Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Video: Israeli forces attack funeral of Palestinian-American reporter they’re accused of killing

Israeli soldiers on Friday brutally beat Palestinian mourners carrying the coffin of longtime Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was killed earlier this week while covering an Israeli military raid on a refugee camp in the occupied West Bank.

London-based artist Khadijah Said shared Al Jazeera‘s footage of the assault by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), describing it as “one of the most horrifying things I’ve seen.”

Nick Dearden, director of U.K.-based Global Justice Now, said that the IDF’s “horrific” attack—which included the use of stun grenades, tear gas, and batons—showed “an apartheid state in action” and “should be front-page news everywhere.”

Thousands of Palestinians gathered for Abu Akleh’s funeral service in the Old City of occupied East Jerusalem.

The slain Palestinian-American journalist—described as “an icon in Palestine and the wider Arab world” by Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based network where she worked since 1997—was buried alongside her deceased parents in the Mount Zion Protestant Cemetery.

Abu Akleh, 51, was fatally shot in the face on Wednesday while reporting on the IDF’s ransacking of the Jenin refugee camp. Al Jazeera accused Israel of “blatant murder.” Human rights groups have demanded a thorough and transparent investigation of the killing, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has vowed to pursue justice at the International Criminal Court.

Pallbearers almost dropped Abu Akleh’s coffin on Friday when the IDF attacked them near St. Louis French Hospital. “Police eventually allowed the family to drive the casket to a Catholic church in the Old City, which was packed with mourners, before sealing off the hospital and firing tear gas at scores of protesters,” Al Jazeera reported.

According to the news outlet, Israeli forces arrested at least four mourners, including at least two men who hoisted the Palestinian flag in occupied East Jerusalem.

“Two men were arrested for actually raising the Palestinian flag,” said reporter Imran Khan. “That’s actually illegal under Israeli law.”

“When Shireen’s car carrying the casket actually came in, there was a Palestinian flag on display in the back of the car,” Khan added. “The Israeli police actually smashed that window in and took the flag.”

Greg Abbott and the GOP’s solution to formula shortage? Let migrant babies starve

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott was widely condemned Thursday for his joint statement with the National Border Patrol Council complaining about the Biden administration feeding migrant children in U.S. custody amid a national shortage of infant formula.

“Gov. Abbott and NBPC are literally demanding that the government lock babies in cages and then starve them of the sustenance they need to survive,” tweeted Carl Takei, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU. “I just… I can’t come up with the words to describe how despicable and inhumane this is.”

“I’m especially blown away by the explicit contrast this statement sets up between ‘our children’ (who are vulnerable, precious, and deserve survival) vs. the not-our-children who deserve to starve in our baby jails,” he continued.

“*Every* child, regardless of whether Gov. Abbott and Border Patrol agents consider them ‘our child’ or not, deserves food and love,” Takei asserted. “We should be shutting down these cages, not turning them into even more horrific places.”

Abbott and the NBPC’s statement frames the federal government feeding children in custody as “yet another one in a long line of reckless, out-of-touch priorities from the Biden administration when it comes to securing our border and protecting Americans,” adding that “our children deserve a president who puts their needs and survival first—not one who gives critical supplies to illegal immigrants before the very people he took an oath to serve.”

Some critics of the statement highlighted that the governor—who last year signed into law one of the most controversial abortion bans in the United States as part of a nationwide effort by the GOP to crack down on reproductive freedom—presents himself as “pro-life.”

“Abbott infamously signed a bill into law last year that bans abortion at six weeks …and incentivizes citizens to spy on and sue each other to enforce it,” Caitlin Cruz wrote for Jezebel. “But there’s nothing pro-life about suggesting that we should let babies in America starve if they don’t have the right legal documents.”

“Abbott knows he must keep up the heat as the state party turns more toward Trumpism and authoritarianism,” she added. “Migrants and immigrants of all ages are the perfect boogeymen. First, they take their jobs; now they want to take food out of babies’ mouths, while also forcing women to carry their pregnancies to term. The hypocrisy is so thick I am choking on it.”

Noting that other right-wing figures—including GOP Reps. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Troy Nehls, R-Texas—have made similar comments in recent days, HuffPost‘s Elise Foley similarly wrote:

The right has demonized undocumented immigrants for years, and the U.S. has a disturbing record of neglecting or mistreating children in its care. In one of the most infamous examples, former President Donald Trump intentionally split children from their parents in an attempt to dissuade immigrants from coming to the United States. For years, Republican lawmakers have blocked efforts to grant legal status to undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as kids. Republican politicians have suggested immigrant detention centers, including ones that lock up children, are too nice.

The right’s claims about baby formula for undocumented kids fit into the narrative that Democrats are encouraging unauthorized immigration by not being harsher to undocumented people. Stephen Miller, a former senior adviser to Trump who championed many of that administration’s harshest immigration policies, said the Biden administration was “diverting scarce formula to subsidize mass illegal immigration.”

While Republicans try to blame the Biden administration for the current formula crisis that stems from a February recall, progressives like David Dayen at The American Prospect argue that “the shortage is a manifestation of the same problems we’ve seen with the supply chain, made worse by monopoly.”

President Joe Biden on Thursday met with formula retailers and manufacturers to discuss the issue, and the White House announced new actions to address it—including “cutting red tape to get more infant formula to store shelves quicker,” increasing imports, and calling on the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to “crack down on any price gouging or unfair market practices.”

The Food and Drug Administration—which on Tuesday provided an update on its moves in response to the shortage—”will, in the coming days, announce specific new steps it is taking concerning importing certain infant formula products from abroad,” according to a White House fact sheet.

“We absolutely recognize the frustration that American families are feeling right now,” a senior administration official told reporters on a call Thursday. “And that’s why the president has acted to direct the administration to pull additional levers and take additional action to make more supply available as quickly as possible. He’s leading with action, not words. And that’s the package of announcements you’re seeing today.”

The surprising history of bhang, India’s edible cannabis drink

During Holi, the annual Hindu festival of colors, a drink called thandai, which literally translates to “cooling off,” makes an appearance in India. Depending on where you go, the traditional milky concoction might be laced with hints of an edible Indian cannabis called bhang.

What is bhang? An avocado-green paste made with the young leaves, flowers, and stems of the cannabis plant, which get soaked, ground, and then mixed with whole milk or yogurt to make a shake. The legal status of cannabis in India is fuzzy — in some states it’s permissible, in others not — but go for a drive in many places and you’ll spot government-run stores beaming back at you with the words “Bhang Shop” in bright scarlet letters.

Cultivation of this plant has been a part of Indian cuisine and culture since the time of the Vedas, appearing in early scriptures from 1500 B.C. and thereafter. “It’s an indigenous plant and has been around for over 3,000 years on the subcontinent,” says Indian archaeologist and culinary anthropologist Kurush Dalal about this variety known as cannabis indica.

During this time of the year, bhang holds cultural significance for Indians. Holi is linked to various Indian gods and goddesses like Krishna, Radha, and Vishnu, and from the perspective of bhang, specifically, to the story of Shiva. According to legend, during the “churning of the ocean of milk” (samudra manthan), an act undertaken by Hindu gods to obtain an elixir of immortality (amrit), it is believed that cannabis grew wherever droplets of this elixir fell on earth. A parallel narrative runs that this churning led to the creation of a poison that lord Shiva was summoned to drink. His consort Parvati offered bhang to relieve the pain. In yet another tale, on the day of Holi, the god of love — Kamadeva — shot an arrow at Shiva and disrupted his meditation. It’s not surprising then that cannabis is used in Shiva worship by some schools of Shaivism, and since Holi is connected to him, it’s a day to indulge in bhang.

“In popular culture, cannabis consumption started out as a farmer’s recreational activity. India is an agricultural country, and life on the farm is hard. So the farmer would consume it to relax the muscles at the end of a day,” says Dalal. The country has several varieties of cannabis, and each region, from the northern state of Himachal Pradesh, to the southern state of Kerala, has hybrid varieties of cannabis known as malana cream and idukki gold respectively. Dalal took a road trip to the northwestern state of Rajasthan and spotted shops selling bhang pellets that are either savored on their own or mixed with dairy-based drinks like lassi or thandai.

On Holi especially, the pellets are blended with thandai, a mixture of almonds, cardamom, fennel seeds, rose petals, peppercorns, poppy seeds, saffron, and milk. The resulting drink can range from mildly to moderately intoxicating. With brief notes of spices, as if indicating the waning of fall-winter, and cooling floral notes of rose jam, as if indicating the waxing of spring-summer, this is one drink that tastes of the turn of the season.

Trump has only himself to blame for Kathy Barnette, Pennsylvania’s terrifying new MAGA darling

Donald Trump is not happy about the shape of the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania. His fame and celebrity thirst led him to endorse TV star Dr. Mehmet Oz, an accomplished surgeon who gave it all up for the easy cash of peddling snake oil. But now it looks like Oz may lose his primary, dealing an embarrassing blow to Trump’s fragile ego. Worse, Oz may not even lose to the generic Republican candidate, David McCormick, a walking MAGA-hat whose bland white guy looks can pass as “normal” to low-info swing voters. (I like to call this “pulling a Glenn Youngkin.”) No, the surging candidate is Kathy Barnette, a hard-right commentator and crank in the style of Christine O’Donnell or Todd Akin — in other words, weird enough to pull in national attention, but with extreme views that could sink her in a general election race. 

“Kathy Barnette will never be able to win the General Election against the Radical Left Democrats,” Trump ranted in a statement released Thursday. He complained that she “has many things in her past which have not been properly explained or vetted,” and argued that “Oz is the only one who will be able to easily defeat the Crazed, Lunatic Democrat in Pennsylvania.”

RELATED: Pennsylvania deserves better than Dr. Oz

Politico describes Barnette’s poll surge as “somewhat puzzling.” It’s not, however, if one has been carefully following how much the backlash to the #MeToo movement and rising anger at feminism has been fueling Trumpism. Trump won in 2016 thanks to a widespread sexist tantrum over a woman, Hillary Clinton, winning the Democratic nomination for president. Trump reinforced the misogyny message throughout his campaign, starting with mocking a female journalist for menstruating and ending with an absurdly insincere apology for the “Access Hollywood” tape in which he can be heard boasting about sexual assault. 

 

Barnette’s entry into the Misogyny Olympics is outrageous even by MAGA’s low standards.

Barnette’s entry into the Misogyny Olympics is outrageous even by MAGA’s low standards. She’s been circulating a video and a story about how her mother was raped at 11 years old in 1971. While the subsequent birth of Barnette is treated like a beautiful sacrifice on her mother’s part, it is worth noting that she didn’t exactly have many choices as a Black child in Alabama before Roe v. Wade. 


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


As feminist writer Jessica Valenti noted in a recent newsletter, “people talk about abortion as if something is ending,” but in reality, access to abortion secures opportunities for women. Citing how her abortion made possible her marriage, daughter and career, Valenti wrote, “Anti-choicers like to pose hypotheticals about the remarkable baby a woman could have if she just didn’t get an abortion: What if they cured cancer? None ask if that woman herself might change the world.” When we’re talking about rape victims who are literal children, it’s even more stark; their entire futures can depend on having access to abortion.  

Barnette calls the rape “horrible” in the video, but — by the anti-choice logic she’s appealing to with her messaging — if forced childbirth is a beautiful thing because it results in “life,” wouldn’t that make forced impregnation beautiful as well? Indeed, MAGA circles went nuts last week over an event at St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral, where one speaker declared, “Not your body, your choice. Your body is mine and you’re having my baby.” It’s why the anti-choice movement also opposes birth control. People who are compelled by the idea that a person wouldn’t be here if a woman had ended a pregnancy will likely find other potential roadblocks to giving birth, including preventing pregnancy via contraception or a woman’s right to refuse sex, suspicious as well. 

RELATED: White nationalists get religion: On the far-right fringe, Catholics and racists forge a movement

Barnette’s appeal to the MAGA base isn’t exactly mysterious. The anti-choice crowd has always romanticized stories of women submitting to extreme levels of oppression. It puts an ennobling gloss on what is actually a deeply sadistic attitude towards women. 

As much as he may loathe admitting it, Trump’s objections to Barnette echo concerns that have already been expressed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. In April, McConnell gave a speech noting that Republicans are in a good position for the midterms unless they “screw this up” by running “unacceptable” candidates. As Russell Berman noted in the Atlantic later that month, McConnell is likely thinking of “the GOP’s missed chances in 2010 and 2012,” where lunatic candidates lost races they could have otherwise won. In at least two cases, it was because of “defending their opposition to abortion even in cases of rape.” 


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


Well, Barnette isn’t just opposed to abortion rights for rape victims. She’s built her entire campaign around it. Anti-choicers like to leverage stories by people who claim they are products of rape because they know it shuts down some arguments. That doesn’t mean those stories win people over, though. “Being forced to give birth to a rapist’s baby in junior high is good, actually” is a bad campaign slogan, no matter how many personal testimonies you put behind it. Republican strategists desperately want the campaign to be about anything but forced childbirth, but Barnette may make that impossible in Pennsylvania. 

Clearly, the GOP powers-that-be are worried about Barnette.

Plus, that’s just one of her many truly fringe positions. Reporters haven’t even really started digging and the research on her bigoted statements has started to pour out in volumes, documented at length on her own radio program. She compared being Muslim to “Hitler’s Nazi Germany view of the world.” She compared same-sex marriage to marriage between “one older man and a 12-year-old child.” (Which is notably similar to the configuration that led to the forced childbirth she celebrates.) “Two men sleeping together, two men holding hands, two men caressing, that is not normal,” she claimed. She bemoaned LGBTQ rights as a “barrage to normalize sexual perversion.”

RELATED: Samuel Alito’s use of ancient misogyny: SCOTUS rewinds to centuries-old common law for abortion ban

It’s a race that’s expected to get a lot of national attention because Pennsylvania is a swing state. Barnette sticks out from a crowded field of MAGA-heads because of her race and gender, but also because, as Trump suggests, there’s a great deal not known about her yet. That opens the door to investigations into her background. Clearly, the GOP powers-that-be are worried about Barnette, because they’re placing opposition research about her in the right-wing press not unlike the ongoing campaign to destroy Madison Cawthorn, the extremist MAGA congressman from North Carolina. Unlike states where the local media has been thoroughly destroyed, Pennsylvania still has some popular local newspapers like the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Inquirer, which make it harder for shady politicians to avoid press scrutiny.

