas that can be modified, often illicitly, to form related compounds with marked differences in potency.

For example, carfentanil, a fentanyl analog formed by substituting one chemical group for another, is 100 times more potent than its parent structure. Another analog, acetylfentanyl, is approximately three times less potent than fentanyl, but has still led to clusters of overdoses in several states.

Despite the number and diversity of its analogs, fentanyl itself continues to dominate the illicit opioid supply. Milligram per milligram, fentanyl is roughly 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine.

Lacing or replacing drugs with fentanyl

Drug dealers have used fentanyl analogs as an adulterant in illicit drug supplies since 1979, with fentanyl-related overdoses clustered in individual cities.

The modern epidemic of fentanyl adulteration is far broader in its geographic distribution, production and number of deaths. Overdose deaths roughly quadrupled, going from 8,050 in 1999 to 33,091 in 2015. From May 2020 to April 2021, more than 100,000 Americans died from a drug overdose, with over 64% of these deaths due to synthetic opioids like fentanyl and its analogs.

Illicitly manufactured fentanyl is internationally synthesized in China, Mexico and India, then exported to the United States as powder or pressed pills. Additionally, the emergence of the dark web, an encrypted and anonymous corner of the internet that’s a haven for criminal activity, has facilitated the sale of fentanyl and other opioids shipped through traditional delivery services, including the U.S. Postal Service.

Fentanyl is driving an increasing number of opioid overdose deaths.

Fentanyl is both sold alone and often used as an adulterant because its high potency allows dealers to traffic smaller quantities but maintain the drug effects buyers expect. Manufacturers may also add bulking agents, like flour or baking soda, to fentanyl to increase supply without adding costs. As a result, it is much more profitable to cut a kilogram of fentanyl compared to a kilogram of heroin.

Unfortunately, fentanyl’s high potency also means that even just a small amount can prove deadly. If the end user isn’t aware that the drug they bought has been adulterated, this could easily lead to an overdose.

Preventing fentanyl deaths

As an emergency physician, I give fentanyl as an analgesic, or painkiller, to relieve severe pain in an acute care setting. My colleagues and I choose fentanyl when patients need immediate pain relief or sedation, such as anesthesia for surgery.

But even in the controlled conditions of a hospital, there is still a risk that using fentanyl can reduce breathing rates to dangerously low levels, the main cause of opioid overdose deaths. For those taking fentanyl in nonmedical settings, there is no medical team available to monitor someone’s breathing rate in real time to ensure their safety.

One measure to prevent fentanyl overdose is distributing naloxone to bystanders. Naloxone can reverse an overdose as it occurs by blocking the effects of opioids.

Another measure is increasing the availability of opioid agonists like methadone and buprenorphine that reduce opioid withdrawal symptoms and cravings, helping people stay in treatment and decrease illicit drug use. Despite the lifesaving track records of these medications, their availability is limited by restrictions on where and how they can be used and inadequate numbers of prescribers.

Naloxone can rapidly reverse an opioid overdose.

Other strategies to prevent overdose deaths include lowering the entry barrier to addiction treatment, fentanyl test strips, supervised consumption sites and even prescription diamorphine (heroin).

Despite the evidence supporting these measures, however, local politics and funding priorities often limit whether communities are able to give them a try. Bold strategies are needed to interrupt the ever-increasing number of fentanyl-related deaths.

Kavita Babu, Professor of Emergency Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School

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

“Our Father” filmmaker’s ode to “Handmaid’s Tale” as an IVF “horror story” of consent

Quickly, when watching “Our Father” on Netflix, you realize this is not your average documentary. It’s not only that the story the movie tells is chilling — a popular and respected fertility doctor in Indiana, Dr. Donald Cline, is revealed to have replaced donor sperm with his own and impregnated scores of women over the years without their permission — but the way the story reveals itself is terrifying, layer after layer like a rotting onion. 