Barnette sticks out from a crowded field of MAGA-heads because of her race and gender, but also because, as Trump suggests, there’s a great deal not known about her yet.

It’s a tough year for Democrats, who are taking the blame for inflation and general American malaise, but the public is starting to get quite angry about issues like the upcoming overturn of Roe v. Wade. All this makes her a very bad candidate for the GOP in this race. 

But if Barnette is a bridge too far, as Trump fears, he only has himself to blame. His electoral success in 2016 — even though he never once won the popular vote — emboldened the GOP base to believe they could win elections by running any troll they want. Trump hasn’t exactly done much work to discourage this idea. He’s backed Herschel Walker in Georgia, who lied about graduating college and is accused of threatening to kill his ex-wife. He’s backed a Nebraska gubernatorial candidate with eight sexual assault allegations. Prior to endorsing Oz, Trump’s man in the Pennsylvania senate race was Sean Parnell, whose wife accused him of beating her and punching a door into a child’s face. Trump has no discernible objection to candidates with ugly attitudes about violence towards women. His cold feet around Barnette might change a few minds. But in a GOP primary system that is mostly a race to the bottom, it’s not a surprise someone like her is pulling ahead. 

Two Pennsylvania GOP staffers fired over alleged illegal “ballot harvesting” operation: report

A pair of Pennsylvania GOP staffers were fired after allegedly orchestrating a potential “ballot harvesting” scheme, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

C.J. Parker, 24, and Shamus O’Donnell, 27, and were both sacked after allegedly sending dozens of ballots to a P.O. box associated with a Republican political action committee known as the Republican Registration Coalition. The PAC’s chairman, Billy Lanzilotti, told the Inquirer that he had intended to hand deliver the ballots to voters himself. 

“I didn’t do anything that to my understanding was against the law,” Lanzilotti told the outlet, arguing that he was trying to help voters. “There’s been a number of problems with the post office lately,” he added. “Checks are being stolen out of the mail. They like it this way because I’m someone they trust.”

RELATED: “He’s violated federal law”: Ex-Trump aide voted in two different states — but won’t face charges

Ballot harvesting, which involves having a third-party collect or distribute ballots on behalf of voters, is strictly banned in Pennsylvania except to assist voters with disabilities. State law mandates that voters fill out and deliver their ballots themselves unless they’ve provided authorization for someone else to perform both tasks for them.

According to the Inquirer, only one of the voters whose ballots were collected by the Republican Registration Coalition had actually received their ballot. Many of the voters did not reportedly remember signing off on having their ballots collected or distributed by the PAC. The Inquirer also reported that there is no indication that Lanzilotti attempted to tamper with the ballots in question.


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


O’Donnell’s attorney, Matt Wolfe, said that his client had “no knowledge of the mail ballot applications and what Billy Lanzilotti was doing,” noting that O’Donnell simply served as the PAC’s treasurer.

Republican state Rep. Seth Grove, chairman of the House State Government Committee, said that the incident “is nothing more than ballot harvesting.”

“If Gov. Tom Wolf had not vetoed the Voting Rights Protection Act without reading it, this alleged ballot harvesting scheme would not have happened,” he added. 

The incident is just the latest in a series of GOP-related voting scandals in recent months. Back in April, two Republican voters from Florida’s famed retirement community, The Villages, admitted to filing ballots in two different states. 

Meanwhile, Mark Meadows, Donald Trump’s former chief of staff, is under a state investigation for alleged voter fraud in North Carolina. Meadows reportedly registered to vote in what has been called a “dive trailer” in rural North Carolina, but there’s no indication that he’s spent a single night there, The New Yorker reported.

RELATED: Multiple residents from Florida’s Trump-loving “The Villages” arrested for voter fraud

Mike Pence and top Republicans flock to Georgia to defeat Trump’s candidate in key primary

Former Vice President Mike Pence has promised to campaign for Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp in a marked departure from Donald Trump, who is currently backing Kemp’s opponent, former Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga. 

“Brian Kemp is one of the most successful conservative governors in America,” Pence wrote in a statement. “I am proud to offer my full support for four more years of Brian Kemp as governor of the great state of Georgia!”

Pence’s endorsement of Kemp underscores growing tensions between him and the former president. Ever since January 6, when Pence was scorched by the president for refusing to go along with a legally dubious scheme to overturn the election, the former vice president has been increasingly willing to break from Trump’s hold over the GOP. 

RELATED: Trump’s Georgia election revenge plot backfires: Every poll shows his candidate losing “bitter” race

The move comes months after Pence first signaled that he would support GOP incumbents in gubernatorial elections. According to Axios, Pence’s former chief of staff, Marc Short, has already stepped in to serve as one of Kemp’s senior campaign advisers.

Kemp has received endorsements from a number of Republican governors who have come under Trump’s wrath, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey and Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts. The governor has also seen support from former President George Bush, who is organizing a fundraiser in Texas for the governor this month, according to Politico.


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


Throughout Kemp’s campaign, Trump has repeatedly questioned his Republican bonafides, largely because the governor rebuffed the former governor’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia, a battleground state that Trump narrowly lost.

On Wednesday, Trump called Kemp “the worst ‘election integrity’ Governor in the country,” saying that he “loaded the great state of Georgia up with RINOs,” an acronym for “Republicans in name only.”

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

Back in March, the president held a tele-rally in support of Perdue, lining the candidate’s campaign coffer with half a million dollars. Trump has also helped facilitate the rollout of various attack ads against Kemp. 

Despite Trump’s anti-Kemp crusade, it still appears that the race is still the governor’s to lose. Polling reveals that Perdue is still lagging behind Kemp by a 22% margin. Kemp has also raised twelve times more campaign funds than the former senator.

Katie Porter files DOJ criminal referral detailing evidence of alleged Trump admin bribery scheme

Rep. Katie Porter, D-Calif., is raising awareness about former President Donald Trump’s latest financial debacle: a newly uncovered bribery scheme.

On Wednesday, May 11, Porter appeared on MSNBC News where she offered details about the latest developments involving former Trump Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, former Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David Bernhardt, and real estate developer, Mike Ingram.

Bernhardt and Ingram reportedly had an off-the-record meeting that is believed to have led to a form of quid pro quo. According to Porter, three major occurrences happened shortly after that meeting. The Army Corp. of Engineers reportedly announced they were reopening the permit process for an area in Arizona that was previously deemed environmentally sensitive.

Around the same time, Ingram and a dozen of his business acquaintances donated nearly $250,000 to the Trump Victory Fund and to the Republican National Committee (RNC).

Shortly after the donation was made, a top-ranking Fish and Wildlife official received a call where he was told that a “high-level Politico” wanted him to “reverse his decision that this development would harm the environment.

The Democratic lawmaker also made it clear that this appears to be a quid pro quo because the real estate developer and his friends received a kickback after donating to the former president’s “Victory Fund.” “This developer was basically able to buy his away around environmental protection law,” Porter emphasized.

Porter also tweeted details about the scheme. “New from [Rep. Raul Grijalva] and me: After a real estate developer and his friends made $241,600 in campaign donations, the Trump Administration overruled local environmental experts to greenlight a development near an endangered river,” she tweeted. “We’re making a criminal referral for bribery.”

Porter’s remarks on MSNBC came as the House Natural Resources Committee filed a criminal complaint against the U.S. Department of Justice. Porter made it clear that this type of “egregious” situation should indicate to Congress that “reestablishing the rule of law and the expectation that administration officials are going to follow it.”

“Highly unusual”: Freedom of Information Act request reveals Trump DOJ’s “egregious” secret subpoena

The Department of Justice has revealed that it subpoenaed records of a journalist during a leak investigation following negative stories about Donald Trump’s administration.

“Leak investigators issued the subpoena to obtain the phone number of Stephanie Kirchgaessner, the Guardian’s investigations correspondent in Washington. The move was carried out without notifying the newspaper or its reporter, as part of an attempt to ferret out the source of media articles about a review into family separation conducted by the Department of Justice’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz,” the British newspaper reported. “It is highly unusual for US government officials to obtain a journalist’s phone details in this way, especially when no national security or classified information is involved. The move was all the more surprising in that it came from the DoJ’s inspector general’s office – the watchdog responsible for ethical oversight and whistleblower protections.”

That wasn’t the only irregularity.

“The leak inquiry was conducted on behalf of the DoJ by the inspector general’s office of an outside government department, housing and urban development (HUD). Its investigation focused on allegations that an employee within the DoJ’s inspector general’s office had leaked sensitive information to three news outlets – the Guardian, the New York Times and NBC News. The Guardian was the only one of the three outlets to have a subpoena issued relating to its reporter’s phone account,” it noted.

Katharine Viner, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, blasted the subpoena as “an egregious example of infringement on press freedom and public interest journalism by the US Department of Justice.”

The Guardian published two stories on Trump’s family separation policies during the heart of the 2020 election.

“The Guardian published two sensitive reports by Kirchgaessner within the timeframe of the DoJ review into child separation covered by the leak inquiry. On 23 July 2020 she revealed that the DoJ’s former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein had personally advised that migrant parents should be prosecuted, no matter how young the children accompanying them. On 2 September 2020, Kirchgaessner reported that a senior justice department official nominated by Trump to be a federal judge had participated in the removal of a Texas prosecutor who had sounded the alarm over child separation,” The Guardian reported.

The documents were released following a Freedom of Information Act request by reporter Jason Leopold of BuzzFeed News.

The easiest trick to save your leftover smoothie

During the pandemic, everyone seemed to cycle through new routines: baking sourdough bread, getting together with old friends for virtual happy hours, or falling in love with a new at-home workout. I started habitually drinking smoothies at least once a day. I found myself completely reenergized after polishing off a pint glass filled with blended dragon fruit, bananas, peaches, pineapple, and mixed berries. My newfound ability to power through any sign of an afternoon slump was accompanied by an overzealous hand in the kitchen. I went from carefully measuring each type of frozen fruit before adding it to the blender to eyeballing everything. I lost my practiced touch and ultimately dumped the excess smoothie down the drain day after day . . . that is, until I was scrolling through Instagram one night and watched a story posted by my colleague, Food52’s Associate Editor Caroline Mullen.

She had whipped up a green smoothie earlier in the day and poured the leftovers into a silicone ice cube tray to freeze. I was immediately impressed and subsequently face palmed — why did I never think of this before?

Using ice cube trays to save leftover smoothies is obviously less wasteful than pouring it into the sink, but it’s also so much more convenient than measuring (err, eyeballing) fruit day after day. If you want to get ahead on meal prep, purposely make an extra-large smoothie, pour the leftover mix into an ice cube tray, and freeze. Or, if you’re feeling playful, pour the leftovers into an ice pop moldand save it for a sweltering summer day.

As you now know, don’t do as I do. Don’t just pour your smoothie down the drain. Oh, and definitely don’t use regular plastic ice cubes trays to store your smoothies. When frozen, the smoothie cubes stuck to plastic ice cube trays (unless I aggressively banged the tray on the countertop, which ultimately meant that my parents’ brand new white quartz countertop was suddenly streaked with pink dragonfruit).

The solution? Souper Cubes! These silicone-based trays are super flexible, which means you can easily pop out the frozen smoothie cubes for blending. The smallest size measures out to 2-tablespoon portions, which makes it easy to prep smoothies early in the morning. I found that six cubes were the perfect amount to make a single serving. Plus, Souper Cubes include a super (pun intended) convenient lid so I won’t spill the juicy leftovers as I’m placing the tray in the freezer.

Our favorite smoothie recipes

Time to put this method to the test! Whip up a few of our favorite smoothie recipes — and make a little bit extra so you can store the leftovers in ice cube trays for days.

Green Smoothie with Avocado

Fresh avocado (and banana!) keeps this graciously green smoothie super creamy, which means that it will also reblend easily when it’s time for round two.

Golden Milk Smoothie

In some ways, this is an Elvis sandwich in the form of a big, delicious smoothie — it starts with a spoonful of peanut butter, a duo of almond milk and coconut milk, and banana. Chopped fresh ginger and turmeric are not only revitalizing ingredients, but they also help create the drink’s muted yellow hue.

Berry Banana Oat Smoothie

This is my go-to smoothie recipe: I will always, always, always choose to blend a combination of berries, banana, oats, chia seeds, and almond milk.

Lauren Boebert’s former employees say she’s a “monster” and her business record is a “sham”

Not unlike Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado is a far-right MAGA Republican who has gone out of her way to court controversy since being sworn into the U.S. House of Representatives in January 2021. The 35-year-old Boebert, a QAnon supporter and conspiracy theorist, is running on a pseudo-populist platform in her 2022 reelection campaign. But journalist Abigail Weinberg, in an article published by Mother Jones on May 12, demonstrates that Boebert’s image as a “straight-talking small-town business owner” is a sham.

“A close look at Boebert’s past reveals cracks in the narrative she’s built,” Weinberg explains. “And for several people who worked at her restaurant and know her personally, Boebert’s American dream has been more like a ‘nightmare.'”

Boebert owns Shooter’s Grill, a restaurant in Rifle, Colorado.

“Former Shooters employees tell me that, in the early years of Boebert’s fame, people visited the restaurant from across the country, and that the dining room was often packed with tourists on summer days,” Weinberg reports. “But they also say that the reality of working at Shooters was far removed from the lighthearted atmosphere shown on TV. In fact, five former Shooters employees tell me that Boebert frequently failed to pay her employees on time. Two of the former workers wished to remain anonymous because they feared retaliation; another did not want to be named and publicly associated with Boebert.”

A big part of Boebert’s hyper-MAGA narrative is that she had a tough working-class upbringing and that Democratic policies did nothing to help someone like her. But according to Weinberg’s sources, the Shooters owner has a history of not treating her employees well.

A former Shooters waitress told Weinberg, “The second the restaurant blew up, her head blew up — and it became something entirely different. And I got to meet a new version of her that is a monster.”

Weinberg reports, “Multiple employees say that they were paid in cash, either out of the register or from Boebert’s husband’s wallet, without any taxes deducted. While many workers were struggling to make ends meet, they say Boebert spent exorbitant sums on breast implants, private schooling for her sons, and a new Cadillac Escalade. They describe her as alternately absent, showing up only when news crews were at the restaurant, or demanding.”

Another former Shooters employee told Weinberg, “If she would come into the restaurant, everyone just knew we were just gonna have a bad day, because she would just walk around and nitpick.”

Josh Boyington, who worked as a cook at Shooters before leaving in 2017, alleges that Shooters was losing money in the late 2010s. Boyington told Weinberg, “Shooters don’t make no money. I left because I don’t even think we were topping $500 a day.”

Weinberg managed to get Boebert on the phone. But when the far-right MAGA congresswoman found out that Weinberg writes for Mother Jones, she hung up on her.

But Boyington was glad to talk to Weinberg, saying that while he agrees with many of Boebert’s right-wing views, he has issues with her as a person.

Boyington told Weinberg, “She’s an easy person to love if you don’t know her. It’s just, once you get to know her, you just don’t love her.”

Trump finds new way to cash in on presidency: Motivational speaking tour with tickets up to $4,000

Former President Donald Trump has found another way to cash in on his presidency, as he is now the headline “motivational speaker” on the “American Freedom Tour (AFT).”

Tickets to attend the political rally-type events range anywhere from $9 to more than $4,000 — depending on how much face time with Trump and his cohorts you desire, according to an exclusive Axios report.

The least expensive ticket gets viewers admitted to a conference room where they can watch the event on a television. The most expensive ticket gets the buyer a round table and photo op with the former president, prime seating directly in front of the stage and opportunities to hobnob with former Sec. of State Mike Pompeo, former Trump adviser Dinesh D’Souza and Donald Trump, Jr.

The events are privately run, with the next one scheduled for Saturday, May 14, in Austin.

Trump’s appearances essentially are a way for him to remain in his public’s eye, promote his his MAGA agenda and get someone else to pay him to do it. AFT was founded by Chris Widener, a veteran of the lucrative motivational speaker industry. He told Axios “most all of our speakers get paid an honorarium for the event,” but he declined to disclose Trump’s fee.

Widener said, “The American Freedom Tour is not a Republican-aligned event or a Trump-aligned operation.”

But, he added, “both President Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are incredible speakers and we are happy to have them on our tour.” The tour’s message, he says, is “Faith, Family, Finances and Freedom.”

 

House coup plotters stand firm — but DOJ and the Jan. 6 committee are closing in

Back in December of 2020, according to notes taken by then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donohue, Donald Trump tried to pressure Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to falsely assert that the presidential election had been corrupt and illegal even though the Justice Department had found no evidence of voter fraud. Donohue’s notes said Trump told them, “Just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.” The “R” is shorthand for —well, you know what for. Trump had a plan — and he had accomplices.

Rosen refused to play ball and one of those “R congressmen,” Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, had lined up a replacement for him, a relatively obscure DOJ official named Jeffrey Clark who was ready and willing to carry out the plan. Clark allegedly attempted to coerce Rosen to sending a letter to Georgia election officials claiming that DOJ had identified “significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election,” telling Rosen that Trump was about to fire him but Clark would refuse to take the job if Rosen sent the letter. Rosen didn’t comply, and the White House counsel’s office finally told Trump that if he followed through on his plan to fire Rosen and install Clark as acting AG, the entire top level of the Justice Department would walk out. Even Trump could grasp that that wouldn’t go well, so he backed off that plan and moved on to the next one.

According to the interim report on the Jan. 6 insurrection by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was Scott Perry — who was involved in strategy meetings at the White House, along with other members of the House Freedom Caucus — who introduced Jeffrey Clark to Trump. He also took it upon himself to call Donohue, the no. 2 official at the Department of Justice, and demand that he investigate debunked election fraud allegations in Pennsylvania, effectively reading him the riot act for not pursuing all these ludicrous claims. (I can’t imagine it’s common for congressmen to harangue leading law enforcement officials and importune them to lie. Maybe under the Trump administration it happened all the time.)

RELATED: Do the Democrats know how to fight? Jan. 6 committee signals it’s still scared of Trump

Perry, who is a retired general, is now chairman of the Freedom Caucus and one of the five Republican congressmen subpoenaed on Thursday by the House Jan. 6 select committee. His response was as measured and dignified as one might expect:

That they leaked their latest charade to the media ahead of contacting targeted members is proof once again that this political witch hunt is about fabricating headlines and distracting Americans from their abysmal record of running America into the ground.

It doesn’t sound as if he’s going to cooperate, does it? Whether or not the committee will hold him and the other members in contempt, as they have done with former Trump staffers Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, is unclear. It’s interesting to note that Perry’s comrade in coup-plotting, the aforementioned Jeffrey Clark, was threatened with contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with the committee and after much wrangling he finally showed up — only to pleaded the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during his deposition. Clark was obviously concerned that he could be held criminally liable for something. He’s a lawyer, after all.

Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark finally showed up before the Jan. 6 committee — and took the Fifth more than 100 times. Is he the only one who understands how serious this is?

The other members of Congress subpoenaed were Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Kevin McCarthy of California, the current minority leader and aspiring speaker. Brooks, of course, is most famous for giving a big speech at the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally in which he said it was time to “take names and kick ass.” According to a former McCarthy staffer Ryan O’Toole, Brooks could be heard cheering on the mob from inside the Capitol during the insurrection.

Brooks and Biggs were name-checked by rally organizer Ali Alexander as having been part of the planning for that day, and Biggs was involved in the White House strategizing and also attempted to persuade state legislators to overturn election results. Jim Jordan famously can’t remember how many times he spoke to Trump on Jan. 6, but since the committee may already know that, I imagine they’d like to know what he and the president talked about. Similarly, they are no doubt interested in hearing more about McCarthy’s conversations with the president and how much he knew about House members plotting with the White House to overturn the election. McCarthy’s loose-lipped phone recordings have shone some light on that, but the committee would almost certainly like to hear more about Trump’s supposed admission that he bore “some responsibility” for what happened that day.


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


Will any of these people show up to testify? If they don’t, will the committee recommend they be held in contempt of Congress and will the congress then refer them to the Department of Justice? That’s anyone’s guess. When asked what would happen if they refuse to show up before public hearings begin in June, committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said:

We would present at the June hearing what we found in the investigation. I would hope that those members who have been identified as having information will come forward. If they don’t then we get to present the findings of our investigation — without their response.

It appears committee members believe they have ample evidence of what these people did to help plot and carry out the attempted coup. They have heard from more than 1,000 witnesses and obtained more than 100,000 documents. They think they can make the case without the testimony of any of these people, but believe they needed to make the gesture, to allow Perry and other accused renegades to give their side of the story.

We know that White House chief of staff Mark Meadows exchanged text exchanges with more than 40 current and former GOP members of Congress during the period between the November election and the Jan. 6 attack. Some of these members were actively involved in the coup plotting, and 147 Republican members voted to overturn the election results just hours after the Jan. 6 insurrection. They are all implicated in the coup attempt, every last one of them.

Whether or not the Department of Justice will ever bring charges against anyone is still unclear. If an investigation is underway, it has been completely buttoned up. But nobody should believe that it cannot happen. During the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, 69 government officials were charged with crimes and 48 were found guilty, including the former attorney general, the White House chief of staff, a White House domestic affairs adviser, the White House Counsel, the Secretary of Commerce and various others, mostly on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. It can happen. It appears that Jeffrey Clark, who took the Fifth more than 100 times, may be the only Trump co-conspirator who understands that.

Read more on the long-running Jan. 6 investigation:

Schumer and McConnell call out Rand Paul after he single-handedly blocks $40 billion in Ukraine aid

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., on Thursday blocked a Senate bill to provide nearly $40 billion in aid to Ukraine, delaying legislation that leaders from both parties sought to urgently pass.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned Congress earlier this month that existing authorized aid to Ukraine would run out by May 19. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., kicked off Thursday’s session by stressing that lawmakers from “both sides” needed to urgently support the bill “today.” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., dropped his demand to include language establishing a special inspector general to oversee the aid after agreeing to a separate vote on his amendment. But Paul, who also demanded the bill include a special inspector general to scrutinize where the money is going, rejected the same offer to hold a separate vote on his amendment.

“My oath of office is to the U.S. Constitution, not to any foreign nation. Congress is trying yet again to ram through a spending bill – one that I doubt anyone has actually read – and there’s no oversight included into how the money is being spent,” Paul said on Twitter. “All I requested is an amendment to be included in the final bill that allows for the Inspector General to oversee how funds are spent. Anyone who is opposed to this is irresponsible.”

He added that he “sympathizes” with the people of Ukraine but argued that providing aid to fight Russia is “threatening our own national security, and it’s frankly a slap in the face to millions of taxpayers who are struggling to buy gas, groceries, and find baby formula.”

RELATED: Rand Paul goes to bat for Putin: “The countries they’ve attacked were part of Russia”

The House earlier this week voted 368-57 to provide Ukraine with an additional $40 billion in military and humanitarian aid. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy praised the vote and the Senate sought to unanimously pass the legislation on Thursday before leaving for the week. But Senate rules allow any single senator to block a unanimous consent vote, leaving the legislation in limbo until at least next week.

McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tried to cut a deal with Paul to hold a separate vote on his amendment because changing the bill text would have required the Senate to send the bill back to the House. Paul, whose amendment is likely to fail to gain the 60 votes needed to pass, rebuffed the offer.

“I think they’re going to have to go through the long way,” Paul told The Hill.

Schumer and McConnell both lashed out at Paul’s delay.

“There is now only one thing holding us back, the junior senator from Kentucky is preventing swift passage of Ukraine aid because he wants to add, at the last minute, his own changes directly into the bill … He is not even asking for an amendment. He is simply saying my way or the highway,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “I’m offering to hold a vote on his amendment, even though I disagree with it. Let the chamber speak its will. Let both sides of the aisle have input and for heaven’s sake, let Ukraine funding get done ASAP.”

McConnell said that while he understood Paul’s desire for oversight, the “simple way to solve this” was to hold a separate vote on the amendment as Schumer had offered.

“Ukraine is not asking us to fight this war,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “They’re only asking for the resources they need to defend themselves against this deranged invasion, and they need help right now.”


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


Paul argued that the additional aid was comparable to Russia’s entire defense budget and would contribute to growing the deficit even though Congress spends more than $750 billion per year on defense.

“Helping Ukraine is not an instance of mere philanthropy,” McConnell said. “It bears directly on America’s national security and vital interests that Russia’s naked aggression not succeed and carries significant costs.”

Democrats objected to Paul’s amendment because it would expand the purview of the inspector general tasked with overseeing U.S. spending in Afghanistan, which they argued would deny President Joe Biden the opportunity to appoint his own inspector general as past presidents have done. White House press secretary Jen Psaki noted on Thursday that the aid package already includes “additional funding for existing inspectors general.”

Paul, who has repeatedly criticized U.S. involvement overseas and unsuccessfully ran for president in 2016, has a lengthy history of using last-minute demands to block or delay the passage of legislation, including past sanctions against Russia, federal government funding, and health care for 9/11 first responders.  

The Ukrainian aid package was hammered out over weeks of negotiations as Congress increased the amount of funding from the $33 billion Biden initially sought while the White House agreed to drop its demand for Congress to use the package to also provide pandemic programs that had lapsed so that the aid would be approved more quickly.

Schumer said Paul’s demand was at odds with the “overwhelming majority” of lawmakers from both parties.

“Again, all he will accomplish with his actions here today is to delay that aid, not to stop it,” Schumer said. “It’s aid desperately needed by a valiant people fighting against authoritarianism and defending democracy.”

Read more:

Oil development in Canada is impacting wildlife

Major ecological changes are afoot in western Canada’s boreal forests, and they have scientists concerned. The most glaring problem is a steep decline in boreal woodland caribou (​Rangifer tarandus caribou), listed as threatened under Canada’s Species at Risk Act.

“There are populations in Alberta that probably don’t have a couple years to live,” says wildlife ecologist Jason Fisher of the University of Victoria. “It’s bad. This is really something we have to address immediately.”

Some scientists and government officials have blamed wolves for caribou losses. And desperate times have led to desperate measures to protect the endangered ungulates, including culling wolves. But research published in 2020 showed that landscape changes like oil development and logging are ultimately responsible for caribou declines. Clearings in the forest, the researchers found, function like predator highways and aid the wolves in their hunting.

Now a new study in the journal “Science of the Total Environment” shows that development from the oil industry in Alberta is causing more than just a change in wolf-caribou relations. The research analyzed three years of camera trap data that also included other forest mammals, like white-tailed deer, moose, black bears, coyotes, lynxes and fishers.

Yes, the forests still hold a lot of wildlife, the study found. But not necessarily in a good way.

“What this paper showed is that these features are bringing animals together,” says Fisher, a study co-author, who also leads the mammal component of the Oil Sands Monitoring Program, which tracks the environmental impact of extraction in Alberta. “The industrial footprint changes the rules of the eternal game of hide-and-seek between predators and prey,” he adds.

Scientists are realizing this can have far-reaching effects across the ecosystem.

A Fragmented Landscape

Alberta, Canada sits above one of the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world. But it’s also “unconventional” crude known as oil or tar sands, which are much harder to get out of the ground than conventional oil that’s in liquid form between rock formations.

The fossil fuel industry extracts deposits closest to the surface by razing the boreal forest and digging massive open-pit mines. Much has been written about the great harms that process causes to the environment and human health.

But from a production standpoint, open-pit mines extract less oil than in situdevelopment, in which wells are dug in the ground and the viscous bitumen pumped out (often after heating or adding other fluids).

That process doesn’t create the same decimated landscape as mines — or the arresting images that have garnered the world’s attention.

But it’s still a significant industrial process.