Along with the horror, the documentary flashes with moment after moment of dark beauty. Angel wings fan out behind an actor playing Cline (Keith Boyle) as the extremely religious doctor baptizes white-clad believers in his backyard pool. Color plays a huge role in the stark film, full of shadows and crosses, as do reenactments. Far from “Unsolved Mystery” reenactments, the reenactments in “Our Father” blend actors with real people to startling effect. The emotion on their faces feels real because it is.

RELATED: “Our Father”: the 5 creepiest moments from Netflix’s harrowing fertility fraud documentary

First alerted to Cline’s actions thanks to home DNA testing, the number of children Cline fathered keeps rising. Known in the film as “the siblings,” they band together, led by an extraordinarily brave woman named Jacoba Ballard, to find each other and search for justice for their parents, for countless women and for themselves. Like the answers as to why Cline, who may have believed in the Quiverfull movement, did what he did: justice is hard to find. Though the siblings and mothers, through their activism, were able to get a law on the books in Indiana, Cline’s violating actions are still not a federal crime.

“He told them nothing; they got nothing.”

And he’s not the only one. In April, a jury awarded over $8 million in a civil lawsuit to families in Colorado who had been impacted by a fertility doctor impregnating dozens of people with his own sperm. Fertility doctors in Texas, Connecticut, Vermont, Idaho, Nevada, Utah and around the world have been found to have used their own sperm without patients’ permission or knowledge. At a time when body autotomy and rights are threatened daily, thousands of fertility patients have not been safe in their own doctors’ offices.

Salon talked to “Our Father” filmmaker Lucie Jourdan about the horror and beauty of the film, and how IVF fraud fits into the growing and urgent national conversation about reproductive rights.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

One of the things I loved about “Our Father” is how you blended the reenactments with the real people that events actually happened to, which seemed new to me. Can you talk about how and why you decided to use reenactments in the film?

First and foremost, it stemmed from: I became very close with these siblings and I learned a lot of their stories, ones that weren’t even featured in the doc. The overwhelming issue they had was that Cline never gave them anything. So, when they asked for information, they got — I call it the cloak of anonymity. He told them nothing, they got nothing. They were left in the dark and I felt I wanted to put a face on Cline to counter that. If I had put him in the shadows and not actually featured an actor, he would get away with it more. There wouldn’t be a face. So I cast the actor Keith Boyle, who was lovely. 

We actually filmed the reenactments with zero audio. But when [sibling Jacoba] first met with Cline, she had all these things that she wanted to say to him. When you’re in the room with a person, sometimes you go silent and you don’t have the courage to speak, or you don’t know what to say. That had really bugged her, that she didn’t get to say all of the things that she wanted to. So we had this unique opportunity.

“It was a choice to help Jacoba and it was also a visual choice that allowed for Cline not to be let off the hook.”

I thought if I could reenact the moment and have her really explain to me exactly visually what it looked like, what the moment felt like, if I could put her in that space again with an actor who looked so much like Cline, could she have a moment of catharsis with it? Behind the scenes, I had informed the actor of all of the things Cline had said to her . . . And she has this moment where she finally gets to tell this man, even though it’s just an actor, she gets to tell him what was important.

It allowed me to get someone who’s not an actress to be in a moment — and to not re-traumatize them, but to allow them to have that moment and be strong. It was a choice to help Jacoba and it was also a visual choice that allowed for Cline not to be let off the hook.

That leads into another visual choice that’s also emotional that I wanted to talk about, which is: color seems important in the film. You have Jacoba in that red hoodie. You have Dr. Cline in white. Was it deliberate to think about color in that way?

So all of the leads: [reporter] Angela Ganote wears bright red; Jacoba in her moments of stepping into her power, she wears red. She wears red in the courtroom. She’s wearing that red hoodie. There’s also an ode to “The Handmaid’s Tale” in the color, which is important because I do see some distinct parallels: having control over one’s body and the rights to that body.

“Why would we have a horror company do this film? But is this not a horror?” 

Then for all the reenactments, while I did use victims’ accounts of what Cline’s office looked like, I wanted those muted pink and blue tones in his office. It’s the excitement of having a boy or a girl — but it’s just a little bit muted and a little bit dark and a little bit sinister. So yes, color played a huge part. And thank you for picking up on that.