First it requires cutting straight routes through the forest to run seismic machines that use ground-penetrating sonar to look for oil deposits. If producers find an area or “play” they think they want to develop, they use another type of seismic machine that requires felling more trees. These swathes are narrower, but are cut in a hashtag-like pattern, known as 3D seismic lines.

That maps out where in the play to start drilling exploratory wells, which then requires clearing larger patches of ground completely. If a suitable area is found, a wellhead is constructed.

“Once you have enough of those well sites in the landscape, you have to connect them up with pipelines,” says Fisher. “Then you need roads to service the pipelines, and all the pipelines go to a compressor station that gathers it all up and then sends it on down the line.”

All that development leaves industrial footprints of different shapes and sizes stamped across the boreal forest.

“Our job [as landscape ecologists] is to understand how that’s affecting what’s left, because the amount of forest removed is actually only about 10% of that land base,” he explains. “You might think that’s ‘intact’ — but it’s not, because in landscape ecology, shape matters.”

Predators and Prey

What happens when a forest is heavily fragmented? In the boreal, researchers found that larger mammals — especially predators — react more strongly to the disturbed areas when lots of deer and moose show up, which they usually do, because they’re attracted to the vegetation that grows after the trees are cut.

Moose and deer come for this new buffet, which attracts more wolves and bolsters their populations. The lines cleared through the forest also make it much easier to move around and hunt.

Along the way, caribou become an unintended target.

“Wolves encounter woodland caribou more often, which means they nail more caribou,” says Fisher. “And that’s one of the proximal mechanisms for woodland caribou decline.” Previous research found a similar scenario playing out in Ontario after large-scale disturbances like commercial logging.

Oil development in the boreal also enables coyotes, who thrive in human-disturbed landscape, to expand their ranges. And coyotes, the researchers found, were more likely to use roads when moose were around. That closer proximity allows for more coyote predation on moose — especially moose calves. And like, wolves and caribou, roads enable coyotes to run faster and hunt moose more effectively.

Another recent study found that rare and elusive wolverines could suffer as more coyotes expand into boreal forests, competing for similar resources.

As for the region’s biggest predators, bears often avoid the clearings from 3D seismic lines, but the study in “Science of the Total Environment” found they’re more attracted to those areas (or minimally less repulsed) when moose are present. Bears may even play an unseen rate in moose declines. Moose populations in Canada are “all over the map,” says Fisher, and are dropping in some areas, including neighboring British Columbia.

Bears will prey on young caribou, too. They don’t seem to gravitate toward oil and gas development like wolves, but they also don’t always avoid those areas either, says Fisher.

“They just sort of seem to go where they want, when they want,” he says. “If we drive wolves down, my worry is that things like coyotes will take their place, but maybe also bears.”

Then there are the smaller furbearers like lynxes, red fox and fishers. The picture there is less clear. Overall things aren’t great for those populations. “They’re tanking fast, but we’re not really sure why yet,” he says.

Changing Climate

Climate has a hand in amplifying some of these changes.

Warming temperatures are increasing insect infestations from mountain pine beetles and spruce budworm, which have killed large swathes of forest. Once that happens, any rules in place to ensure more responsible logging are out the window.

“If mountain pine beetles have killed it, [loggers can] take the wood,” says Fisher. “And so you end up with these big moonscapes, which probably has something to do with moose declines.”

Warming temperatures also means less severe winters with reduced snowpacks — and that has also opened the door for white-tailed deer to move into the boreal. The changes in vegetation from logging and gas development have lured them north in such great numbers that they’re now the most abundant ungulates in boreal.

And as we already know, that drives wolf numbers up, and woodland caribou down.

“This interplay between climate change and landscape change is almost like a perfect storm of problems that have beset the boreal forest,” Fisher says. “We’re only on the tip of the iceberg now — we’ve only really started looking at this in earnest over the last couple of years and realizing, ‘Oh my God, we’ve got a real brewing storm on our hands.’ “

Solutions … or Lack Thereof

So what’s to be done?

The most time-sensitive problem is the decline of caribou, but killing wolves likely won’t provide a long-term solution. Fewer wolves may boost the number of coyotes, who also prey on young caribou.

Invasive white-tailed deer could also increase in numbers at a greater rate if wolf populations fall.

Another problem is that land is still being cleared at a rate that’s detrimental to caribou.

“We can do a better job at landscape protection,” says Fisher.

Not to mention restoration. All companies are required to do reclamation, but that’s often a far cry from real restoration. Reclamation focuses on making a brown area look green, usually by planting something quick-growing like grasses.

Some companies have gone beyond Canada’s federal mandates and replanted native shrubs and trees. But a lot more of that is needed, says Fisher. And it will be a long time before the newly planted vegetation grows up.

In the meantime, research suggests that wolves can be slowed down in other ways. A 2021 study found that erecting obstacles along linear clearings reduced the ratio of wolf-caribou encounters by 85% and black bear-caribou encounters by 60%.

“By managing animal movements that regulate predator–prey encounters, risk to endangered species can be reduced without the disruptive trophic effects caused by intensive carnivore removals,” the researchers found.

Protecting caribou when they’re young also helps. In British Columbia the Saulteau and West Moberly First Nations have had success with a program that pens and protects pregnant woodland caribou and the calves until they’re a few months old.

“I think the evidence is really clear that using multiple strategies is far better than just throwing all your eggs into the wolf-kill basket,” says Fisher. “And we can’t do that either because people see that as lifting the weight of responsibility from oil companies and putting it on wolves as a scapegoat, and that’s just not sustainable societally.​​”

There’s still a lot that needs to be done to understand the changes that are happening, he says. But the world should take note.

As Fisher and conservation biologist A. Cole Burton warned in a 2018 study, “The Canadian oil sands provide an early warning: as oil and gas extraction continues to drive national and global economies, the biodiversity effects we observed are a precursor of the potential future of landscape change in unconventional petroleum regions around the globe.”

Ripple effects of abortion restrictions confuse care for miscarriages

As the Supreme Court appears poised to return abortion regulation to the states, recent experience in Texas illustrates that medical care for miscarriages and dangerous ectopic pregnancies would also be threatened if restrictions become more widespread.

One Texas law passed last year lists several medications as abortion-inducing drugs and largely bars their use for abortion after the seventh week of pregnancy. But two of those drugs, misoprostol and mifepristone, are the only drugs recommended in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines for treating a patient after an early pregnancy loss. The other miscarriage treatment is a procedure described as surgical uterine evacuation to remove the pregnancy tissue — the same approach as for an abortion.

“The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same,” said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.

Miscarriages occur in roughly 1 out of 10 pregnancies. Some people experience loss of pregnancy at home and don’t require additional care, other than emotional support, said Dr. Tony Ogburn, who chairs the OB-GYN department at the University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine. But in other situations, he said, providers may need to intervene to stop bleeding and make sure no pregnancy tissue remains, as a guard against infection.

Dr. Lauren Thaxton, an OB-GYN and assistant professor at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas-Austin, has already heard about local patients who have been miscarrying, and couldn’t get a pharmacy to fill their misoprostol prescription. “The pharmacy has said, ‘We don’t know whether or not you might be using this medication for the purposes of abortion,'” she said.

Thaxton, who supervises the obstetrics-gynecology residents who have seen these patients, said sometimes the prescribing clinic will intervene, but it takes the patient longer to get the medication. Other times patients don’t report the problem and miscarry on their own, she said, but without medication they risk additional bleeding.

Under another new Texas abortion law, someone who “aids or abets” an abortion after cardiac activity can be detected, typically around six weeks, can be subject to at least a $10,000 fine per occurrence. Anyone can bring that civil action, posing a quandary for physicians and other providers. How do they follow the latest guidelines when other people — from medical professionals to friends and family members — can question their intent: Are they helping care for a miscarriage or facilitating an abortion?

Sometimes patients don’t realize that they have lost the pregnancy until they come in for a checkup and no cardiac activity can be detected, said Dr. Emily Briggs, a family physician who delivers babies in New Braunfels, Texas. At that point, the patient can opt to wait until the bleeding starts and the pregnancy tissue is naturally released, Briggs said. For some, that’s too difficult, given the emotions surrounding the pregnancy loss, she said. Instead, the patient may choose medication or a surgical evacuation procedure, which Briggs said may prove necessary anyway to avoid a patient becoming septic if some of the tissue remains in the uterus.

But now in Texas, the new laws are creating uncertainties that may deter some doctors and other providers from offering optimal miscarriage treatment.

These situations can create significant moral distress for patients and providers, said Bryn Esplin, a bioethicist and assistant professor of medical education at the University of North Texas Health Science Center in Fort Worth. “Any law that creates a hesitancy for physicians to uphold the standard of care for a patient has a cascade of harmful effects both for the patient but also for everyone else,” said Esplin.

It’s an emotional and legal dilemma that potentially faces not just obstetricians and midwives, but also family physicians, emergency physicians, pharmacists, and anyone else who might become involved with pregnancy care. And Ogburn, who noted that he was speaking personally and not for the medical school, worries that fears about the Texas laws have already delayed care.

“I wouldn’t say this is true for our practice,” he said. “But I have certainly heard discussion among physicians that they’re very hesitant to do any kind of intervention until they’re absolutely certain that this is not possibly a viable pregnancy — even though the amount of bleeding would warrant intervening because it’s a threat to the mother’s life.”

John Seago, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, described this type of hesitation as “an awful misunderstanding of the law.” Even before the passage of the two bills, existing Texas law stated that the act is not an abortion if it involves the treatment of an ectopic pregnancy — which most commonly occurs when the pregnancy grows in the fallopian tube — or to “remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion,” he said, pointing to the statute. Another area of Texas law that Seago cited provides an exception to the state’s abortion restrictions if the mother’s life is in danger or she’s at “serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function” unless an abortion is performed.

“It is a pro-life position to allow physicians to make those life-and-death decisions,” Seago said. “And that may mean in certain circumstances protecting the mother in this situation and the child passing away.”

But interpretation of the laws is still causing challenges to care. At least several OB-GYNs in the Austin area received a letter from a pharmacy in late 2021 saying it would no longer fill the drug methotrexate in the case of ectopic pregnancy, citing the recent Texas laws, said Dr. Charlie Brown, an Austin-based obstetrician-gynecologist who provided a copy to KHN. Methotrexate also is listed in the Texas law passed last year.

Ectopic pregnancy develops in an estimated 2% of reported pregnancies. Methotrexate or surgery are the only two options listed in the medical guidelines to prevent the fallopian tubes from rupturing and causing dangerous bleeding.

“Ectopic pregnancies can kill people,” said Brown, a district chair for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, representing Texas.

Tom Mayo, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University’s Dedman School of Law in Dallas, understands why some in Texas’ pharmacy community might be nervous. “The penalties are quite draconian,” he said, noting that someone could be convicted of a felony.

However, Mayo said that his reading of the law allows for the use of methotrexate to treat an ectopic pregnancy. In addition, he said, other Texas laws and the Roe v. Wade decision provide an exception to permit abortion if a pregnant person’s life is in danger.

Since the Texas laws include a stipulation that there must be intent to induce an abortion, Mayo said that he’d advise physicians and other clinicians to closely document the rationale for medical care, whether it’s to treat a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy.

But Prager believes that the laws in Texas — and perhaps elsewhere soon — could boost physicians’ vulnerability to medical malpractice lawsuits. Consider the patient whose miscarriage care is delayed and develops a serious infection and other complications, Prager said. “And they decide to sue for malpractice,” she said. “They can absolutely do that.”

Texas providers are still adjusting to other ripple effects that affect patient care. Dr. Jennifer Liedtke, a family physician in Sweetwater, Texas, who delivers about 175 babies annually, no longer sends misoprostol prescriptions to the local Walmart. Since the new laws took effect, Liedtke said, the pharmacist a handful of times declined to provide the medication, citing the new law — despite Liedtke writing the prescription to treat a miscarriage. Walmart officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Since pharmacists rotate through that Walmart, Liedtke decided to send those prescriptions to other pharmacies rather than attempt to sort out the misunderstanding anew each time.

“It’s hard to form a relationship to say, ‘Hey look, I’m not using this for an elective abortion,'” she said. “‘I’m just using this because this is not a viable pregnancy.'”

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

Sneaker Release Trauma is real. Just ask any suffering shoe collector

I’m solid. Solid because I beat poverty and figured out creative ways to make money off the police brutality I endured while remaining a strangely optimistic person. I even have a reputation for being a pretty nice person. I’m choosing not to be bitter about racism; on most days, I can handle its horrible effects. As a matter of fact, I feel like I can almost handle anything. I am proud of my resiliency, but I still feel pain sometimes. A pain that invades my chest like a sharp blade and twirls apart my innards. A pain I can’t escape no matter how fast I run. I can beat it on weekdays, but most weekends — mainly Saturdays — that pain rises, causing me to suffer from a condition called Sneaker Release Trauma. 

Here is one such Saturday: The sun and I wake up at 6 a.m. sharp. I brush my teeth and tip-toe downstairs, trying not to bother my wife and daughter. Multiple alarms had been set on my phone: one for 7 a.m., then 8, 8:05, 9:45. But I didn’t need them. This Saturday would be a glorious day, a Saturday to remember! A Saturday I’ve thought about for months. On this Saturday, Virgil Abloh and Nike are dropping the Off-White Jordan 4s in a Sail colorway.

The release of these particular shoes had been rumored for years. And like most respectable shoe addicts, I follow every sneaker blog, sneaker-related Instagram account and specialty store closely. I save every photo of the shoes that dance across my screen. Personally, I prefer the BRED (that’s black and red) colorway, but Sail, which looks like creamy eggnog, is beautiful.

“Baby, did you ask your friends to bid?” I asked my wife. “Did you?” 

“Yesssss,” she responded, still half asleep. “I have all of my friends and their friends on SNKRS.” 

Imagine how far Dr. King could have marched if he had a pair of Off-White Jordan 4s in Sail!

I know I can’t do this alone. I’m happy that my strong wife and her friends are there for me. As the Civil Rights movement taught me, achieving something big takes a community. Imagine how far Dr. King could have marched if he had a pair of Off-White Jordan 4s in Sail! Maybe Rosa Parks would have preferred walking everywhere in her own pair of those thickly padded shoes. That is, if SNKRS comes through. Spoiler alert: It often doesn’t. 

SNKRS, Nike’s app that runs weekly raffles for the brand’s most popular shoes, has not been kind to me, or to most people I know. In response to the boom in sneaker culture and the way people hungry for kicks were bum-rushing stores and jamming websites, Nike created the app in 2015 with the goal of making the shoes more accessible to those of us who were constantly finding ourselves unlucky. It was a good gesture; however, bots seemed to dominate it from the beginning, and resellers are allowed to purchase dozens of pairs they will then turn around and resell at a profit. For example, the Off-White Jordan 4s I craved retailed for $200. But the resale price is around $1,300 on average —or $3500 for my size 14. 

The 20 notifications I set on the top of my alarms begin going off around 9:30. “Get everybody ready!” I yell out to my wife, who I was now purposely trying to wake.

“They ready!” she yells back.

We all enter the 10 a.m. raffle with a message telling us we may be in line, just wait patiently, remain optimistic, you’re feeling lucky, everything will be OK . . . then, what’s supposed to happen is a glorious photo of the sneakers appears, with the message we’ve been waiting for: “GOTT’EM.”

A “GOTT’EM” screen would make us all exhale. Alas, those messages rarely come. And in the case of Off-White Jordan 4s in the Sail colorway, none of us gott’em — not my wife, not her friends, not my friends, not the fake account I set up in my baby’s name. As a collective, we lost. 

Like a responsible adult, my wife went on with her day, and I imagine her friends did the same. As for me, I sat alone watching my eggs burn and my coffee freeze, feeling my heart sink past my knees, through my socks and into the sole of my Retro Jordan 5s. There it was. Sneaker Release Trauma was setting in. 

Sneaker Release Trauma is the feeling of nothingness that absorbs your happiness and decimates your soul the second you lose a sneaker raffle.

I am no scientist, but I hold Johns Hopkins-level knowledge on Sneaker Release Trauma (SRT). Yes, SRT is a real condition, and I know this because I am battling it as I write this essay. Sneaker Release Trauma is the feeling of nothingness that absorbs your happiness and decimates your soul the second you lose a sneaker raffle. Who is responsible for Sneaker Release Trauma? Easy: shoe companies. They’re the ones that release limited numbers of sought-after merchandise, making customers crazy. And that indirectly fuels the resale market, pushing prices through the roof.

It wasn’t always like this. In the good old days, there was no secondary market, no tents pitched in front of Foot Locker with ice-pack coolers full of drinks for people spending the night on the sidewalk so they can be first in line when the shoes are released on Saturday morning. 

RELATED: Raekwon opens up about life before and with the Wu-Tang Clan

As a matter of fact, I remember when you could just go to the store and buy a pair of Air Jordans, even if you missed the release day. Even if you waited a few months after they dropped. I remember when Jordans used to go on sale for a price under retail. 

And then something in sneaker culture changed. It wasn’t an explosive Big Bang moment, more like something that grew gradually over time: shoes changed, from pieces of stitched-together cloth you threw on your feet to a staple of cultural coolness, and then into a piece of our identity. Many collectors remember when they first recognized the difference. Mine began with a pair of eggplant-purple Nike Foamposites.

DTLR, a Baltimore sneaker store, used to open at 10 .m. on Saturdays. When shoes I wanted were due to be released, I would arrive around 9:50 to be first in the store. On days I couldn’t make it that early, a manager would put a pair aside for me — stores don’t carry many pairs in size 14 — and I would slip them a couple of extra bucks from time to time. One Saturday, like any other release Saturday, I pulled up in the lot nice and early only to see a line of about 15 people outside of the store.

I remember when Jordans used to go on sale for a price under retail. 

I always champion diversity, but I’ve never seen this many non-Black people assembled in a Baltimore neighborhood. 

“D, I got you,” the manager said. “Be cool!” 

“Are y’all giving shoes away or something?” I asked.

The crowd laughed. The manager let about three people into the store and then came down to the end of the line to meet me. 

“Man, these purple Foams got these kids going crazy,” he said. “Some of them have been here all night, like it’s a drug or something. But don’t worry — I got yours in the back. I know you go crazy without your shoes.” 

Dude was right — I’ve been crazy about my shoes since I was a little kid. I fell in love with Air Jordans back when I was a tyke. This kid named Ant who lived a few doors down walked past me wearing a pair of white 3s. My hungry eyes locked in on his shoes: I had never seen anything so perfect. I just had to have them. I don’t know if I got into sneakers — which we Baltimoreans called tennis — at that moment because I was getting older or if his shoes were just that great. I think they might have been that great.

“These tennis were made for the best player to ever touch a basketball ever! Michael Jordan of the Chicago Bulls!” Ant said.

And honestly, it didn’t matter to me if they were made for the worst player. I was hooked on the shoes. I caught up with my dad at the top of the block and basically told him that my life would stop if I did not get my hands on a pair of Air Jordans. He obliged, buying himself a pair as well. Those delivered me nearly-instant status in my neighborhood, allowing me to gain attention from all of the older kids, who pointed at my feet and even saluted me for having the insight to wear the same shoes as them. We were a special community because everybody in the neighborhood wasn’t hooked on Nike.

Most of the kids loved to wear wheat-colored Timberland boots — what we call “Buttas” — or 996 and 1300 New Balance. Us Jordan kids, we were different. We paid attention to detail. We wanted to be connected to greatness. We were the foundation of modern sneaker culture. I kicked on my Jordan 3s 34 years ago and have not been able to take them off. 

Owning a pair of Jordans used to feel special. It used to feel like you were part of a secret club that most didn’t care about.

But a lot has happened in 34 years. Sneaker culture has gone from something that a select group of us followed to a multi-trillion-dollar industry that it seems like everyone subscribes to. Owning a pair of Jordans used to feel special. It used to feel like you were part of a secret club that most didn’t care about. Now owning a pair seems mandatory. Professional wrestlers who used to perform in neon knee-high leather boots and matching Speedos are now body-slamming in the ring while wearing Jordans. I sat at a bar next to an annoying prosecutor bragging about his Jordan fetish. Skip Bayless collects them. It seems like everybody has them, seems like kids are being born with them, owning three or four colorways as soon as they pop out of the womb. And so now, buying a pair seems kind of corny, yet I still do. And I still get crushed when my number isn’t called. Cue the Sneaker Release Trauma again.


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


Like an idiot, I punch the SNKRS app every weekend hoping to win while knowing that I will lose. You know that Einstein quote that isn’t really an Einstein quote, the one that goes, “The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?” That’s me in a nutshell. Approaching the game with optimism while knowing that the most I’ll get out of it is four hideous words that trigger my condition: Your Entry Wasn’t Accepted. 

And when my entry isn’t selected, I stand in front of the mirror and recite my special anti-SRT chant: You are a good person… You always do the right thing, most times… You take care of your family and friends… You deserve those shoes… 

Why do I deserve those shoes? I was a part of the youth culture that built sneaker culture. We didn’t follow celebrities, athletes or famous musicians — they came through the streets to follow us. We are the reason why all of these high-end designers are so vested now in streetwear. Back when luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Gucci and Fendi were dumping all of their money into the creation of purses, luggage and high-class loafers, we were wearing the sneakers, the sweatshirts, the cut-up jeans we bleached ourselves, and styling them in revolutionary ways that are now the standard. And now I see them using the same styles we created. Gucci even partnered with famed Harlem designer Dapper Dan after one of the brand’s designers stole one of his custom looks from the ’80s. If we create the culture, should I be denied the opportunity to purchase a pair of sneakers at the original sale price because an elite class with more disposable income and a better hold on technology wants to dibble and dabble in styles that were birthed in urban neighborhoods like my section of East Baltimore?  

RELATED: What does being fly mean to Dapper Dan? Liberation

You are a good person… You always do the right thing, most times… You take care of your family and friends… You deserve those shoes … 

Sometimes, when I think I really, really want a certain shoe, I pay that disgusting resale price and help some shoe flipper rich while depleting my daughter’s college fund. (She’ll get scholarships, I hope.) It’s Nike’s fault, of course. Nike’s inability to create enough product for everybody, or at least me, and allowing the resellers to dominate their sites, is what’s making me fiscally irresponsible. Look, I’m joking — I’m not going hungry, and my kid will go to college. Don’t send in your donations just yet — I’m OK. But I’m not sure every person who covets the latest Jordans release is. 

If you are from where I’m from, the joy — the rush — you get from cracking open a brand new pair of sneakers is almost unmatched. That new-sneaker joy is the only joy that a lot of people will experience, if I’m being totally honest. Feeling recognized because they knew which shoe to pick and how to style it, and then had that moment of being the slickest person in the neighborhood. 

“Oh look at you and them new shoes, he think he slicker than a can of oil!” My friends would laugh as we saluted one another after cracking open new pairs. 

That feeling. The feeling of being run down, beat down and left nothing. The ability to flip that pain into happiness in the form of shoes has been compromised by outsiders, by culture vultures who have scavenged off two generations’ worth of street innovators. That’s what causes Sneaker Release Trauma, and it’s only going to get worse. A shoe is never just a shoe. 

The fall of Roe v. Wade will only embolden the fascists: How will America respond?

We warned the American people that electing Donald Trump would be a disaster. Unfortunately, too many Americans — from the political and media classes to everyday people — chose to ignore those warnings.

Our warnings were specific: Trump and his fake populist movement are a form of poison in the American body politic. Today’s Republican Party and the larger “conservative” movement do not believe in democracy. They are authoritarians, trying to impose an apartheid Christian fascist plutocratic state on the American people.

If Trump were elected president, we warned, he would set into motion a series of events that would create an existential crisis for American democracy and society. He was mentally unwell, perhaps sociopathic. The civil rights and human rights of Black and brown people — and other vulnerable and marginalized groups — would be imperiled. Women’s reproductive rights and freedoms, including the right to abortion enshrined in the Roe v. Wade decision, would be taken away.

RELATED: You laughed at Trump for screwing up J.D. Vance’s name. Did that save Roe v. Wade?

All those predictions, and many others, have come true. At first, those of us who sounded the alarm about the coming American nightmare were called crazy, hyperbolic, reactionary or irrational. We were “haters,” desperate for attention, who suffered from “Trump derangement syndrome.”

We were the voices in the wilderness.

We were not selling wolf tickets. We were trying to save the American people by telling them the truth about the Age of Trump and American fascism and the nightmare that in many ways was already here and is now only getting worse.

As we now know from the draft Supreme Court opinion recently published by Politico, the end of Roe v. Wade is upon us, and abortion rights as a matter of constitutional law will no longer exist in the United States. The fall of Roe is a huge step forward in the much larger attack on human and civil rights in America by the Republican fascists, the “conservative” movement and the larger white right. Many Americans now find themselves trapped in the very nightmare whose existence they spent years denying.

Sometimes the ground moves beneath our feet. That is true for both societies and individuals. The challenge then becomes how to reorient ourselves

How did well-intentioned people in America’s political class, and ordinary citizens who believe in democracy, get this so wrong? How did they so greatly underestimate the danger of Trumpism?

“Normalcy bias,” meaning the belief that because things have operated in a certain way for as long as many people can remember, explains much of this error. Intellectual laziness and a culture of distraction played a big role as well. Trumpism, like other forms of fascism, is nothing new. The answers (and the likely future) were visible for all who chose to look for them.

The American people are also exhausted from a pandemic that has now killed more than one million people in this country alone. A decades-long attack on the American Dream and what remains of social democracy has also left many of us in a state of precarity, perpetual vulnerability and learned helplessness. People who are mired in negativity and feelings of despair can easily succumb to cynicism, distrust, religious extremism, conspiratorial thinking, anti-intellectualism and other unhealthy states of mind. These are the same emotions, thinking, and behaviors that nurture fascism and other forms of authoritarianism.

There is also the power of American myth, and our belief that we are an an “exceptional” nation, the “greatest” on Earth. According to that mythology, the American people are inherently good, and fascism and authoritarianism are problems that by definition can only exist elsewhere. Even in the wake of the Trump presidency, many Americans are still in denial about the fact that tens of millions of their fellow (white) citizens reject multiracial democracy and want to replace it with outright fascism or some other form of racial authoritarianism.

What about America’s political elites? What about the “thought leaders” in the news media and the commentariat, who are paid to be expert interpreters of political events? How did they fail to see this nightmare emerging?


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


Such people have a deep and abiding belief in “the system.” To imagine that “the system” is failing is to call into question their own identities and futures relative to it. Few people want to reckon with their own obsolescence. At an even deeper level, many people who are part of that system reflexively resist confronting their own role in creating and worsening this disaster. 

A person who is associated with the “system” or the “establishment” is also very likely a person privileged by that system, whether because of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, wealth and income, residency status, lack of disability or something else. So for many members of the media and political elite, it is not possible to conceive of this American nightmare in general, or the end of Roe in particular, as something that is real, possible and personal. Those people find themselves in an altered world yet are still in denial about it. The cognitive dissonance borders on being pathological. 

Author and Daily Beast writer Wajahat Ali recently described this state of denial on Twitter: 

All of us — who were denounced as reactionary and alarmist by those paid incredible sums of money to be analysts and influencers — were right. That’s the problem with the DC/NYC circle — it’s a small, closed, often homogeneous group who only hang out with each other.

Cultural historian and media scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan offered a similar intervention, writing: “I can’t believe that there are people who have lived through the past six years in America who still believe we operate according to the democratic norms of the late 20th century. The rest of us are dealing with this full-on assault in the real world.”

At Mother Jones, Monika Bauerlein shared these insights about the power of denial among America’s media class, writing that Republicans were pursuing “minority rule” and that “sugarcoating” that fact with polite words helps no one:

In fact, there’s an argument that sugarcoating the abortion debate is part of what got us here. As the journalist Farai Chideya, who hosts the podcast Our Body Politic, wrote on Twitter, “Too many times I’ve been in newsrooms where a post-Roe and post-Voting Rights Act future was dismissed summarily as a possibility. So we as a profession created a dangerous filter bubble, dismissing individuals and groups as fringe when they were the tip of the spear.”