Something else that struck me about the documentary is that it’s as scary as a horror film at times: Dr. Cline’s footsteps and his cane when he comes up to this restaurant table where the siblings meet him. And Jacoba is such a final girl character. She is a survivor and her last speech in the film is resonant and powerful. What were the creative decisions that went into deciding to film this way with this kind of tension?

Well, when I partnered with Blumhouse, there was a directive, right? This is a horror company and a lot of people, even the siblings, thought: why would we have a horror company do this film?

But is this not a horror? 

“The doctor was punished for lying to the Attorney General –  but for nothing that he did to a woman without consent.”

I really do dial it up because of the simple reason that I don’t think as an audience, you would grasp the true nature of the kind of nuance of sexual assault and violence against women unless we really sat in that space. This entire film was from the victim’s point of view. It was a horror story when they learned what happened. So I feel like it was important to add that very sinister element. You know, when [Cline’s former patient] Liz especially would talk about being raped 15 times and not know it – I sat with her for hours. And I asked her to describe everything about those meetings from the smell in the room to the sounds. She describes it like a horror film because now she realizes what was happening to her. For me to honor her story and her point of view, I really had to dive into it. 


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


And this is really the women’s story. You also talk about how there is no federal crime for what Dr. Cline did, which is part of the urgency of the show. That the mothers had no choice. They did not consent, but Cline was not punished. How might this film add to the conversation about reproductive rights, which is so urgent right now?

I found it appalling as a female filmmaker that the doctor was punished for lying to the Attorney General –  but for nothing that he did to a woman without consent. And I am elated at the response from the general public about this film, having those conversations: the millions of people who are now realizing the nuance of rape, of sexual assault, and that these things are not OK. I think once you can establish what Cline did was not OK, it opens the conversations: well, what is OK?

Because you should absolutely have autonomy over your body and you should have those rights. When they’re violated in this way, you can see quite that clearly. And so it really informs the next conversation, which I think needs to be had in this country specifically.

It was very important that at the end of the day, this is a story of consent.

“Our Father” is now streaming on Netflix. Watch the trailer via YouTube.

More stories like this

The world, with or without us: Increasing gas and oil production is a disastrously bad idea

Flying into southern Iraq in March, the irony felt as thick as the murk enshrouding the city of Basra below. Sickened by Russia’s savage invasion of my father’s homeland, Ukraine, under the asinine pretext of saving it from Nazis, I would shortly land in a country that my own had seized under no less ludicrous claims: imaginary weapons of mass destruction, and a bogus connection to the 9/11 attacks.

Yet even that prolonged atrocity paled alongside what I’d come to ponder: the havoc we Homo sapiens, the so-called wise iteration of our genus, have wreaked on our planet — and, unless we act fast, on our prospects for a future. For instance, the United States’ real interest here, evidenced outside my window by constellations of flames piercing the haze below. So much crude petroleum gushes from Iraq’s vast oil fields that Saddam Hussein and subsequent weak Iraqi governments never bothered with infrastructure to exploit the natural gas escaping their wells. Instead, for over half a century they’ve continuously flared it

In Basra, a war-rubbled city of two million near the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates, every breath tastes of oil. Oil spills, broken sewers and salinity pushing upstream from the Persian Gulf, one of Earth’s fastest warming seas, have left the water supply undrinkable, and cancer clusters abound. On more days each summer, temperatures approach 130ºF, the point where sweating ceases to cool the human body and air conditioning becomes critical. 

RELATED: “Big Oil is intentionally profiteering from the war”: Exxon profits double after Putin’s invasion

Power failures are routine here, and as that continues thousands will either die or flee this cradle of Western and Middle Eastern civilization, which now feels more like a coffin.  

You’d think that would give us pause.

More irony: Even as the IPCC warns that worldwide carbon emissions must peak in just three years, then plummet by half only five years later to hold to a relatively safe increase over preindustrial temperatures, the U.S. is boosting gas and oil output to offset embargoed Russian supplies. Meanwhile, Russia, with other markets like insatiable India, continues to increase production — including from the Lukoil wells I saw flaring at al-Qurna, where the Tigris and Euphrates meet.

Something is gravely wrong here. Think of it this way: Unlikely as it seems that we might really brake emission increases by 2025, then halve them by 2030, we will never have this chance again


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


We’ve blown so many previous chances. In 1956, oceanographer Roger Revelle explained to Congress that manmade CO2, drifting skyward, could create a greenhouse effect. In 1969, UC Berkeley physicist John Holdren reported that atmospheric carbon dioxide had increased by 10% since 1900, when it was below 300 parts per million. Around then, a Harvard freshman named Al Gore became enthralled by a Revelle lecture; two decades later, he convened his historic 1988 U.S. Senate hearing, headlined by NASA climatologist James Hansen’s electrifying warning about runaway human-induced emissions.

Yet when Gore became vice president, Bill Clinton’s fixation on economy, not ecology, muzzled his environmental ardor for eight years. After the Supreme Court snatched the 2000 presidential election from him: eight more wasted years.

Imagine how many solar panels the $2 trillion we squandered on invading and occupying Iraq could have bought.

As atmospheric CO2 approached 400 ppm — levels unseen for 3 million years, when the world’s oceans were 80 to 100 feet higher — surely Barack Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, stressed the urgency to him. Obama’s priority, laudably enough, was health care — yet what could threaten public health more than an unmoored climate?

Atmospheric CO2 has approached a level unseen for 3 million years, when the oceans were 80 feet higher. But it’s still not too late to do something about it.

Toward the end of his presidency, Obama did help midwife the Paris Agreement, only to have Donald Trump yank the U.S. out. Yet despite Trump’s depravity, during his term a pandemic finally slowed emissions. Then, with the electoral triumph of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, came a chance to keep that momentum going.

It didn’t. At a military checkpoint near Babylon, I was reminded why. 

In Iraq, checkpoints are nearly everywhere, although it’s sometimes unclear exactly who has your passport. After the U.S. left, ISIS moved in. Five genocidal years later, they were finally driven out with the help of Iranian militias, which stayed. In much of the country, they’re now the de facto government.

At this checkpoint, soldiers unexpectedly detained my traveling companion, civil engineer Azzam Alwash, winner of the 2013 Goldman Prize for re-flooding the Iraqi marshes that Saddam Hussein had drained to flush out Shiite rebels. Although Alwash is a national hero for saving the Middle East’s biggest wetland, plans are regularly hatched to drill there for oil, or to divert marsh waters for agriculture — and these are expected again, as protests have already erupted over shortages of imported Ukrainian wheat and cooking oil. 

The sentries were ready to handcuff Alwash — over a database glitch, it turned out — when the president’s office fortunately got his phone message. The incident brought back my own arrest the previous summer. I’d been interviewing protesters who had chained themselves to pumping equipment at a pipeline being built in northern Minnesota by a Canadian company. Enbridge’s Line 3 would transport the dirtiest fossil fuel of all — heavy bitumen crude from Alberta’s tar sands — across 210 rivers and streams, including the Mississippi, and through choice wild rice harvesting areas ceded by sovereign treaty to the Ojibwe people. Luckily, the overzealous county sheriff who snared me along with the protesters neglected to zip-tie my wrists, so I also managed to get out a phone message. After a few hours in a windowless cell, a barrage of calls from journalist colleagues helped spring me.  

In a world where each added CO2 molecule heightens our peril, Line 3 makes utterly no sense. President Biden could shut it down with a stroke of a pen, just as he stopped the Keystone pipeline. But he hasn’t. The only explanation is that Biden, ever the compromiser, is trying to placate both sides of the climate argument.

But with an existential crisis — like Basra’s, and like our own if we don’t act boldly — there are no sides.

Before I left Iraq, the NGO Alwash founded, Nature Iraq, arranged for police to escort me to the archeological site at Uruk, the Sumerian city where writing was invented. Atop the mound containing Ishtar’s temple, I looked down at the parched remains of a city that once housed 80,000 people and lasted 5,000 years.