In a democracy, the fourth estate is supposed to hold the powerful accountable in order to help the public make informed political decisions. In this context, the fourth estate are the harbor masters of democracy, helping to navigate ships through dangerous waters. But in the dark and turbulent waters of the Trump era, the harbor masters have become confused. They keep driving vessels onto the rocks. The wrecks are piling up, but the harbor masters insist their maps must be correct. 

We have seen this repeatedly throughout the Age of Trump and beyond: The country’s leading publications will shine a bright light on the Republican plot against democracy — but then, the next day or sometimes later on the same day, will pivot back to the very same both-sides coverage and horserace journalism that led to America’s democracy crisis in the first place.

It is no wonder, then, that the American people are confused, angry and disoriented. The voices who are supposed to make complicated matters of politics and society clearer and more legible have utterly failed to fulfill their responsibility.

Many Americans will march in protest after Roe is overturned. Activist groups will mobilize supporters. Democrats will try to turn the outrage to their advantage. But there’s a huge problem with that plan.

The imminent end of Roe v. Wade will pose a great test for American democracy. Many Americans will certainly participate in marches and other protests when the Republican-controlled Supreme Court votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, very likely next month. Civil society organizations are mobilizing their members and the larger public. The Democrats hope to use outrage over the Republican assault on reproductive rights and freedoms to mobilize their voters for the midterms and beyond. Organizations across the country are enacting plans to ensure that women and girls who choose to terminate their pregnancies can do so.

Inevitably, this mobilization for women’s rights and freedoms will be met by a powerful counter-mobilization from the right-wing. Extreme violence by the latter is a definite possibility.

This plan has one huge problem: Democratic mobilization is all well and good, but today’s Republicans and “conservatives”, and the larger white right do not believe in democracy and are actively seeking to destroy it. The nullification of Roe v. Wade is a stark example of the tyranny of the minority: The Supreme Court’s decision is widely unpopular and contrary to the common good. It also violates fundamental human rights and liberties and damages democracy.

In a functioning democracy, public opinion is supposed to serve as a barometer and guide for elected officials and their policymaking. Marches, mobilization and social movements are forms of pressure on elected officials and other elites. But the Republican-fascist movement and other “conservatives” do not care about that. They are creating a political system that allows them to advance their agenda without being limited or otherwise restrained by public pressure or democratic will.

To wit. The reversal of Roe v. Wade is the work of two anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic political institutions, the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court. To make matters even clearer, five of the nine current Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican presidents who did not win the popular vote.

Three of those justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were chosen by Donald Trump. He lost the popular vote twice, was impeached twice, attempted a coup and engaged in a long list of high crimes against American democracy and society. In practice, Trump is also a white supremacist, a fascist demagogue and a political cult leader.

As for the Senate, it disproportionately empowers smaller, largely rural “red” states over more populous, metropolitan “blue” states, where the vast majority of Americans live. The Republicans have also used the Senate filibuster to prevent the Democrats from passing major legislation, including popular measures to protect reproductive rights, voting rights and democracy in general. 

To insulate themselves from public outrage about Roe v. Wade (and other unpopular policies) the Republicans use gerrymandering, vote rigging, voter intimidation, vote theft and other anti-democratic measures to restrict the voting rights of  Black and brown Americans and other key Democratic constituencies.

Writing at Jacobin, Ben Beckett connects the impending Roe v. Wade decision to the larger Republican-fascist project, describing the current Supreme Court as the right’s “most powerful weapon” in establishing rule “against the people”:

While the Supreme Court is especially insulated from democracy and accountability, this authoritarian impulse has always been at the core of conservatism, and the Right has always had a tenuous relationship to democracy. Historically, it has only acceded to democratic demands kicking and screaming, and it has consistently tried to roll back democratic practices and revert power to unaccountable elites. …

While the desire to overturn Roe v. Wade long precedes Donald Trump’s presidency, Alito’s decision is best understood in the context of the broader counter-democratic movement that has been picking up steam for the past seven years….

There is no reason to think this will get any better, or to expect another outcome when it comes to other important issues. … There is a special sense of helplessness here. Anyone who pays even a little bit of attention to politics knows exactly what will happen, and knows that no one will stop it. The justices will surely continue to find reasons to strike down popular legislation and regulations that were enacted by “the people and their elected representatives,” just as surely as they will find reasons to return questions of individual liberty, voting rights, and freedom of assembly and expression to state governments dominated by conservative extremists sure to restrict them. … It’s all just motivated reasoning for raw power: they’re all for democracy, as long as they can first guarantee that they’ll win.

In a new essay for the New Republic, Katherine Stewart describes the impending reversal of Roe as “the direct consequence of the pact between the Republican Party and America’s religious nationalists”:

Tellingly, the authoritarian origins of the decision are written into the draft opinion itself, which … will serve as a model and platform for advancing a wider assault on individual rights and American democracy for the benefit of a privileged few. Women of childbearing age are among the first victims of the authoritarian movement that brought us a radicalized Supreme Court. They won’t be the last….

Depriving individuals of their rights is only half of the work of a court bent on paving the way for a Christian nationalist regime. The other half consists in dispensing privileges to favored groups….

Anyone who cares about the rights of individuals against tyranny should fight the court’s apparent decision on abortion rights. But unless we make the fight about the takeover of the court itself — and unless it brings about the changes that this corrupted institution requires—the existential threat to American democracy will persist.

Political scientists and other researchers have shown that Congress is largely unresponsive to the policy demands of working class and poor people and instead takes its directives from the plutocrat class and large corporations. That is another important aspect of the new America Republicans and “conservatives” are trying to create: a fake democracy where it will be virtually impossible to defeat Republicans by electoral means.

Does that mean the American people should surrender to the fascists, or hunker down and wait out the storm? Of course not. They must go beyond thinking of democracy as a matter of voting every few years, donating to causes or candidates, attending protests or marches once or twice year, writing letters to elected official or “liking” and “sharing” a news item, petition or political meme online.

We must go beyond thinking of democracy as a matter of voting, donating money or “liking” political memes on Facebook. Democracy is not those things.

Democracy is much more than those things. To defeat neofascism, the American people must come to understand democracy as a vocation and cultural practice. That means participating in local civic organizations and creating social change on an intimate, personal, community-based level.

This moment also demands a commitment to long-term struggle: winning back and protecting reproductive rights, voting rights and other essential aspects of democracy and freedom may well be a decades-long battle. Defeating the Republican-fascists and the larger white right will also require learning the lessons of the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the LGBTQ rights movement and other freedom struggles. Corporeal politics, including strikes, sustained protests, boycotts and other forms of civil disobedience, potentially on an unprecedented scale, may well be required to win back American democracy.

This American nightmare is not going away anytime soon. The Republican-fascist movement will only become more aggressive with the end of Roe v. Wade. It is winning, and can sense larger victories ahead.

This test of democracy will not be a matter of one finite event, one year or one political campaign. Do the American people have the courage and fortitude for the long fight? Or will they simply convince themselves that this must be the new normal and therefore acceptable? America’s future depends on the answer to those questions.

Read more on the aftermath of the leaked Roe v. Wade opinion:

“Traditional” Catholics and white nationalist “groypers” forge a new far-right youth movement

This is the second in a two-part series. In our first installment, read about how the aftermath of the leaked Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade revealed extensive connections between the white nationalist “groyper” movement and the far-right Catholic network around the controversial outlet Church Militant.

The activist wing of Church Militant is called the Resistance network. As of 2020 the outlet said it boasted more than 5,000 members, and claimed to have launched groups in almost every diocese in the U.S. Last June, the group claimed that its protest of a church vaccine drive in Southern California forced the drive to end three hours early. The same month, members of the Resistance network hosted an “affidavit-signing drive at Church Militant headquarters” outside Detroit, joining with other right-wing Michigan groups in demanding a forensic audit of the 2020 election and holding a protest rally on the state capitol steps. 

More recently, as Resistance leader Joe Gallagher outlined at a Church Militant rally last November, the group has picketed local bishops; brought “ex-gay” conservative firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos to the Penn State campus to advocate “praying the gay away”; and protested at a Dallas memorial for George Floyd to “bear witness to a real racial injustice: the mass slaughter of the unborn, which disproportionately affects minorities.” 

Now the Resistance network is looking to recruit directly from the groypers, the largely young far-right followers of white nationalist Nick Fuentes. On May 2, Gallagher interviewed Dalton Clodfelter — the same groyper leader who celebrated the Catholic counter-protester at New York’s Basilica of St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral last weekend — introducing Resistance viewers to Fuentes’ website, CozyTV, as a “new streaming platform for a lot of awesome younger conservatives.” Gallagher hyped the reported 1,200 attendees at Fuentes’ AFPAC III gathering, saying that “obviously [America First] is booming, you guys have gotten huge…You guys go for the jugular every single time.” He continued, “[You go for] the truth, you’re not afraid to hide it at all, and that’s one of the most respectable aspects of America First, is you guys don’t really care. And that’s cool.” 

RELATED: White nationalists get religion: On the far-right fringe, Catholics and racists forge a movement

Clodfelter, who told Gallagher it was Yiannopoulos who first introduced him to Church Militant, pitched America First in a language that his new audience was likely eager to hear. “It’s not like it’s the alt-right, because that is not even cool anymore, even if you wanted it to be. And it’s also not like normie neocon conservatism. … it’s Christian nationalist.” He went on, “The message of America First is tied directly to the word of God and spreading Christianity through our nation where it’s lacking … everything we do is [a spiritual battle], we’re fighting demons, we’re fighting Satan.” Clodfelter emphasized the need to “grow the viewer base” of CozyTV, explaining that “a majority of white young Zoomer men would just love CozyTV — the problem is, they don’t know where to go to get it.” 

America First is not like the alt-right, said one groyper, “because that’s not even cool anymore. And it’s not like normie neocon conservatism. … It’s tied directly to the word of God … We’re fighting demons, we’re fighting Satan.”

Clodfelter went on to draw a particular connection between the groyper movement and Catholicism, saying he’d never considered joining the church before getting involved with America First. “I met people who are truly devout, truly living by the word and they weren’t hypocrites,” he said. “They were representing Catholicism so well for me I was like, wow, the least I could do is go to Mass and do some research.” Now, he said, he’s studying for the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults — the formal process by which unbaptized adults become Catholics — and says he understands why Fuentes says of the groypers, “This is sort of a Catholic movement.”

Since then, Resistance has continued to brand itself to appeal to groypers. One advertisement for Resistance posted on Gab last week featured the America First and CozyTV logos as well as a style of sunglasses popularized by Fuentes as part of last year’s “White Boy Summer” groyper branding campaign. Meanwhile, as reported in part 1 of this series, Clodfelter attempted to mobilize groypers to attend Resistance counterprotests of pro-choice demonstrations planned for weekend in cities across the country. As of Friday, the events appear to have been removed from Resistance’s website, while on Telegram Clodfelter noted late Wednesday night that most of the counterprotests had been postponed, writing, “Working with Church Militant on this to make sure we are doing this in the most organized and safe way.” Clodfelter still claims the groypers will rally in Nashville.

A Resistance advertisement features the America First and CozyTV logos as well as groypers’ favorite sunglasses. “Based” is movement parlance for someone who holds far-right views, while “Zoomer” refers to a member of Gen-Z.

Not every Church Militant staffer appears thrilled with the growing crossover, however. In July 2021, Church Militant executive producer Christine Niles remarked on Twitter that “the America First movement, which has great things to say, is ill-served” by Fuentes’ open antisemitism. “This unfortunate obsession with the Jews will sink the America First movement, and that’s truly a shame.” Some audience members have pushed back as well. “Was a supporter of CM, but no more,” commented one viewer in February 2020, after Voris ran an interview with Fuentes ally Michelle Malkin. “I’m all for borders. I’m all for preserving Western culture … but I’m not down with Holocaust denial.”

In emailed comments on Wednesday, Voris told Salon, “Church Militant might partner with anyone in a particular effort to achieve a limited and shared goal. In this particular case (Roe), yes. [Church Militant] will link arms with almost anyone who decries the horror of babies being hacked to death in their mothers’ wombs. Isn’t ‘linking arms’ the very thing Antifa and BLM and the Democrats do?”

Voris noted that Church Militant did not attend the America First conference in February, “and has no first hand knowledge of what was said or presented.” However, he continued, “it should not be surprising that two (or more) organizations that hold GENERAL views of the current cultural crisis would experience SOME crossover of ideas. Every organization on earth shares SOME things in common with other groups. That said — Church Militant doesn’t align itself with any specific group in a formal way — including groups that are expressly Catholic.”


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


“Where we enjoy shared ideas, we may cooperate,” he continued. “To the degree [Church Militant] ‘values’ INDIVIDUAL members of any group (not the group as a whole), it is because of shared religious values, namely Catholicism and what the Church teaches on ALL matters.”

“Groypers are everywhere”including on Church Militant’s staff

It is counterintuitive, to say the least, that an ostensibly faith-based organization is embracing a movement so explicitly bigoted as the groypers. Fuentes has engaged in elaborate jokes denying the Holocaust, praised Hitler and told viewers on one livestream show that “frankly, I’m getting pretty sick of world Jewry running the show,” to name just several examples of his virulent antisemitism. Fuentes has disparaged African-American voter outreach as attempts to “flood the zone with n****r votes,” called for “total Aryan victory,” rejected “race-mixing” because “people should stick with their own kind,” bragged that he “made misogyny cool again,” celebrated domestic violence against women and much more. 

On his Thursday night livestream show, Fuentes responded to the claims made in part 1 of Salon’s investigation. “You’re damn right the groypers are forming an alliance with the Catholics,” he exclaimed, “and you’re right we have a plan, and we are gonna take the Republican Party and we are going to drag it against its will back through the doors of the church and to the altar, and we are going to baptize it.” Clodfelter, meanwhile, extolled his audience to “show our love and support for Church Militant. These guys are strong, these guys are determined…yes, we’re collaborating in this effort to combat Satanism in America, we are. Groypers are everywhere.”