I’m not the first writer to gaze upon the crumbling ruins of a once-great civilization and contemplate the fragility of empire and grandeur.  But unlike Shelley’s eulogy of pharaonic Egypt in “Ozymandias,” or Gibbon’s sweeping chronicle of the fall of Rome, unless we can stop powering our own civilization by burning things, there may be no more humans left to similarly reflect, one distant day, on what happened to us.

Read more on fossil fuels, energy and the Ukraine crisis:

Bill Maher messed up bad with the LGBTQ community

HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher was buried under an avalanche of criticism on Saturday after using his Friday night closing comments to ridicule trans kids and their need for gender-affirming care, saying they are only doing it because it’s more “trendy” than being gay.

After suggesting the “LGBT population of America seems to be roughly doubling every generation,” Maher added, ” According to a recent Gallup poll, less than 1% of Americans born before 1946, that’s Joe Biden’s generation, identify that way, 2.6% of Boomers do, 4.2% of Gen X, 10.5% of Millennials and 20.8% of Gen Z, which means if we follow this trajectory, we will all be gay in 2054.”

He then glibly joked, “If this spike in trans children is all biological, why is it regional? Either Ohio is shaming them or California is creating them,” before making a few more crude comments.

Response to the HBO hosts’ comments were quick — including controversial Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) applauding his comments — but the bulk of comments slammed the comedian for making trans kids the butt of a joke.

As former U.S. House candidate Briana Wu put it, “Reasonable people can have concerns on trans issues. Had conversation with friend yesterday who found phrase ‘birthing people’ dehumanizing. Reasonable. But for Bill Maher to frame trans children as ‘trendy’ while states are banning trans healthcare? It’s just transphobia.”

Former Buzzfeed LGBT news editor Patrick Strudwick responded, “Bill Maher always set my inner warning bells off. His feeble, unfunny attacks on queer and trans people this week are exactly what happens when your ‘liberal’ sensibilities never venture beyond your own smug privilege. When you either don’t do the work or don’t have the heart.”

You can see additional comments below:

Trump worries that abortion will haunt possible 2024 re-election

Former President Donald Trump has reportedly told his allies that he is concerned about the possible overturn of Roe v. Wade and how it could negatively impact his political aspirations if he chooses to run for president again in 2024.

According to Rolling Stones, inside sources familiar with the situation have revealed Trump’s assessment of the abortion controversy. The former president believes the looming abortion ban could turn “suburban women” against him; an adverse action that could greatly diminish his chances of re-election.

“Suburban women have been a recurring concern for [former] President Trump, including during the 2020 campaign, when his smarter advisers were sounding the alarm to him about how he was losing suburbs,” a source said, per Rolling Stone, adding, “He is … worried women in the suburbs could punish him for this one day, [too].”

The former president has also raised concerns about the possibility of his “enemies” using abortion against him in the future as it is widely a Republican-motivated issue. Since the highly publicized leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s draft opinion on Roe v. Wade, Trump has been particularly silent on the issue, according to Politico.

Trump’s reported concerns behind closed doors are said to be relatively similar to the remarks he previously made during a conversation with Dallas megachurch pastor, Robert Jeffress.

“It was a conversation toward the end of his presidency; we were at the White House … right after the [2020 Republican] convention, maybe the day after his speech,” Jeffress recounted. “What I remember about our conversation is that, yes, President Trump said he was certainly very pro-life … which he said was a result of a conversation he had with a couple he was friends with and they decided to keep [their] baby instead of aborting the baby; and he said that that affected him deeply.”

However, the pastor also noted Trump’s acknowledgment of views held by those who see things from a different perspective. According to Jeffress, Trump “understood there are a lot of Americans who say they have nuanced opinions on the subject. He said the American people were conflicted on the issue, and that polls indicated there are Americans who object to abortion on demand but don’t agree on an outright ban; that the majority of Americans are somewhere in between … ‘It’s a tough issue,’ I believe, were his exact words … I think he was correct in his analysis. He wasn’t ambivalent on his personal conviction, but he understood that many Americans are conflicted on this topic, and polls indicate that he’s correct on that assessment.”