Groyper guru Nick Fuentes has praised Hitler, called for “total Aryan victory,” complained about “world Jewry running the show” and bragged he “made misogyny cool again.”

While Niles appeared ambivalent about America First, or at least its leader, her colleague, 27-year old Joseph Enders, is a full-fledged groyper. Variously named as a reporter, senior producer and associate producer at Church Militant, Enders is a fixture on Church Militant Evening News and a regular contributor to churchmilitant.com. 

Enders didn’t always support white nationalism. In 2018, he self-identified as an “Augustinian nationalist,” claimed affiliation with the Proud Boys and uploaded interviews to YouTube where he argued with white nationalist leaders like Richard Spencer and James Allsup. “The philosophy of the right,” he told Spencer in June 2018, should be animated by “a people that focus[es] inward on preserving the traditions of Western culture … [but] race should not be a consideration in this. I think we should only judge people based on how they exercise their will.” 

By late 2019, however, when the groypers entered the national spotlight with a series of public stunts challenging conservative leaders on college campuses, Enders had changed his tune. “I don’t think anybody is saying we’re preserving our race because our race is better,” he explained when he called in to the streaming show of Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes on McInnes’ Censored.TV platform. Defending the groypers’ emphasis on white demographic “replacement” — the conspiracy theory that white Americans are being “replaced” by nonwhite immigration — Enders told McInnes, “You’re into fashion, so you’ll understand this analogy: When we look at a country, there are people that wear the country the best, and that’s usually the founding stock of the country.”

Since joining Church Militant’s staff in 2020, Enders’ embrace of the groypers has continued apace. “Nick is a Mass-attending Catholic, unheard of at his age,” Enders posted on Facebook in April 2021. “I can’t help but like Nick … the Right needs more of [his] trollish humor to root out the grifters. It’s supremely entertaining.” A year later, his support was even more pronounced. “I hear this Nick Fuentes dude is pretty based,” he tweeted on April 30, 2022. “I have to say … I support his efforts to put America First.”

Church Militant reporter and producer Joseph Enders wearing the groypers’ America First hat and sunglasses, in a summer 2021 Instagram photo.

On Gab, Telegram and other social media platforms, Enders regularly celebrates America First and its political ambitions; shares content from groyper leaders like Fuentes, Vince James and Anthime Gionet, (aka “Baked Alaska,” who on Wednesday undermined his own Jan. 6 plea deal, potentially sending his case to trial); uploads photos of himself sporting the blue “America First” hat and other movement paraphernalia; and participates in debates on movement strategy. Like others in the groyper orbit, he regularly traffics in antisemitism, including using the (((echo))) symbol, a meme created by white nationalists to target Jewish people and organizations. In the first days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Enders quoted, with seeming approval, a statement by Vladimir Putin decrying European countries’ supposed abandonment of “Christian values” and shared an article arguing that Putin was seeking to “rebuild Christendom.”

White nationalist themes carry over into Enders’ work with Church Militant, as well. On Church Militant’s website, articles written by Enders quote Fuentes, name the Jewish identity of political opponents and claim that critical race theory “rejects the ethnic identity of White Americans.” On the outlet’s nightly news program, Enders has championed white nationalist slogans like “it’s ok to be white,” claimed that “the Left’s essential policy when dealing with race is … ‘is it going to hurt white people?’…more dead white people is the policy of the Democrats,” and protested the decision by the flagship Conservative Political Action Conference to bar Fuentes from attendance.  

When news broke last week that the Supreme Court was moving to overturn Roe v. Wade, Enders’ message was direct and disturbing. “Get ready witches,” he posted on May 3 on Gab and Twitter, “we’re coming for your birth control next.”

“A soul for their politics”

As mentioned in our first installment, this is all part of a broader pattern of overlap between the far-right, including the white nationalist right, with right-wing Catholicism. In 2017, groyper leader Milo Yiannapoulos was drummed out of many right-wing movements for statements he made minimizing child sex abuse, and subsequently used his return to Catholicism as an opportunity to rebrand. This March he headlined an anti-abortion convention in Ohio that was blessed by the local Catholic bishop, and in June he will be a featured speaker at a Church Militant Resistance bootcamp. Canadian white nationalist Faith Goldy, who was disgraced after appearing on the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, likewise touted her return to the church as part of her rehabilitation. “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander found his way to a new audience at the end of 2020 with a highly public conversion to Catholicism, as did “Kent State gun girl” Kaitlin Bennett in late 2021. They joined a core group of far-right activists who have deployed their Catholic identity in service of their movements, including Pizzagate provocateur-turned conservative commentator Jack Posobiec, former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and Fuentes himself. 

As the alt-right was planning its 2017 march in Charlottesville, Virginia, one of the most popular places where activists did their planning was a Discord chat forum called the “Nick Fuentes forum,” dedicated to exploring connections between “Unite the Right” and the Catholic Church. Within it, hundreds of posters discussed traditionalist Catholicism and posted memes alternating, or combining, Crusades-era imagery with neo-Nazi and antisemitic content. 

As journalist Eric Martin reported at the liberal Christian magazine Sojourners, some posters identified themselves as “Charles Coughlin Roman Catholics,” for the 1930s pro-fascist priest and broadcaster who helped pioneer the demagogic media style that is fracturing our democracy today. Fuentes himself has waxed nostalgic about fascist and monarchist regimes in Europe and Latin America that were grounded in Catholic teaching, and in 2018 declared on a livestream that, “in an ideal world,” there would be “a global Catholic theocracy” and that “the state should enforce morality that is informed by Catholic teaching.” 

More broadly online, far-right activists online began adopting phrases like “Viva Cristo Rey” (Christ the King) or “Deus Vult” (God wills it) in their posts and tweets, and Catholic symbolism like medieval crosses and Crusader imagery. 

Some conservative Catholics have welcomed this development. In a 2019 article published by the Catholic right magazine Crisis, “Kids in defense of the culture,” American Greatness editor Pedro Gonzalez praised Fuentes’ groypers. “They have chosen to be guided by a Christianity hammered free of the dross of the modern world,” Gonzalez wrote. “In an age of compromise and petty principles, groypers have chosen to stand for something, armed with little more than digital slingshots. That alone is reason enough to hear them out.”

Some conservative Catholics have embraced the groypers, arguing that they “have chosen to be guided by a Christianity hammered free of the dross of the modern world.”

But moderate and liberal Catholics were appalled. “It’s such a horrifying appropriation of Catholicism,” noted writer and researcher D.W. Lafferty in a 2020 podcast episode produced by Where Peter Is, a moderate Catholic website that tracks the Catholic right. Lafferty described the new far-right aesthetic as “Pepe Catholicism,” while Georgetown University theologian Adam Rasmussen called it “Catholic LARPing”: a way for the alt-right to pretend they were “Knights Templar fighting the forces of darkness in the deep state.”

As Vatican correspondent Christopher Lamb, author of the papal biography “The Outsider: Pope Francis and His Battle to Reform the Church,” explained during the 2020 presidential campaign, the far right’s adoption of Catholic symbolism was a means for the movement to infuse itself with deeper spiritual meaning. “The populists and nationalists were looking for some kind of soul for their politics. And they found it in some symbols of the faith,” Lamb said. “And they’re powerful symbols. Quite often they make the whole case that the past has been lost.” 

“In a sense, you empty the content of the religious,” Lamb noted earlier this year, “and use the externals — the rosary beads, the crucifix, some words, perhaps some prayers — but you use it as an identity marker to give your movement a sense that it has a soul or deeper intensity at a moral level.” 

But that influence goes both ways, and as Lamb noted in 2020, as more and more right-wing Catholics identified themselves with Trump’s re-election campaign, “Trumpism,” in turn, “got into the church.” 

As Lafferty said at the time, “What’s happening on the right, I think, is unprecedented,” except for the historical examples of ultranationalist fascist groups before World War II, such as Action Française in France or the Falangist movement in Spain. “But fascism isn’t new and the Catholic Church was often complicit in fascism,” he added. “So it’s not totally shocking that people can come in and do this.” 

The revelation that some highly enthusiastic and visible elements of the Catholic right are now partnering with a group whose reputation is based on snarky displays of over-the-top bigotry just marks an escalation of that trend. 

“This is a continuation of a pattern that’s been happening for years,” said Lafferty, “and it’s only going to become more intense now that we’re looking at the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned.” As a faithful Catholic, he agrees with the Church’s stance against abortion, he said, but he also sees the imminent SCOTUS reversal as one more “pillar of what we call ‘normal’ falling.” 

“I worry whenever you see anti-abortion rhetoric mixed with anti-immigrant rhetoric or isolationist foreign policy,” said Lafferty. “It feeds into this spreading panic that Western culture is disappearing and immigration is killing Christianity and white hegemony. Ordinary Catholics who may have good intentions need to wake up to this — the bishops included. Because if we look at what’s happened in the Republican Party, a fringe populist element eventually took over. We could see the same thing in the church.” 

Massimo Faggioli, a church historian at Villanova University and author of “Joe Biden and Catholicism in the United States,” observed that “almost anyone with an internet connection and an attitude can start a Catholic blog or website” these days. And that means “there are forces, movements, energies in this underworld that don’t appear officially in the Catholic handbooks or registers, but are there. They have a following that is still small, but no longer as marginal as it used to be.”

“The ‘America First’ Catholics have momentum,” Faggioli said, as well as a powerfully motivating narrative: That “this is a time for war.” That, he said, is what makes the growing alliance between groups like the groypers and Church Militant dangerous. “It’s bigger than just the number of those who are physically involved in these movements. We know how influential they are with young priests, with the seminarians. Their voice is magnified because, in the church as in many other organizations, it’s not how many there are but where they are. What is their position? What are the assets they can mobilize?” 

The “biggest capital” such groups possess, Faggioli said, “is the sign of our times, our zeitgeist. There are clouds on the horizon, a bad moon rising — domestically, internationally. And religion plays an important part.”

Read more on religion and the far right in America:

Elizabeth Warren targets corporate price gouging

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Thursday led the introduction of new legislation that would enable federal regulators to forcefully crack down on corporate price gouging, a practice that progressive lawmakers and economists say has played a major role in driving U.S. inflation to a 40-year high.

According to a one-page summary released by Warren’s office, the Price Gouging Prevention Act of 2022 would “prohibit the practice of price gouging during all abnormal market disruptions—including the current pandemic—by authorizing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general to enforce a federal ban against unconscionably excessive price increases, regardless of a seller’s position in a supply chain.”

The summary notes that the bill would also “create a rebuttable presumption of price gouging against firms that exercise unfair leverage and companies that brag about increasing prices during periods of inflation” and require “public companies to transparently disclose and explain changes in their cost of goods sold, gross margins, and pricing strategies in their quarterly [Securities and Exchange Commission] filings.”

“Corporations have price gouged consumers for extra profits—and gotten away with it—for too long,” Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a Twitter post on Thursday.

Warren introduced the new bill alongside Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), who said in a statement that the measure would “shine a light on price hikes and help prevent big corporations from exploiting a period of inflation to gouge consumers with higher costs.”

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced companion legislation in the House.

Rakeen Mabud, chief economist at the Groundwork Collaborative, applauded the new bill as an “important” step toward reining in corporate profiteering and argued that “a federal price gouging statute would help curtail this exploitative behavior.”

The legislation comes a day after federal data showed that while inflation eased slightly in April, consumer prices were up 8.3% last month compared to a year earlier.

In a recent analysis, Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute argued that “the rise in inflation has not been driven by anything that looks like an overheating labor market—instead it has been driven by higher corporate profit margins and supply-chain bottlenecks.”

Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, similarly argued in a New York Times op-ed last week that “plain old corporate profiteering” is a key culprit behind price hikes nationwide.

“Companies that historically might have kept prices low to pick up profit by gaining additional market share are instead using the cover of inflation to raise prices and increase profits,” Owens wrote. “Consumers are now expecting higher prices at the checkout line, and companies are taking advantage. The poor and those on fixed incomes are hit the hardest.”

New COVID sub-variant, dubbed BA.2.12.1, is rapidly becoming dominant in US

Like an eraser sweeping away a chalkboard, the new COVID subvariant, dubbed BA.2.12.1, is rapidly excising its predecessor’s once-rapid spread. Currently, this new iteration is on track to outtake its predecessor in the omicron BA.2 lineage; notably, previous omicron lineages have dropped to zero in studied lab samples.

As a result, COVID-19 cases are on a slight rise once again. Yet interestingly, while previous omicron sub-variants were said to spread extremely rapidly, this time it is not as cut and dried.

First detected in the United States in New York, the new BA.2.12.1 sub-variant has since come to be the dominant variant in the region. Proven safety nets against deadly outbreaks — vaccines, masking, and distancing — have weakened, and scientists expressed concern about BA.2.12.1 and other omicron sub-variants

“It is unclear exactly why cases are rising,” Dr. David Cutler, a family physician, told Medical News Today. “Is it because of BA.2.12.1? Is it because people are not wearing masks? Is it because immunity from prior vaccines is waning?”

These questions are not unique to any variant, according to Cutler. A shifting landscape of COVID-19 restrictions may well skew estimations of the actual infection rate. Early indications suggest mutations to BA.2.12.1 protein spikes may also be the culprit, though other factors likely contributed.

One pre-released study awaiting peer-review in BioRxiv demonstrated the ability of BA.2.12.1 and the more recently identified BA.4 and BA.5 variants to evade antibodies produced in response to BA.1 infection or BA.1 booster vaccination. Both would significantly disrupt conferred herd immunity.

RELATED: Super-contagious COVID variant XE has a key deficiency that could be our saving grace

 Though a sub-lineage of BA.2, the new BA.2.12.1 is a variant of concern in its own right. As of the week leading up to May 7, BA.2.12.1 represented an estimated 43% of all cases, having risen from just 19% in mid-March. As with other variants of concern from omicron lineages, BA.2.12.1 appears to be highly transmissible.

When BA.1, the original omicron variant, surged early this year, its transmissibility surpassed that of all previous variants. Scientists regarded it as the fastest spreading disease on record, and the most contagious virus to ever exist. Topping out around 1.5 million new infections in a single day, BA.1 obliterated previous peaks. BA.2 proved to be even more infectious, but it did not yield the same result.


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


“We have this current BA.2.12.1, which is now about to become the dominant variant,” Dr. Peter Hotez said to Politico’s Myah Ward in an interview. “It’s so transmissible, all you need to do is give a dirty look to that sub-variant and you become infected. It’s up there with measles.”

Yet despite being transmissible, BA.1 had fewer hospitalizations and deaths than previous COVID variants. While early indications suggest the same would be true of its progeny, Dr. Dana Hawkinson offered evidence to the contrary to MNT.

“Early data also suggests BA.2.12.1 has increased ability to infect the lower respiratory tract (lungs) compared to BA.1 omicron, which could be one factor in its overall risk of severe disease,” he described.

Generally milder symptoms of BA.1 infections have been concentrated in the upper respiratory tract. A combination of vaccination and natural antibodies from infection could preclude symptoms from the lungs and explain relatively low hospitalizations. The potential ability of BA.2.12.1 to evade antibodies may well lend itself to more severe symptoms. 

“While these sub-variants are new, the tools to combat them are not,” New York State Health Commissioner Dr. Mary T. Bassett stated in a press release. “”These tools will work if we each use them: get fully vaccinated and boosted, test following exposure, symptoms, or travel, consider wearing a mask in public indoor spaces, and consult with your healthcare provider about treatment if you test positive.”

Read more on COVID and its variants:

“You don’t have a vagina”: Whoopi Goldberg takes Joe Manchin to task on abortion rights

On Wednesday, Senate Democrats failed to muster their slim majority to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would have codified the landmark decision established in Roe v. Wade and eliminated state laws that further limited a woman’s access to abortion. Among the naysayers were Senate Republicans — as expected — along with one Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.

Manchin told reporters that his main issue with the legislation was that it “expands abortion.” The senator said he had been “pro-life all of my life” but also believed in “some exceptions to abortion bans.”

“It’s just disappointing that we’re going to be voting on a piece of legislation which I would not vote for today,” Manchin stated. “But I would vote for Roe v. Wade codification if it was today.”

During Thursday’s segment of “The View,” the show’s panel slammed Manchin’s opposition before tensions ran high between co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Sara Haines.

RELATED: “The View”: Ted Cruz is “despicable” for comparing Roe demonstrators to Jan. 6 insurrectionists

“How do you know where we are today Joe? How do any of you guys know where we are today?” Goldberg asks. “None of you have any uteruses, you don’t have a vagina, you don’t have anything that goes through carrying or making decisions about babies.”

“Everybody needs to just go vote these fools out of there, just go vote them out,” she adds, which garnered applause and cheers from the studio audience.

Haines then noted that the increased scrutiny of women’s health issues, including fertility and abortions, greatly affects family planning and also increases the risk of dangerous pregnancies and criminalizing pregnancy complications.

“It’s easier to focus on abortion, the word is kind of ugly so people keep thinking about it,” she started. “They’re [lawmakers] not thinking about the women that is alive and well.” Haines continued, asserting that abortion laws as a whole hurt couples, including men.

“Right now we are talking about abortion, which hits the lowest income people in this country,” Haines then claimed, prompting Goldberg to interject.

Abortion, Goldberg insisted, actually “hits all women” equally.


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


“It does but it hits the have-nots the hardest,” Haines says. “It will hit the people that can’t leave the state, that can’t tell their families because maybe they were abused.”

“I think that there’s a larger issue that’s at stake right now. I think Americans are in denial exactly about what this Republican Party is planning to do,” Joy Behar added. “They would like to overturn voting rights, they would like to overturn gay rights, they are in the process of overturning women’s rights.”

“The larger issue is that we are losing our rights on a regular basis and I don’t think that Americans get it, I really don’t,” she claims, adding that Americans are “sympathetic and empathetic” to more disastrous, international issues — like Ukrainian refugees impacted by Russia’s military invasion — but not towards national issues.

“We now know that the Republican Party really is the MAGA party…it is such an extremist party because it is not in-line with the American people,” co-host Sunny Hostin says.

Watch the full discussion below, via YouTube:

More stories you might like:

Jan. 6 committee subpoenas of House Republicans is an escalation — but is it too little, too late?

The select committee investigating the Capitol riot issued subpoenas on Thursday to five members of congress, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., after all five lawmakers refused to provide the panel with testimony. 

Apart from McCarthy, the committee has served Reps. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

The move is an extraordinary escalation as committee leaders have deliberated issuing subpoenas to their congressional colleagues for months, according to CNN. It comes just a month before the committee plans to hold public hearings on various lawmakers’ possible involvement in Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. 

In a press release, the panel’s chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said that it “has learned that several of our colleagues have information relevant to our investigation into the attack on January 6th and the events leading up to it.”

“Before we hold our hearings next month, we wished to provide members the opportunity to discuss these matters with the committee voluntarily. Regrettably, the individuals receiving subpoenas today have refused and we’re forced to take this step to help ensure the committee uncovers facts concerning January 6th,” Thompson added. 

RELATED: “Trump knew exactly what was going on”: Inside the thinking of the Jan. 6 committee

McCarthy, the panel said, “was in communication with President Trump before, during, and after the attack on January 6th” and “claimed to have had a discussion with the President in the immediate aftermath of the attack during which President Trump admitted some culpability for the attack.”


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


Perry, meanwhile, was reportedly “involved with efforts to corrupt the Department of Justice and install Jeffrey Clark,” a former Trump-backed DOJ official who attempted to use the agency’s resources to investigate bogus claims of election fraud.

Perry also reportedly “had various communications with the White House about a number of matters relevant to the Select Committee’s investigation, including allegations that Dominion voting machines had been corrupted.”

According to CBS News, the committee believes that Biggs played a role in a scheme, known as the Green Bay Sweep, to have former Vice President Mike Pence reject the electoral votes of certain battleground states that Trump lost in the election. Bigg also reportedly had a hand in bringing protesters to the Capitol on January 6. 

Back in January, McCarthy rebuffed the panel’s attempt to question him, calling the committee “illegitimate” and claiming that he had “nothing else to add.” Immediately after the riot, McCarthy pinned some of the blame on Trump, though he has since remained an avowed follower. 

RELATED: Trump takes control of the Jan. 6 story — while the media and Congress sleep on it

James Cromwell, “Succession” star, glues himself to Starbucks counter in protest of milk surcharges

You may know him as uncle Ewan on “Succession,” but actor James Cromwell reprised his other recurring role as activist this week in New York. On Tuesday, the 82-year-old Oscar nominee superglued his hand to a Starbucks counter in Midtown Manhattan in protest of the coffee chain’s surcharges for plant-based milks.

Cromwell, who protested in coordination with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), can be seen wearing a shirt emblazoned with the phrase “free the animals” in a video posted by the animal rights group. 

At one point, Cromwell asks, “When will you stop raking in huge profits while customers, animals and the environment suffer?”

RELATED: “Succession”: how true to life is the TV series?

Cromwell was protesting the fees that Starbucks adds when customers request plant-based milks, such as almond, coconut, oat or soy milk. Starbucks stores in the U.K. recently dropped these extra fees, in part due to activist pressure. 

How much, exactly, is this surcharge? “Starbucks charges roughly 70 cents extra for a dairy alternative,” Jordan Valinsky reports for CNN. 

Cromwell, who later used a knife to scrape his hand off the counter, is no stranger to activism. As Salon’s Sophia Tesfaye previously wrote, “In 2013, Cromwell was arrested after disrupting a University of Wisconsin board meeting with a large picture of a tortured cat as part of a PETA campaign to protest the university’s research on animals.”

No arrests were made by police following this week’s protest, according to the Associated Press.

Cromwell was nominated for the Oscar for best supporting actor for the 1995 film “Babe.”

Read more: 

HBO’s brutal comedy “Hacks” returns with raw, bloody candor, rising to even greater heights

Deborah Vance embodies the difference between a punishing mentor and a flat-out terrible one. If you’re lucky, you may never experience either kind. But if you’re fortunate — and resilient enough to withstand a rageful outburst or 20 — you may learn priceless lessons from someone as unrelenting as Jean Smart’s force of nature.

In the second season of “Hacks,” Deborah is especially brutal toward her protégé Ava (Hannah Einbinder) without ever completely violating the accord the two of them have landed upon. Showrunners Paul W. Downs, Jen Statsky and Lucia Aniello deserve much of the credit for steering the comedy right on that line between droll and devastating, but none of their efforts would land if Smart and Einbinder weren’t such a phenomenal team.

These new episodes reaffirm why Smart’s Emmy win for her first season performance was incontestable and make a strong case for a repeat.

Ava’s still annoying, but her mistakes have also made her less impetuous.

But Statsky and Downs deepen the stalwart character profile Einbinder established, allowing her performance to expand upon her comedy writer’s vulnerability without losing the too-cool-for-this entitlement that keeps getting Ava in trouble. Ava’s still annoying, but her mistakes have also made her less impetuous and reflective enough to teach Deborah a few things about herself.

In a way, this ameliorates those perfections of generational righteousness that some people took issues with, especially in early episodes where the character exemplified some of the worst millennial clichés imaginable. Einbinder’s adroit development of Ava’s quirks and faults led us to understand that, to quote another famous 20-something character, she isn’t the voice of her generation but a voice, and one so annoyingly self-involved that even her contemporaries can’t stand her.

Ava still has a place within Deborah’s inner circle despite a vicious betrayal at the close of the first season, one that’s still floating in the ether as the premiere picks up right where last year’s finale ended: with the two women mid-flight on Deborah’s private jet, their shared future up in the air.

“Hacks” doubles down on its intergenerational strengths in these new episodes by leveling the playing field where Deborah and Ava simultaneously team up and square off. Deborah’s on a downward swing, having tried out the new confessional material Ava encouraged her to explore at her last show as the Queen of the Las Vegas Strip, only to bomb magnificently.

RELATED: “Hacks” grasps how ageism creeps up on women and revels in sucker-punching back

So as the two of them hit the road to workshop Deborah’s next show, spending most of their days on a tour bus (but a luxurious one — it’s still Deborah’s show, after all) they have no choice but to be painfully genuine with each other. This often translates into raw, bloody candor. Those moments also demand that Deborah and Ava take hard looks at themselves that aren’t necessarily fatal, but they do ask them to destroy every impression of themselves that they may be clinging to.  

Elsewhere the script adds some tenderness to the fraught relationship between Ava and Deborah’s shared agent Jimmy (played with a wonderful sense of knowing by Downs) and Kayla, Meg Stalter’s riotously clueless assistant that Jimmy can never be rid of.

The beautiful magic act of “Hacks” is that there’s never any question as to why Ava stays with Deborah.

The beautiful magic act of “Hacks” is that there’s never any question as to why Ava stays with Deborah, especially after the writers answer Ava’s betrayal with a signature Deborah Vance twist designed to inflict maximum agony.  (Even this wallop arrives wrapped in Smart’s velvet glove delivery: “It’ll be a good learning experience for you!” Deborah chirps as Ava deadlifts her jawbone out of her lap.)

They may hurt each other, but they also understand one another better than the rest of the world does. Only now, they understand that this mutual comprehension isn’t empowering — it’s a crutch at best, and more accurately, an insurmountable block.

The scenes establishing this section of their roadmap are equal parts acting masterclass and scripting lesson, with the stars’ performances superbly infusing tension into their storyline without sacrificing its comedic value. In a shattering moment, it occurs to Deborah that she wasn’t drawn to Ava’s writing because she understands her, but because she’s as selfish and cruel as she is.

Because the truth is, Deborah Vance is a bully, and the worst kind: one who thinks she’s the victim. Every person in her life is on her payroll and would never be around her if their livelihoods didn’t depend on it, Ava included. There should be quotation marks around those last two sentences since they’re a direct lift from an episode’s dialogue.

That’s also the thesis of a season that revolves around Deborah’s odyssey to secure a comeback. In Ava, Deborah sees an opportunity to up her game and teach someone else to be better at it. In Deborah, Ava sees a teacher and a career lifeline but also a means of penance. But it’s also clear that these women love and respect each other.

Smart has a cosmic shine in the scenes where Deborah lets the purple blotches on her spirit slip through her battle-ready façade.

Smart has a cosmic shine in the scenes where Deborah lets the purple blotches on her spirit slip through her battle-ready façade. And the actor plays these moments with a wrenching subtlety by allowing Deborah’s immaculate mask to fall, ever so slightly, as she’s confronted with the truth of who she is.

It’s in the way she cuts her eyes or drops the confident grin that’s always slightly shoring up her expression. When she follows these moments with returning fire with harder hits, either by way of the perfect punchline or an unpolished truth, it’s impossible to pay attention to anything else.

Maybe that comes off as hyperbole, but anyone who watches will see that is not the case.

Nor is it an overstatement to say that this new season explodes the energy “Hacks” builds over its first season by pressing harder on Deborah’s imperfections, accurately depicting the guts and labor it takes to start over as a woman in a field where one’s male peers are coasting on their laurels. For once, Deborah feels what it’s like to be upstaged, whether by her ego, her prejudices, or, at a clarifying low point, an animal’s afterbirth.

The new season also pushes Marcus (Carl Clemons-Hopkins), Deborah’s newly-minted but eternally exasperated CEO, into the unknown, enabling Clemons-Hopkins more opportunities to break free of their deadpan performance. They’re excellent as the no-nonsense executive but also wonderful at shedding their tightness.  And when they and other guest stars cross paths with Deborah and Ava or join them and Mark Indelicato’s eternally energetic Damien on the tour bus, the second season finds an unexpected new gear to shift into.

Throughout, it asks whether a person can truly be their best selves in a profession that rewards self-preservation and Darwinist levels of meanness, and if so, what does it take to master that lesson? Answering those questions makes “Hacks” rise to greater heights as it brings Deborah and Ava tumbling down to Earth, demanding they figure out a new way to soar without wrecking each other on the ride.

The second season of “Hacks” debuts with two episodes Thursday, May 24 on HBO Max, which new episodes debuting weekly.


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


More stories for Jean Smart fans: