Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Mole, “drowned sandwiches” and margaritas: Where a travel writer eats in Mexico

My wife, Morgan, and I visited Mexico for the first time in 2019, and ever since then, I’ve been dreaming of going back. Since we visited Mexico City last time, this time around we decided on flying into Puerto Vallarta and then driving to Guadalajara, from where we would fly home. The two cities are located in the western Mexican state of Jalisco, but are quite different, allowing us to feel like we were taking completely different trips. 

As expected, food was a magnificent part of our vacation. For those looking to make a similar trip, here are some of the best stops to make along the way. 

Vallarta Food Tours

It’s been about six months since I took my first food tour with The Tour Guy, and it changed the way I travel. While tour-tours have always been an afterthought for me (and they still are), food tours are now a non-negotiable part of my itinerary. While many food tours limit you to a small walkable area, Vallarta Food Tours also offer a driven tour, taking you to many different areas in Puerto Vallarta. 

The food was positively phenomenal! We tried many different dishes, including the torta ahogada — which translates literally to “drowned sandwich,” and is traditional sandwich made by stuffing a crusty roll with pork carnitas and red onions and “drowning” it in a chile sauce — a tamal that was easily the best I’ve ever had, and a shrimp taco that convinced me that maybe I really do like shrimp

Related: A new guide to traveling — and traveling to eat — while fat

The guide also took us to a tortilla factory where we enjoyed a lesson about how they are made and tried the most flavorful tortillas, hot off the press. 

Because it was a driving tour, the guide was able to tell us about the history of the city, pointing out various landmarks, and discuss in-depth information about the food as we drove. By the end of the tour, we were stuffed and vowed to go back to some of the restaurants for full meals during the rest of our stay. 

Mole sampler (Jodyann Morgan)

Marival Armony

I’ll admit something to you: I’ve always kind of looked down my nose at all-inclusive resorts. Why would you travel somewhere and stay in a resort instead of exploring the city? 

Well, as it turns out, you can have the best of both worlds. The Marival Armony resort was simply magnificent. From the luxurious jacuzzi that stretched into the jungle to the massive balcony with views of the ocean that took my breath away, every part of the resort was thoughtfully considered. 

But the dinner on the beach is really what sealed the deal. 

It was easily the most romantic meal I’ve ever enjoyed. My wife and I were guided down to the beach and greeted by a candlelit pergola, set with a full tablescape. The meal was timed perfectly to the sunset, so we got to enjoy the views of the oceans, the twilight and, of course, each other. The food was worthy of the magnificent setup. Our meal celebrated seafood, with a massive main course of two lobster tails per person, served with the lobster head. But my favorite parts of the meal were the delicate small-form courses, including a tuna tartare and perfectly-cooked scallops. 


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


Mary’s

I wasn’t about to spend my entire time at the Marivel, so we headed on a private tour of San Pancho and Sayulita. The half-day tour included a visit to the market, walking through the town and, of course, lunch at Mary’s. As soon as you walk up to Mary’s you just know that the food is going to be amazing. 

The line stretched long as we squished beneath the canopy to escape the blazing sun, but we weren’t going anywhere else. Our guide told us that this was the very best restaurant in the area and we were hungry.  

It was worth every minute of the wait. While the chairs were really small —making it hard to get up at the end — the fajitas and mahi mahi empanada were everything we had hoped for. Simply great food, wonderful service and if that wasn’t enough, there was live acrobatics and music outside on the street as we ate.

Daytrip

If I’m going to fly to another country, I want to make the most of my time there, which usually means I’m visiting at least two different cities. Mexico was no exception. After spending half of our trip in the Puerto Vallarta area, including Punta De Mita, we headed to Guadalajara. 

It’s only five hours away, so I wasn’t going to fly. We settled on finding a driver, but after a bit more digging, I discovered Daytrip, a company that helps people get from one city to the next, and allows you to make sightseeing stops along the way. This was right up our alley. 

Our first stop: El Cora Crocodile Sanctuary. This sanctuary rehabilitates wild animals that have been injured — or were captured to be domesticated — with the hopes of returning them to the wild when possible. For a small cost, you could be taken on a guided tour of the property. We even got to pet a tiny blind crocodile that they use for educational purposes, since it would die if released into the wild.

El Cora Crocodile Sanctuary (Jodyann Morgan)

We did stop for food, but it wasn’t anything to write home about, so bring snacks!

Just before reaching Guadalajara, we drove through the beautiful city of Tequila, on a road flanked by agave plants as far as the eye can see. We wanted to tour a distillery, but unfortunately, there were no English tours for a few hours (if you make this trip, timing is important). But we did enjoy some specialty tequila and I got a hibiscus margarita which was easily in the top five drinks I’ve ever enjoyed. 

Alcalde

I’m a pretty adventurous eater. I like food of all kinds, but there is something about tasting menus that make me really excited for the meal ahead. Especially tasting menus that are chef’s choice, where you don’t really know what’s to come, and get to focus on the food in front of you, instead of what’s next. 

While not all tasting menus are winners, Alcalde serves one of my top-ten world wide. It’s what I’d call a master class in all the ways you can serve seafood. 

The chef, Francisco “Paco” Ruano, is a Guadalajara native who studied food across Europe, even cooking on a cruise ship for a while. His culinary adventures and training are very much at play in every bite of food that celebrates the best of Mexican ingredients. The 15-course tasting menu doesn’t exactly have what one would consider a “main course,” but the numerous bites leave you quite satisfied. My favorite bites were the octopus and chicken tacos, and the rabbit roulade on top of a magnificent mole. The meal ended with an ingenious use of bone marrow in dessert form, the perfect final hurrah for a memorable meal.

Bruna

Morgan and I were super excited to try Bruna, as we’d been recommended the restaurant many times during the days leading up to our meal. But the day of our reservation, our wallet went mysteriously missing while at a mall, leaving us with around 300 pesos (about $15) and a massive headache. 

It was a long, long day, and we almost canceled our reservation to order room service and get some sleep. However, as soon as we ordered our first cocktail — with its outstanding presentation — we knew we were in for a treat. Our dinner only got better from there. 

We ordered a mole tasting since my wife was insistent that she didn’t particularly enjoy mole, and I wanted to show her just how different moles could be depending on the region in Mexico it came from. And yes, she did find three different moles that she enjoyed, so the mission was a success. The rest of the meal was just as good, starring the signature baby pig with delicious crispy pork belly and a lovely piece of fish. We left in complete agreement that it was worth driving to Guadalajara just for the opportunity of dinner at Bruna. 

If reading this left you hungry, here are some delicious Mexican dishes to make at home: 

How to make salsa that’ll make you wanna double dip

So you’d like to DIY your salsa for Game Day or summer barbecues but you’re staunchly opposed to the purchase or consumption of out-of-season tomatoes? Fear not — these two things are not mutually exclusive. There is a happy medium here, and it relies on a can.

Good salsa does not necessarily depend on perfect, fresh tomatoes, the kind you want to eat like an apple on a hot day in July. This is a good thing, since perfectly plump, juicy tomatoes aren’t always available (especially when you want to make salsa in the dead of winter). It depends instead on the right bells and whistles that will spruce up a party-sized can of diced tomatoes like baubles and bulbs on a Christmas tree. (In fact, you could serve this at Christmas! It’s red and green! But I digress.)

Pulsed together with alliums (onion and garlic), spices (ground cumin and/or chili powder), heat (jalapeño peppers or increase the heat with habaneros), acid (lime juice), and a forceful amount of herbs (cilantro), canned tomatoes transform into the kind of salsa you might find at not-fancy Mexican restaurants. Keep it as chunky as you can handle, or take it further down the food processor rabbit hole for an almost-purée. It’s your salsa; you make the rules.

A few notes about ingredients here: I like fire-roasted tomatoes for their depth of flavor. Yes, you can omit the cilantro if you hate it. And don’t be afraid of the raw alliums — they will mellow from the acid of the tomatoes, and add a necessary bite of freshness. If you’re really opposed to using raw onions, use a whole shallot instead. The flavor is milder, so even the onion-averse will be able to get behind it.

Here’s how to make salsa in just a few minutes using a food processor. Once you nail the basics, have fun with some of our favorite variations for scooping with chips or spooning over tacos, burritos, and slow-cooker chicken.

How to make easy salsa

Step one

In the bowl of a food processor, combine one large (28-ounce) or two small (14-ounce) cans of diced tomatoes. Add half of a chopped onion (white and yellow onions will be sweeter than red onions, so choose the color based on how strong you want the flavor to be), a minced garlic clove or two, and a few pinches of ground cumin and chili powder. Add a lime’s worth of juice — or two, if your margarita has already begun to kick in and you’re feeling daring. Chop a jalapeño and add it in there — or just use half and remove the seeds, if you like things mild. I like to add a big handful of cilantro leaves as well.

Step two

Turn on the food processor and pulse until the salsa is just on the brink of your desired consistency.

Step three

Taste for seasoning — I suggest using a tortilla chip for this. (Consider it a form of method acting.) If it needs anything, add it now, then pulse a few more times. Once it’s as chunky or as thin as you like it, dump it into a bowl, then empty out a bag of chips onto the nearest platter. Bring out a six-pack, or shake up a few margaritas, and you’ve got a fiesta — with no white-bellied tomatoes in sight.

More salsa recipes!

1. Grandma Imelda’s Salsa

Amp up a classic red tomato salsa by grilling the tomatoes, which helps build a sensational, smoky flavor for dipping. Recipe developer Erika uses Roma tomatoes, which have a heartiness that holds up well to the hit from an indoor or outdoor grill.

2. Cooked Green Salsa (Salsa Verde)

This vibrant green salsa requires a little bit more work than just adding all of the ingredients to a food processor and blending, but it’s still quick and easy. Instead, tomatillos, chiles, and garlic are simmered together until the tomatillos are soft and juicy; once they’re cooked, the trio of ingredients are puréed with a whole bunch of cilantro and white onion.

3. Salsa Guille from Andrea Aliseda

A tomato-less salsa? Yes, it’s possible! This one calls on avocado oil, serrano peppers, and peanut butter to create a luxuriously creamy base for dipping.

4. Roasted Salsa Verde

While we will always get behind the crisp flavor of fresh ingredients, we also can’t get over the deep, smoky qualities that are a result of roasting the basic ingredients for salsa: tomatillos, chile peppers, garlic, and onions. Because these ingredients break down and become tender when they’re roasted, they’ll blend more smoothly in a food processor.

5. Fresh Cherry Tomato Salsa

This is a speedy salsa that makes use of summery cherry tomatoes (no chopping needed!), plus green onions, an entire cup of cilantro, garlic, jalapeño peppers, and lime juice.

Bidding farewell to “Grace and Frankie”: “We wanted people to cry at least at one point”

Marta Kauffman has ample experience with planning the perfect farewell celebrations for beloved television companions.

Long before she and Howard J. Morris created “Grace and Frankie,” Kauffman brought us “Dream On,” “Veronica’s Closet” and one of the most popular comedies of our time, “Friends.” That series finale holds the record as the most-watched TV episode of the aughts and the fifth-most-watched in television history. It’s also one of the increasingly rare series farewells that satisfied most viewers.

That’s what Kauffman wanted to do as she brought “Grace and Frankie” to a close after seven seasons, following the lessons lived and learned by Jane Fonda’s Grace Hanson and Lily Tomlin’s Frankie Bergstein. Together we watched these best friends discover time and again that there is no such thing as a universal standard for perfection. That’s also true of series finales.

“You’re never going to make everybody happy. Sorry,” Kauffman told during our recent “Salon Talks” episode. “For me, I want to write a show that I would like to watch, where I would feel satisfied. I can’t write for the world. We write for us, and hope that it translates.”

Few TV industry creatives have an informed perspective on par with Kauffman. She was part of HBO’s leap into original programming thanks to “Dream On” and kept NBC’s Must-See TV banner aloft with “Friends.” “Grace and Frankie” debuted in 2015, placing her at Netflix near the beginning of its original programming expansion – granting her a unique window into how the streaming service has changed since then.

RELATED: “Grace & Frankie” finale reunites the “9 to 5” cast

“Grace and Frankie” also marks the first time that Fonda and Tomlin played leads in a TV series, which is astonishing to realize. These are two revered performers who had never been tapped to star in a show, and when it began Fonda was 77 and Tomlin, 75. That adds an extra layer of triumph to the show’s multi-generational popularity in a development landscape that perennially favors youth and a male point of view.

People aren’t watching ‘Grace and Frankie’ just because it’s about two older women. It’s a comfort show.

Surprisingly, Kauffman revealed that she encountered a similar bias against the other end of the age spectrum when she and her “Dream On” co-creator David Crane were shopping around “Friends” in the 1990s. “Who’s going to watch a show about a bunch of 20-somethings?” became the doubting development executives’ refrain, she recalled.

“My theory is, if you have characters that you want to spend time with, that you care about, characters who you’re invested in, then people will watch,” she said. “People aren’t watching ‘Grace and Frankie’ just because it’s about two older women. It’s a comfort show. They do it because it makes them feel good, and feel comfortable. They’re inviting these friends into their homes, and people always talk about, ‘Are you a Grace or a Frankie?’ Clearly, these characters have resonated.”

During our conversation Kauffman discusses bringing the series to a close while also explaining how the approach that Netflix and other streaming services have taken to content creation has changed. We cover this in greater depth in the full length “Salon Talks” episode, a highly recommended watch for anyone who loves “Grace and Frankie” and seeks a fuller understanding of what’s happening in the streaming industry from a veteran creator’s point of view.

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

It is amazing that “Grace and Frankie” went for seven seasons and about, what, 94 episodes? That is so impressive. That makes it the longest-running original on Netflix too, right?

It is. It is the longest running original. We got in at a good time. They were really just starting to do their originals. We got in at a good time. Honestly, we didn’t expect more than three years. We thought, “Oh, if we get five years, we’ll be so lucky.” Then, here we ended up with seven seasons.

I’ve spoken to a lot of folks over the years who say, “If we get past one season, I’ll feel like we hit the lottery.” But why did you think that three years was going to be your limit?

I think at the time it was, “We don’t know what Netflix is going to be . . . We don’t know how it’s going to do.” But also, Netflix, their primary investment isn’t in longevity of their TV series. They want to keep bringing in with new things and new things. So we didn’t know.

One of the reasons that I really wanted to dive into “Grace and Frankie” is the fact that we have these two amazing women as leads: Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda. . . . It’s not extraordinary that they’re leads. It’s extraordinary that they’re leads now, in this part in their careers. This is the first series on which they were both leads, right?

That is correct.

Were you amazed by that when you first pitched them this show?

Yes. It’s funny. The way it happened was, I was having lunch with the woman who was the then head of television at Skydance, and that’s our studio. She said that she had heard that Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin both wanted to do TV. I thought she meant together. I ran back to my office. I called my agent and I said, “Is it true that Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin want to do a TV show together?” She said, “I don’t know. I’ll call you back.” Twenty minutes later, she calls me back and she says, “They do now.” We started with our two leads before we really had a solid sense of what the show was going to be.

Did they sit down with you and bounce ideas off of you? Or did you have a firm idea of what you wanted to tell with the story?

Well, we knew that there were certain things we wanted to do. We really wanted to talk about aging. We really wanted to talk about sexuality in older women. We really wanted to talk about being dismissed and marginalized. We knew there was stuff we wanted to talk about, just knowing who our leads were. We had one meeting with them where we all just sat and talked about stuff, and they talked about things in their lives.

I’ll tell you one story from there. We were talking about men and Cialis. Jane said, “You know, that’s not the only way to help a man get an erection. There’s a pump and there’s a needle. There’s a shot you can get in the penis.” Lily Tomlin says, “You have got to get younger boyfriends.”

Howard and I looked at each other and said, “That’s our show right there. That’s the show.”


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


I know there was a time when this show probably could not have gotten made. Now there are so many shows, none right now that show women at this age in life, but we’re seeing women over 40 and their stories more frequently.

Thank God.

Yes. It was obviously an under-served market. But what do you think has changed?

It’s funny. I think the change is niche TV. Everybody’s saying, “The audience that went to this show, we want that same kind of audience, so we have to do the same kind of show.” What happened with “Grace and Frankie” is it proved to not be true, that it was watched by multiple generations, and not only women. I think that was a surprise to them.

But I think that’s one of the issues, is everybody’s being pushed into this tiny little box. . . . There have always been rules, even for the networks as well.

. . . The business itself, the industry is becoming more and more corporate. There are more and more guidelines that are being sent from above. It makes it harder and harder to sell.

It’s interesting that you bring up that it makes it harder to sell. But the fact that it is more corporate, I would think that would work against a show like “Grace and Frankie.” Did it make it particularly tough to sell?

Well, honestly, it wasn’t when we started. We did a lot of years with the Netflix that was just starting to do shows. We got incredible support. We always got really fantastic notes from them that kept us true to our vision. They were fantastic. When things started to change at Netflix, we were already established. We were not their problem child. In that sense, we haven’t experienced it. But it’s more in a lot of the other places, that algorithms and corporations are changing the craft and the storytelling.

Do you feel like streaming has had an impact, either positively or negatively, on the quality of television shows? I know that’s tough to answer as a creator. But you’re right in it, so I’m just curious to hear from you.

Honestly, I don’t think it’s had a negative impact. It’s a very interesting process, at least, it was when we did “Grace and Frankie,” where you write the first episode, and then you go in and start shooting your 13. As opposed to a lot of other models, where you do a pilot, they test the pilot, they take the pilot apart, but you learn a lot from that process, so when you start the series, you’ve got all this information.

With streaming, at least for us at Netflix, we had to learn as we went along. You’re right in production.You’re writing episodes that are six episodes down the line. We really had to learn on our feet how to walk the line between comedy and drama.

“The bottom line, core of the show is you can start your life over at any point.”

Let’s talk specifically about this final season. You had the challenge of the pandemic halting production.

Yes. It took us almost two years to shoot one episode.

Wow.

We stopped in the middle of an episode.

How did that impact coming back to that episode? Things physically happen to people over two years.

I know. We had one actor, and we’re shooting it, and we realize as we’re shooting it, after the pandemic, “He didn’t have a beard two years ago.” No one knew. We’re watching it, and it was just a sudden thing. We’re like, “Oh, s**t. It’s too late. We can’t change it now.” We had to use special effects to get rid of his beard.

Yeah, stuff like that did happen. People changed. They lose weight, they gain weight, their hair is different, and everybody’s older. Including me.

Going into the finale season, what were the stories that you wanted to tell about bringing these characters’ lives to a close? And what were some of the things that you wanted to avoid, specifically? Not just with Grace and Frankie, but also with Sam Waterston’s Sol, and with Martin Sheen’s Robert?

The bottom line, core of the show is you can start your life over at any point. We knew that we wanted Grace and Frankie to be OK. We wanted everybody to be OK. We wanted people to feel satisfied and happy for the characters. It’s a comedy. We weren’t looking to do a musical, or make something completely different. We wanted to stay true to the show, but find ways to finish our characters that seemed satisfying. We wanted to avoid any dramatic pitfalls that would feel like it put the brakes on the show if we did anything too sad or too heartbreaking. But we did know that we wanted people to cry at least at one point. That, we wanted.

Did you know the point that you were going for the tears, or you’re just saying overall?

Overall, we knew we wanted that moment. Then we were pleasantly surprised where it landed . . . The other thing besides the way to end it is, there were other stories we wanted to tell. We wanted to talk about prescription drug prices, which is a huge issue for that generation. We wanted to talk about memory loss. There were things we wanted to get into that aren’t clowns coming out of a car. But we wanted to do it in such a way that you could feel something, but still be invested in the characters and their relationships.

One of the things that I read is that you knew how you wanted the show to end for quite some time.

Well, we knew certain things. We knew what we wanted the last image to be. We knew what we wanted the last line to be. We had no idea how we were going to get there.  We were starting to break the last two episodes right before the pandemic, and it was really difficult. Probably the hardest two episodes we’ve ever done to write, to make them feel like, “Yeah, this is where we’re supposed to land. This feels right.”

You’ve had seven seasons, you have said before that this was Netflix’s choice to end the series, not necessarily yours. Do you feel like you’ve told all the stories that you wanted to tell?

I do. I think the timing is right. I think the timing is absolutely right. We’ve told the stories we wanted to tell. We told the stories we needed to tell. The characters have grown and developed, and shows have a lifespan. It’s important to respect that lifespan, and not overstay your welcome.

All episodes of “Grace and Frankie” are now streaming on Netflix.

More stories like this:

“The Real World Homecoming: New Orleans” recap: Changing the narrative

In part two of “Outta Bounds,” we see Julie Stoffer attempt to completely rewrite the events that took place the previous night spent getting blackout drunk at a drag show when she wakes up and, yet again, chooses chaos; dragging Tokyo Broom, her roommate in “The Real World Homecoming: New Orleans,” along with her.

After downing shots all night and flailing around to such an extent that she had to be physically restrained and pulled out of the bar and into a car home, Julie suffers through the early stages of what is probably one of very few hangovers she’s had in her post-Mormon life, and does so with as little grace as possible. 

When Julie, Tokyo, Melissa Beck, Jamie Murray, and Danny Roberts arrive back at the house, Julie falls out of their SUV, face-planting onto the concrete, and then jumps up, turns, and takes a header straight into the nearest tree. She’s helped into bed by Tokyo who talks to her soothingly, rubs ice on the back of her neck, and holds her hair while she barfs undigested crackers and booze into the smallest trash can you’ve ever seen in your life. All nice gestures that he did out of the kindness of his heart, and would be severely and unjustly punished for the next day.

All of this brings to mind the various scenes in “The Exorcist” where the priests try to care for Regan while she, fully possessed, spews pea soup in their faces and yells about their mothers sucking c**ks in hell.

Other housemates did their part as well. Melissa brought in bottles of water for Julie, retreating only after accidentally stepping in puke with her socks. And Matt Smith, first peeking around the corner describing the scene as a “tornado of chaos,” stands with Tokyo in his efforts for awhile, thanking him for being a good friend to Julie, but soon hightails it out of there when the river of puke at his feet starts making its way down the hall. All of this brings to mind the various scenes in “The Exorcist” where the priests try to care for Regan while she, fully possessed, spews pea soup in their faces and yells about their mothers sucking c**ks in hell. 

RELATED: “The Real World Homecoming: New Orleans”: Nothing good happens on Bourbon Street

“I don’t wanna be on no reality TV show with you fallin’ all around and s**t. We are old. What is you doin’?” Melissa says after the puke-drenched night in question.

“To me, that was a lot of fun,” Jamie says separately, a lighter example of the many different ways a group of people can look back at the events of a night spent partying.

While Melissa is shaking her head at it all, Jamie is going about his day and Danny is nursing a hangover, Julie is on her own mental journey; eyeing her scraped and bruised body finding ways to blame Tokyo for it, completely ignoring the fact that he spent his whole night caring for her, even going so far as to sleep at the side of her bed on the floor that she’d just lacquered with her bile.

David “Tokyo” Broom in THE REAL WORLD HOMECOMING: NEW ORLEANS streaming on Paramount+ (Daymon Gardner/Paramount+©MTV ENTERTAINMENT 2022, All Rights Reserved.)

“Did he do this to me?” Julie comes into Danny’s room to ask, showing him the scratches on her back.

“Here we go,” Melissa says, lounging in the bed next to Danny. She goes on to express distaste towards Julie not expressing gratitude to Tokyo, the man who took care of her all night, in favor of targeting the only man of color in the house in such an insensitive and irresponsible way. 

Later, as though she hadn’t just created a huge mess for everyone, literally and figuratively, we see Julie enjoying a sunny day in New Orleans and yelling “Café Du Monde!” while heading to one of the biggest tourist traps in the city with the rest of her housemates. 

Enjoying beignets and coffee in a moment of shared peace that could last for an extended amount of time, if she’d only allow it, Julie quickly finds a way to ruin everyone’s good time again

Enjoying beignets and coffee in a moment of shared peace that could last for an extended amount of time, if she’d only allow it, Julie quickly finds a way to ruin everyone’s good time again by making a dig at Tokyo in reference to the night before.

Julie says something weird about being surprised that the drag show was an atmosphere of love and welcoming, and not just “a sex thing,” to which Danny replies “Yeah, no one was gonna touch you there.”

“Yeah, Except Tokyo,” Julie says, stirring the pot.


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


Several conversations are had with Julie where various people in the home attempt to appeal to the humanity deep within her, but there’s not much success there. Tokyo tries to explain that she was being belligerent the night before, and she did need help, much as she’s denying it now. But rather than listen to reason she throws her salad and storms off.

When Melissa overhears a phone conversation Julie has with her husband, complaining about everyone else being old and not wanting to “play,” she hears her describe her pukey night as “taking one for the team” in an effort to make good TV, which is very telling.

In this show we get a rare opportunity to see how a person can grow, or refuse to grow, over the span of 22 years. Julie, just as awful now as she was then, is robbing herself out of showing the world any progress she may have made in favor of jeopardizing the reputation of others for the sake of highly rated spectacle. This clowning and show-boating is making less screen time available for others in the house like Danny, who could barely get a word in to talk about Paul, or his 5-year-old adopted daughter that he co-parents with another man he married and split from. It’s time for Julie to take some time out on her yoga mat and make room for others in the house so we can get to the “real” part of “The Real World Homecoming: New Orleans.” Whole lives were lived by these people who we first came to know in 2000 and it would be nice if Julie could simmer down long enough so we could spend some time catching up in a genuine way. Yeah, watching some fool get “white girl wasted” is entertaining, but the other people in the house have so much more to offer than that. 

Read more:

Dave Chappelle was attacked during standup – Is this The Slap all over again?

Disgraced comedian Dave Chappelle’s performance at the Hollywood Bowl on Tuesday in Los Angeles was interrupted by a sudden, public attack.  

An audience member at Chappelle’s show — who has now been identified as 23-year-old Isaiah Lee — tackled Chappelle onstage while carrying a replica gun that could discharge a knife blade, per Variety. Although the show was described as a “phone-free experience,” online video footage was captured and shows Lee running up to the stage and tackling the comedian before being caught by who appears to be Chappelle’s security personnel.

Chris Rock, who was recently attacked onstage by actor Will Smith at the Academy Awards ceremony in March.

Lee was detained by the venue’s security team and later taken to the hospital with “superficial injuries,” according to the Los Angeles Police Department. He is currently being held on $30,000 bail and will be charged with a felony count of assault with a deadly weapon.

RELATED: Did Dave Chappelle go too far?

Actor Jamie Foxx is also seen rushing on stage to help and guard Chappelle. In one phone video ,Foxx is heard saying of Chappelle: “Listen, I just want to say this man is an absolute genius. We’ve got to make sure we protect him at all times . . . For every comedian who comes out here, this means everything. You’re a genius. You’re a legend, and we’re not going to let nothing happen to you.”

Echoes of The Slap?

Neither Chappelle nor any officers were injured, the LAPD added. Following the incident, Chappelle maintained his composure, resumed his set and later joked that his attacker “was a trans man.”

The joke acknowledges he’s made enemies in the transgender community and their supporters. The controversial comedian previously came under fire for his transphobic and homophobic jokes and rhetoric when he proudly said he’s a member of “team TERF” and once boasted of beating up a lesbian woman. In October, hundreds of Netflix employees staged a walkout in protest of the platform’s defense of Chappelle and his Netflix special, “The Closer,” in which he made his transphobic jokes.

Meanwhile Chris Rock, another one of the comedians at the event, also joked, “Was that Will Smith?”

He’s of course referring to the Slap heard ’round the world at this year’s Oscars, when the “King Richard” actor took issue with one of Rock’s jokes made at the expense of wife Jada Pinkett-Smith, walked up on stage and slapped the comedian. 

Both Chappelle’s and Rock’s jokes also refer to a fear that Kathy Griffin, Joy Behar and other comedians have voiced: that people who take offense at humor will now be emboldened to express their displeasure with physical violence.


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


Chappelle’s latest performance at the Hollywood Bowl amphitheater is part of the Netflix Is a Joke: The Festival, which is taking place from April 28 to May 8. The lineup also includes acts from Leslie Jones, Ali Wong, Amy Schumer, Jon Stewart and many more. 

A Hollywood Bowl spokesperson told news agency PA Media that an investigation has begun on Chappelle’s unprecedented attack.

“The incident that occurred at the Hollywood Bowl on May 3, 2022, is an active investigation and we are unable to comment further at this time,” the spokesperson disclosed.

More stories you might like:

From stubborn Akitas to loyal Collies, our stereotypes of dog breeds are all wrong, study says

Dogs may be stereotyped as man’s best friend, but our collective opinions of different breeds vary widely in terms of friendliness — as well as other personality traits. The American Kennel Club (AKC) describes Chihuahuas as “charming,” “graceful,” and “sassy.” Toy dogs, like those that can fit in a purse, are stereotyped as docile. Pit bulls are often unfairly dismissed as dangerous. Representations in the media have only intensified a myriad of dog stereotypes ranging from hasty generalizations to downright discrimination, but is there any merit to these stigmas?

Perhaps not, a new study published in Science finds. The researchers’ study of dog breeds and behavior challenges the assumptions that we have about different breeds’ personalities — finding that behavior was “much more variable” among individual dogs, even of the same breed. That suggests that our stereotypes about ankle-biting Chihuahuas and vicious pit bulls may be untrue.


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


The team of researchers from the University of Massachusetts Medical School collaborated with the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants Foundation on the sweeping analysis of dog behavior. Around 200,000 answers were then mapped to their standard breeds via genetic correlations from over 2,000 of the subjects. Researchers asserted that while aesthetics of standard breeds don’t vary much, individual temperaments most certainly do.

“Although we can’t really ask a dog themselves about their problems or thoughts or anxieties, we do know that dogs lead rich emotional lives and experience disorders that manifest in their behavior.”

“We do have to accept that our dogs are individuals,” Professor Elinor Karlsson, P.h.D. and senior author on the study, emphasized in the briefing. “Each dog is a study of one, and just as with our children, yes, they came from the same parents, but they’re not identical. If you have kids that is almost certainly the case, so we do want to accept our dogs for who they are and perhaps help them be more the way we’d like them to be through different means. Some dogs really don’t need special attention with extra training and some do.”

One critical finding of the Science study suggested aggression, the primary trait of concern in discriminatory legislation, has little to do with breed. 

“When we looked at this factor that we called agonistic threshold, which included a lot of questions about whether people’s dogs reacted aggressively to things, we weren’t seeing an effective breed ancestry,” Karlsson said. “From that point of view, [breed-specific legislation] doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to us.”

Indeed, the study seems to run counter to the existence of breed-specific legislation that bans certain dog breeds due to stereotypes of their behavior. Over 700 municipalities across the United States have enacted laws banning a cumulative 75 breeds on the basis of perceived aggression, reported the AKC. Setting out to suss out if there is, in fact, any legitimacy to stereotypes more generally, researchers designed the survey to define the tendencies of breeds. Lo and behold little to no genetic evidence actually lends credibility to such breed-specific discrimination, as their findings attest.

“Although we can’t really ask a dog themselves about their problems or thoughts or anxieties, we do know that dogs lead rich emotional lives and experience disorders that manifest in their behavior, and certain breeds of dogs — I had heard — tend to carry these disorders more commonly,” PhD candidate and first author on the study Kathleen Morrill commented, prefacing results in a briefing.

Acknowledging that the experiences of dog attack victims and dog owners alike may not seem to line up with their findings, Marjie Alonso of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants Foundation, a collaborator on the breed stereotype study added that even she was surprised. 

A Chihuahua barking simply does not elicit the same prejudice as a Pit Bull exhibiting the same behavior. Whether it is a matter of volume or association with a more consequential bite, the former is shrugged off as sass. Consequently, the AKC ascribes such personality traits to each breed. However, supposed personalities are apparently more bark than bite.

In fact, breed only accounted for about 9% of the variability in behavior data of the 78 breeds analyzed. Some traits like barking and sociability tracked more with breeds. Aggression, on the other hand, was one of the traits least correlated to breed.

“The majority of behaviors that we think of as characteristics of specific modern dog breeds have most likely come about from thousands of years of evolution from wolf to wild canine to domesticated dog, and finally to modern breeds,” Karlsson told reporters. “These heritable traits predate our concept of modern dog breeds by thousands of years.”

Standard breeds are actually a rather novel phenomenon of the 19th century — long enough to select for physical traits, but perhaps not behavioral ones. Modern breeds do, however, exhibit physical traits their ancestors were selected for. Thousands of years spent selectively breeding for hunting, guarding, herding, and other proclivities, postdoc researcher and co-author Kathryn Lord explained in a press briefing, physically molded these populations to their roles.

“If you breed a dog to run really, really fast, be a sprinter, it will end up looking like a greyhound because that is the shape you need to be in order to be a sprinter, so there are physical differences, but what they’re actually selecting on is the behavior,” Lord elaborated.

Certain tendencies persist, but modern breeds differ in one crucial way from their working ancestors. Their selection had everything to do with form over function — at least when it comes to standards.

Alonso chalked up modern perceptions of stereotypes to breed bias. In fact, breed only accounted for about 9% of the variability in behavior data of the 78 breeds analyzed. Some traits like barking and sociability tracked more with breeds. Aggression, on the other hand, was one of the traits least correlated to breed.

“People are very good at finding patterns,” Alonso told reporters in the press briefing. “I think that they find patterns even when there aren’t patterns. That’s a lot of what people are seeing.”

Karlsson suggested appearance essentially skews perceptions of behaviors. “You will never have a Great Dane-sized Chihuahua, and you’ll never have a Chihuahua-sized Great Dane, but you can definitely have a Chihuahua that acts like a Great Dane; you can have a Great Dane that has the same personality as a Chihuahua,” she added with a chuckle during the briefing in response to a quip from Morrill about the impossibility of drastic size variation in breeds.

Controlling for breed ancestry, their analysis determined size does not actually matter — for behavior, at least. The study also provides redemption for oft-demonized breeds like pit bulls, who, as commentators have pointed out, are more likely to exhibit bad behavior as a result of negligent owners than because of any breed-specific temperament. Yet breed-specific legislation banning pit bulls is common in municipalities in the United States.

RELATED: Pit bulls used to be considered the perfect “nanny dogs” for children — until the media turned them into monsters

Interestingly, media stereotypes do affect adoption rates of specific breeds. Another 2022 study found a relationship between dog breeds’ appearances in movies and their adoption rates. “Movies with dogs portrayed as heroes were followed by significant increases in the number of American Kennel Club breed registrations for the breed shown, while anthropomorphized dogs were followed by significant decreases in the number of dogs registered for up to five years after a movie’s release,” the researchers of that study, published in Plos One, wrote. In other words, our perception of a breed’s innate behavior is heavily tied to media depictions.

Reputedly preferred for illegal dogfighting, pit bulls are represented as synonymous with aggressive dogs simply displaying similar traits. Further, the categorization of pit bulls as “dangerous breeds” does not hold up to scrutiny, according to researchers. 

Mixed breeds, or “mutts,” actually emerged as the perfect test subject in the Science study, and their “purebred” relatives may owe them a debt of gratitude.

“Among these mutts, you’ll find dogs who are naturally shuffled up in their physical appearance, their personality traits, their disease risks, and their DNA,” added Morrill. “It’s usually difficult-to-near impossible to separate, say, a full-bred Dalmatian and its personality from its spots, but in mutts, it becomes actually possible to split looks from other traits.”

Read more about dogs and genes:

One-fifth of American adults live with chronic pain. Why aren’t we talking about it more?

“One evening in the middle of a bench press, I heard a loud click in my back,” author and physician Haider Warraich recalls in his new book “The Song of Our Scars: The Untold Story of Pain.” And this, he writes, “was the day that pain became part of my life.”

Warraich’s experience should be familiar to millions. The CDC estimates that one in five American adults is living with chronic pain. Many more of us will experience it at some point in our lives. Chronic pain is an exceedingly common experience, and one that is perhaps under-discussed in media and literature despite its prevalence.

As with many others, chronic pain reconfigured Warraich’s entire world. It changed him personally and professionally. And it made him understand that, as he puts it, the ways in which doctors are generally trained to understand pain are not the same ways that many of us experience it.

His new book, “The Song of Our Scars,” is an intimate account of Warraich’s chronic pain, but it’s also an exploration of the nature of pain itself. In it, Warraich unpacks the politics and privileges of pain and its management, the stigmas of suffering — and the brutal toll of the opioid epidemic. Yet this is also an unquestionably hopeful work as well, one that offers insight into promising new research on what does work for the millions of us living every day with pain.

Warraich spoke to Salon recently via Zoom about what we need to know about the power of pain, and why easing our minds is a crucial component of healing our bodies. 

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.


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


Before we can even get into how we treat it, we need to understand what pain is, what types of pain there are, and the difference between acute and chronic pain. Asking as a layperson, what is pain?

If you take the formal definition of pain — and the reason pain needs a formal definition just goes to show how complex it is — that definition is, an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage. This is a definition that was initially first devised in the 1970’s and was just revised in 2020. Even in those words, you can start to see that there’s a sensory component, but there’s also an emotional component. It can be associated with actual tissue damage, but it doesn’t have to be. What I tried to do in the book is actually open it up even more.

“What we’ve seen during the pandemic is that not only has the pandemic caused a lot of stress on our minds, but that has led to more people experiencing pain and in new and unpredictable ways than they ever had before.”

Medicine has tried to constrain pain, has tried to narrow its definition, to serve its own tools, which are procedures and prescriptions, rather than embrace the complexity of pain as not just something that you feel in your body, but is affected by forces like politics, like racism, like sexism, like imperialism. They all come and inform what you feel when you hit your head in that glass door or get that needle pinching your shoulder. From a biological perspective, pain spans so many different phenomena. It is as much an emotion as it is a physical sensation. It is as much a memory that’s ricocheting in our head, especially when it becomes chronic pain, as it is something that is happening in that moment.

Pain is complex, for sure. If we are going to help people in pain, we have to embrace the complexity, we have to embrace the nuance. We can’t run away from it. We can’t oversimplify pain because we already tried that, and it didn’t work.

I wish so much that more people understood that pain is physical and emotional.

The people who understand it best are people who live with pain. They understand how you feel in your mind and what your mood is with what your body experiences as well. Certainly, what we’ve seen during the pandemic is that not only has the pandemic caused a lot of stress on our minds, but that has led to more people experiencing pain and in new and unpredictable ways than they ever had before. I can certainly say for myself that my pain was under pretty good control for a long time. I take care of my back. It takes work and it needs me to be extremely cautious, but I had felt like I had a routine. Then during the pandemic, ironically, while I was writing this book, all sorts of aches and pains came back that didn’t really have any type of classical, biological, unifying mechanism.

RELATED: The pain gap: Women (still) aren’t taken seriously by doctors — and it’s killing us

I had shingles, which is a very painful condition, and one of the biggest triggers for shingles is actually stress. People don’t understand that or don’t want to make that link too obvious is because they worry that then, people in pain are going to face the same type of stigma that people with mental health conditions do. They worry that medicine just doesn’t care enough about subjective symptoms, that in some ways in medicine, “subjective” has become a dirty word. What that implies is that somehow, that sensation, that subjectivity, doesn’t have the same type of legitimacy as something objective does. That definition is based on the limits of our tools. If something fits our tools or something can be detected using our current technologies, then it’s instantly objective. It says nothing about what you feel. It says more about what our instruments are and how we choose to see, or how we can see and study people when they come to seek medical care.

This is personal for you. You talk about how invisible wellness is, how invisible your back was until it wasn’t. We don’t as a culture, think about pain because we don’t want to think about it. 

Initially, I wanted to speak to athletes, specifically marathon runners, because if you’re running a marathon, you are experiencing a lot of pain. I wanted to see what can we learn from athletes, and use that to help people in pain. I realized that we have very little to learn from athletes, because they’re always in control of their pain. They can always stop running. They always know why they’re in pain, because they’re running and they’re using their body. Their pain has meaning, and it has an endpoint.

“Chronic pain is where nuance goes to die in medicine.”

None of those things exist for many people in chronic pain. They’re not in control of their symptoms. They can’t just make it go away. They can’t see a time horizon or an off-ramp in the future. Many times, their illnesses are invisible and can always be questioned or contested, not just by their peers, their family members, or their friends, but also by the clinicians that they go to for help. That’s why I dedicated so much time to help people understand the experience of someone with chronic pain, because, unfortunately, the people who care most about chronic pain, many of the researchers are actually people who’ve lived with it themselves.

I don’t think that’s a sustainable way of expanding how much empathy we can have for people, because we should not have an expectation that the only time that you should be able to understand something is by living through it yourself. This is why it’s my most personal book. I’ve never really written about myself. I wanted folks to get to know me and get to live in that hurting body, but also that of many of the other folks I talked to. The first thing is we need more empathy, we need more understanding. From what I see, the reason we fail to treat chronic pain and patient with chronic pain well is really because of a failure of empathy.

You describe pain as sort of modern day leprosy. People don’t have a lot of patience, because it’s “inconvenient” to others in a sustained way. Tell me what you discovered about the evolution of how we manage pain and where we are now.

Chronic pain is where nuance goes to die in medicine. Just take the example of something like labor pain. Treating the pain of labor was a criminal offense in Europe for most of history. Then, we had these movements in which women were over-medicated with dangerous medications, which had dangerous consequences. Then, the pendulum swung back again when we went towards the home-birth movement, which is good for other reasons, but many women experience a lot of pain during that process. You can see the same story play out with opioids and making the same mistakes that we made in the 1990’s, by over-medicating people, not doing the proper studies, not thinking about harms.

When the harms became unignorable, when one in 200 Americans became addicted to opioids, we shut everything down. Then, you went to a state where you could have metastatic cancer in the hospital, suffering uncontrollably, and no one would bat an eye because we had shut the door on a therapy that does work for many patients, especially people who are at end of life, especially who are in acute pain. The whole story starts again in the 1990s with OxyContin coming in. Blame it on our short memory. That’s another reason why studying history and medical history is so important is because we forget the lessons that we should have learned from previous mistakes. I hope that that’s not something we’re going to do in the future. I hope that now that again we are in that phase where many people realize that opioids are not just dangerous, but for most people, they’re actually fairly ineffective for chronic pain as well.

Most studies suggest that with chronic use, opioids provide no benefit. If anything, the best studies show that people have more pain after they’ve been on opioids. What we’ve seen is that many patients who are on opioids are being asked to stop them immediately, oftentimes without physician sitting down with them, talking to them, talking through the harms, talking about, “What happens if the pain gets worse? What happens if I have withdrawal? What happens if I need help? What are other alternatives I might have to help me live with my pain?” even if we want to reduce the amount of opioids we have. That’s really where I think the need to be kind, be empathetic, but also be innovative and use all the tools that we do know work for patients with chronic pain, rather than just cutting people off of opioids and just telling them to deal with it.

This is the frustration a lot of us in the patient world have felt, where it’s either, “Here’s a giant jar of opioids,” or “Don’t do anything.” This idea of living with management, and having that conversation, we’re not doing. So what can we do? What are some of the promising things for people who live with chronic pain?

The one thing that I’ve learned and that people I’ve spoken to, who are experts in the field as well, say is that there’s no magic bullet for pain. There’s never going to be this one thing that will help everyone the same way. What really everyone needs access to is interdisciplinary pain management. Pain management started with the idea that if you are a person in pain, you will go to a center where you’ll not just be seen by an anesthesiologist, or a surgeon, or an exercise therapist, or a psychotherapist, or acupuncturist, or a hypnotist, you’ll basically have a team approach, or that your case is going to be presented to all these experts.

Then, you’ll have a tailored approach to the interventions that you might benefit from. Among the most promising interventions, one is exercise. The reason exercise can be tough for many patients in chronic pain, and I’ve lived through this, is that when you first exercise, it really hurts. Immediately, you worry, “Am I making things worse? Is this exercise really helping or is it hurting more?” There’s very obvious reticence that many patients with chronic pain have towards exercise.With chronic pain, once you have pain, you have this fear of movement.

So, you limit your movement. Your life becomes narrow, and your body also starts to get deconditioned. You’re not even as strong as you used to be. Not only are you in pain, but you’re also weaker and in pain. When you do try and exercise, not only does it hurt more, but you are not able to do much either. Early exercise is really important, but we have created a health system where getting a prescription is faster and doing a procedure pays physicians more. And exercise can be expensive and time consuming, and at times, not covered by insurance.

The opportunity for innovation is very clear. There’s a lot more internet-based online programs that can guide people through exercises while they’re in the comfort of their home without having to leave or to go to rehab, which many people are still not comfortable doing. We’re still in the middle of the pandemic. I think the need to incorporate exercise, and to innovate, and think about, “How can we make this easier? How can we make this more accessible for patients?” 

One of the most promising therapies is something called acceptance and commitment therapy, which is a form of cognitive therapy. As soon as you say that, a lot of people might feel taken aback because they’re like, “My pain is a physical condition. Why are we thinking about a mental health intervention for pain?” One of the main messages of the book is that this idea that the mind and the body are these two separate things that don’t affect each other, and that can function independently of each other is just not true at all. That is really something we have to push back against.

A lot of people feel that, “Does it just mean I have to accept my pain and live with it?” Many people think that the term “acceptance” means resignation. It really doesn’t. Acceptance therapy tries to shift people’s focus away from trying to control the pain at all time, to living their life as well as they can, despite the pain, even if it means that you might hurt a bit doing things.

When I was in pain, I still remember my friends were all going for to the beach. I had been stuck in my room for a long time. A lot of it was because just getting out just hurt so much. Nothing scared me more than a flight of stairs. Being stuck in a car for an hour just felt like torture. I decided to go, and it was extremely painful. Everyone else around me was young and perfect. They didn’t know what it meant to live in so much pain, especially if you looked fine. But it was totally worth it, because it gave me so much hope that parts of my life that I really missed and loved were still there. I could access them even if they were not in the same way that I was able to do so before, even if the experience was, at times, agonizing. That memory and that experience, those are the things I had to do to begin healing and trying to reintegrate myself in the world.

The big thing we need to do is we need to remove trauma. We need to remove the stigma associated with seeking that care. We need to expand how physicians think about this. I talk about this with patients all the time. I talk to them about being referred to pain psychologists. I explain to them what are the things that they could offer and how they could help them live better despite their pain. I’ve seen a lot of openness, because when you have chronic pain, you just want to get better. Yes, you might be worried about stigma. You might be worried about people feeling like, “This pain is all in your head,” et cetera, but in the end, what you just want is you want to get better.

I think that it is one of the best studied interventions we have out there for patients with chronic pain. One of my favorite studies that I cited was this trial in which they trained physical therapists in acceptance therapy. These people are not psychotherapists, but now they had learned these principles of acceptance that while they were working with their patients. They could say a few things or could incorporate that into the work that they were doing. The patients who work with these therapists who were also providing sort of acceptance therapy did so much better, and they actually needed less sessions to get to an even higher level of function.

I would say that those two are probably the therapies, exercise and acceptance therapy, that I feel like have the best evidence that are safest and that really can be incorporated into any patient who has chronic pain in life, because they have so much to offer.

And this perspective is coming from someone who’s walked in those difficult shoes.

I think about, “Would I have been able to write this book if I didn’t have pain?” It’s unfortunate, but I don’t think I would’ve been able to. Part of it is, when you have pain, one of the things that pain does is that it tells you that what you feel, only you feel, and that no one else feels what you are going through. It has this essentializing force that really centers you on yourself, and in some ways, detaches you from other people. I want to counter that message. I think one of the key features of pain is it lives to be communicated.

We have pain behaviors that are so consistent across species, because that’s one of the key functions of pain. If you are a bear who gets stuck in a bear trap, the reason you’ll start to thrash around and yell, and scream is so that the other bears know that, “There’s a bear trap. Be careful,” or “Come help me because I’m in so much pain.” I wanted to write this as a way of reaching out to other folks so that they can feel seen in my story, but also in the stories of others that I talked to, and know that pain is in fact far from something that isolates us. It connects us because so many of us experience it, and live with it, and suffer from it, sometimes in ways that are unique to us, but often there’s a common thread that runs through almost everyone as life who lives with pain.

I really wanted to counter that narrative. The only way I feel like I would be able to do that was the fact that I had gotten hurt myself. It’s a hopeful arc because when I got hurt, I thought that that was the worst day of my life. It really, in many ways, was. But to be able to get something good out of it, this book, to be able to turn that experience into something that hopefully others can learn from, is it is one of the most hopeful things that I have ever done or shared. I hope that others will also take that away from this, because I didn’t even think I would become a physician. I actually think I became a better physician because I became more empathetic, because I understood just how invisible illness and disability can be.

More on the science of pain: 

13 Mexican sides from zesty esquites to arroz rojo

These Mexican side dishes are destined to be served with Pavo al Pastor, Rick Martinez’s take on a traditional Thanksgiving roast turkey, or Vegan Chile Colorado that’s brimming with sweet potatoes, cremini mushrooms, and cauliflower. From classic guacamole and a guac-salsa verde hybrid to two versions of pan de elote (aka Mexican cornbread), these dishes are full of fiery flavor.

Our best Mexican side dishes

1. Pan de Elote Dressing

Somewhere in between a sweet corn pudding and a traditional Thanksgiving stuffing is this Mexican bread made with fresh corn. For his signature sweet heat, recipe developer Rick Martinez added sautéed chorizo, poblano peppers, and serrano chiles.

2. Cranberry Salsa Macha

Two kinds of chile peppers — guajillos and chiles de árbol — bring serious heat to this cranberry salsa that’s a must-have addition to the Thanksgiving table. The best part is that you can (and should!) make it up to five days in advance, which saves prep time on the holiday. But it’s not just good for turkey time–it makes a welcome addition to the table any time of year.

3. Roasted and Raw Vegetables with Spicy Tahini Cream

There’s nothing distinctly Mexican about roasted vegetables like beets and sweet potatoes, dressed in tahini sauce. But what gives them distinct flavor and flair are a whole bunch of chile peppers — habaneros, serranos, poblanos, and crushed chile de árbols.

4. Arroz Rojo

Let long-grain white sizzle in a saucepan, then mix it with a purée of fresh tomatoes, onions, and garlic, plus a little bit of chicken broth. “An essential side dish found on plates throughout the country, this red rice can accompany almost any meal,” writes Mely Martinez.

5. Pan de Elote (Mexican Cornbread)

This is a truly classic recipe for pan de elote, aka Mexican cornbread. The secret ingredient is sweetened condensed milk, which makes this quick bread sweeter and richer than American cornbread.

6. Roasted Salsa Verde

This salsa verde calls for roasted peppers, tomatillos, garlic, and onions with cumin, lime juice, cilantro, and salt. Oftentimes that’s where things would end, but this recipe turns to avocados for a little extra creaminess.

7. Arroz Blanco

Fluffy white rice gets all dolled up for dinner with a simple purée of onion and garlic, plus parsley, serrano peppers, and lime juice. This Mexican side dish is typically served alongside mole poblano, asado de puerco, and costillas en salsa verde, says recipe developer Mely Martinez.

8. Roberto Santibañez’ Classic Guacamole

No matter the occasion, guacamole is always a good idea. The trick is to mash the avocados less than you think, nowhere close to the point where they resemble mush.

9. Salsa Guille from Andrea Aliseda

“This savory salsa is the perfect addition to sizzling mushrooms, quesadillas, or nachos. You can dip bread or chips into it, and it’s exceptional with whatever meaty dishes your heart desires,” writes recipe developer Andrea Aliseda.

10. Homemade Corn Tortilla Chips

Is it necessary to make your own tortilla chips? Absolutely not. Should you? Absolutely.

11. Enrique Olvera’s Frijoles Puercos (Northern-Style Beans)

The translation to “dirty beans” comes from the idea that so many different pork products — from pork shoulder to bacon to pigs’ feet — can be added to the slow-cooked stewy beans.

12. Paratha Tortillas (Parathatillas)

Former Food52-er Coral Lee has distinct memories of eating reheated frozen parathas on a Saturday morning. She developed a recipe for a dough that she describes as being “tortilla in content, paratha in form.”

13. Esquites

I grew up in New England, which meant that corn on the cob found itself on our dinner table every single night. But frankly, I always preferred corn off the cob, which is why I was so excited to try this version of Mexican street corn, complete with queso fresco, cayenne pepper and chile powder, and lime juice.

Ohio Republican who attended Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally wins House primary

A dark horse candidate who painted a massive “Trump 2020” sign on his lawn is the official GOP nominee to represent Ohio’s 9th district in the House of Representatives. 

J.R. Majewski, 42, a far-right Donald Trump supporter, secured the victory on Tuesday, beating out all three of his opponents, two of whom were state legislators. The Trump supporter won 36 percent of the vote in the primary election. He will now be running against Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, who has spent roughly forty years in Congress and is currently the longest-sitting member of Congress.

In the past, Majewski’s district has been a Democratic stronghold, as Vice reports. However, the state’s latest round of redistricting has given Republicans a slight edge, throwing Kaptur’s re-election chances into doubt. Cook Political Report has called the district’s upcoming election a toss-up. 

Majewski, Air Force veteran, has no apparent political experience. At present, he serves as an executive at a corporation that facilitates the storage of used nuclear fuel, according to The Toledo Blade

RELATED: QAnon expert: Unhappy believers are now being lured into far-right extremist groups

Majewski made headlines back in 2020 after painting a “Trump 2020” sign on his 19,000-square-foot lawn. Majewski asked for $45,000 in donations at the time in order to preserve the grandiose display. He then wore a QAnon t-shirt while he was being interviewed about his sign on Fox News. 

According to Alex Kaplan, a senior researcher at Media Matters, Majewski appears to be associated with QAnon, a baseless conspiracy theory alleging that a cabal of cannibalistic, Satan-worshipping child abusers secretly plotted against Trump during his time in office. In the past, Majewski has tweeted out “WWG1WGA,” a popular QAnon slogan that stands for “Where we go one, we go all.” Additionally, Majewski is friends with Zac Paine, a QAnon influencer whose show he’s appeared on, according to Vice. 


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


Back in January 2021 Majewski reportedly raised thousands of dollars to fund a 30-person caravan to D.C. in protest of the 2020 presidential election. While there, Majewski attended the “Stop the Steal” rally, but by his own account, did not participate in the Capitol riot. 

Majewski, who is running on an “America First” platform, has received endorsements from longtime Trump ally Roger Stone and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., who recently made an appearance at a white nationalist conference. 

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

On his website, Majewski has called the GOP “raunch with lifetime politicians who are spineless and seek to serve themselves and the members of their exclusive ‘club.'”

“We must fight to eradicate those within our party that seek to destroy it,” his website adds. “We must hold them accountable to our Conservative principles and call them out when they cease to deliver.”

The pleasure principle: How the left wins the abortion wars

In response to the publication of the draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Republicans have decided what they want to talk about: Leaks and the supposed evilness of them. The same people who support Donald Trump and his ongoing efforts to overthrow democracy are all gunning for Oscars for their feigned umbrage on behalf of the integrity of our governmental institutions.

It’s not a huge mystery why Republicans want to talk about this non-issue instead of the actual matter at hand, which is the nationwide GOP effort to ban abortion. It’s because Republicans know full well that their actual positions on the issue aren’t just indefensible, but embarrassingly so. They definitely don’t want to talk about the non-logic fueling Justice Samuel Alito’s nasty, incel-esque “argument” against Roe. And they mostly don’t want to talk about why they hate abortion so much. When they do, they end up sounding like snarling right-wing pundit Erick Erickson. 

RELATED: Samuel Alito’s leaked anti-abortion decision: Supreme Court doesn’t plan to stop at Roe

Notice that, even as he’s raging about how God will rain down punishment, Erickson is coy about what, exactly, is causing that feeling of “dread” he’s so excited about. It’s easy to suss what he’s talking about, however: That fornicators are scared right now because they are about to face the punishment of forced childbirth for their dirty sex-having ways. Coward that he is, Erickson argues through implication, instead of speaking plainly. Erickson knows, as do all Republicans, that fornication is incredibly popular among the American public. And so while punishing the sex-havers — at least the uterus-bearing sex-havers — is the whole purpose of abortion bans, Republicans would rather talk about anything else. 

Recent history shows how being proudly on the side of pleasure is a winning argument for the left.

One would think, seeing how frightened Republicans are, Democrats and the larger progressive community would press their advantage and make the discussion about the very thing Republicans don’t want to talk about, which is sexual freedom. But nah, the focus on the left has been almost exclusively on the most dour subjects: Maternal mortality, economic privation, rape victims being forced to carry babies, and, of course, the ubiquitous coat hanger


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


Very little is said about the reason why the vast majority of abortions happen, which is that someone had consensual sex but didn’t want a baby. Republicans may be afraid to talk about sex, but in still-puritanical America, progressives aren’t exactly excited to discuss the subject, either. We leave it to our British counterparts to broach the subject for us

It’s easy to see why progressives want to focus on the most dire outcomes from abortion bans. Images of dead women and starving babies are believed to create moral urgency around the issue. The talk about the sexual desire that leads to most unwanted pregnancies feels frivolous. The problem is that it’s too easy for Republicans to dismiss the dire outcomes as fringe cases that have no impact on most voters. Alito even does as much in his draft opinion, complaining that “mortality rates” shouldn’t be “the only factor that a State could legitimately consider.” Unfortunately, Republicans understand what Democrats struggle with: The focus on the worst outcomes allows the average voter to think, “Well, that’s sad, but I don’t see what it has to do with me.” 

By reframing the issue around sexual freedom, however, progressives would have an opportunity to make the discussion salient to people’s lives and identities, which has a much bigger impact on voting choices. It reframes the issue as a battle between sex-positive progressives who want people to enjoy their lives versus dour Bible-thumpers who want your life to be gray and sexless. As I’ve argued before, voters want to be on Team Fun People instead of Team Sanctimonious Scolds.

RELATED: Why the right-wing is having a complete meltdown over the Supreme Court’s leaked anti-abortion draft

Republicans get this. That’s why they rarely defend their rancid bigotry on its own terms, but instead try to pretend the debate is over fun-loving free speech jokesters versus the cancel-culturing “woke mob.” It’s why conservatives were so successful at convincing millions of Americans to forgo common sense COVID-19 prevention, even vaccination. From the get-go, the argument was that the sanctimonious left wants to destroy your fun, and the way to rebel is to take serious risks with COVID-19. People like being on the side that presents itself as “fun” and “freedom-loving.” Republicans take full advantage, even though, in reality, they’re the people trying to ban books and threaten you with hell for fornication. 

Indeed, being Team People Who F*ck is such a better position that GOP troll Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida incoherently tried to argue feminists want abortion access because they can’t get laid. 

“You need abortion because you don’t know the touch of a man” is an argument that obviously makes no sense. Somehow, however, it worked well enough as a troll, because few people were willing to point out that sitting at home with your cats is not how you get pregnant on accident. Instead, Gaetz got lots of sanctimonious replies. If more folks had been willing to point out that it’s the sex-having ladies — who mostly don’t have to pay for it! — who get abortions, then he might have hesitated. 

Even recent history shows how being proudly on the side of pleasure is a winning argument for the left. During the George W. Bush administration, the right got really bold about their anti-sex views. While the laughably flimsy pretext that they’re “pro-life” was still bandied about, Republicans — emboldened by having a fundamentalist Christian in the White House — started openly arguing for a national sexual standard that expects all Americans to abstain from sex until marriage. (And for all LGBTQ people to embrace lifelong chastity, as well.) The Bush administration imposed “abstinence-only” education on schools. Republican politicians aggressively argued against contraception use in public, insisting, as then-Indiana governor Mike Pence told CNN in 2002 “the only true safe sex is no sex.” Republicans would sometimes even argue that married couples should only have sex for procreation


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


Forced by this aggressive prudery to actually talk about sex, progressives started, in many cases reluctantly, making the positive argument for consensual sex. With sex-positive feminists leading the way, there was robust public discussion about everything from porn to kink to issues of consent. There were even Slutwalks, as feminists stood up for their right to get laid without getting raped. Sex got so normal that it kind of got a little less sexy. Republicans flat-out lost on the abstinence issue, so much that they basically never talk about it anymore. But, as Erickson’s tweet and Alito’s opinion — which hints at future fights over birth control access and reinstating sodomy laws — shows, conservatives still aren’t keen on the freedom to screw, even as they want to talk about anything else. 

Republicans get this. That’s why they rarely defend their rancid bigotry on its own terms, but instead try to pretend the debate is over fun-loving free speech jokesters versus the cancel-culturing “woke mob.”

Unfortunately, in recent years, the left has largely abandoned the role of being the fun ones. Instead, we all too often lean directly into the worst stereotypes of progressives as dour scolds who can’t even take a joke. Part of the problem is the stress of the Donald Trump presidency and the COVID-19 pandemic left a lot of people in a humorless mood. But I also blame social media, especially Twitter, which creates an atmosphere of competitive sanctimony. Self-righteous preenings gets shares and retweets. Shaming people for having fun or making jokes is an easy way to score points in the endless, pointless competition of social media. For understandable reasons, activists and thought leaders on the left spend a lot of time on social media. But you become what you pretend to be, and spending so much time performing the role of wet blankets is starting to sour the entire movement — and make it very difficult to convince anyone that being a progressive is a party they want to be invited to.

RELATED: Stop feeding Joe Rogan’s trolls: Progressives must reclaim the politics of pleasure

There’s been a lot of talk about how, even though Roe is toast, Democrats might be able to bank on the backlash to win seats and protect reproductive rights legislatively. Certainly, the unwillingness of Republicans — even a motormouth like Donald Trump — to talk about this issue suggests that there’s weight to this political strategy. But there’s also a danger. All the talk about coathangers and rape victims really brings people down. Yes, it’s important, but it’s depressing. Depressing is demoralizing. It can cause people to check out of politics entirely, rather than listen to yet another lecture on why it’s super bad to make 13-year-old rape victims have babies. Believe me, they know

So, as difficult as it may be to overcome the puritanical impulse baked into the American psyche, the left needs to talk about sex again. Not just the bad parts, but why sex is good and why people should be free to pursue their happiness. A fight between the fun-loving freedom people versus sanctimonious prudes like Erick Erickson and Sam Alito is a fight that Democrats can win. We need to argue not just about people surviving, but people thriving. Freedom and pleasure arguments may not score points on Twitter, but they win people over in the real world. 

Democrat flips Michigan district Trump won in 2020 by 16 points

A Democrat scored an upset on Tuesday in a Michigan state House race for the first time in nearly three decades. 

Democrat Carol Glanville beat out Republican Robert Regan to represent the state’s 74th District, winning roughly 51.7% of the vote, while Regan won only 40%, according to MLive. In 2020, incumbent Republican won Mark Huizenga won the seat by more than 26%. Trump won the district by 16 percentage points.  

“West Michigan values of integrity, decency, and care for the common good won tonight,” Glanville wrote in a Tuesday tweet. “The people of the 74th District have spoken, and I hear you. We are united in fundamental ways, and I will take our values and concerns to the Capitol to affect positive change.”

Glanville, a Walker city commissioner, reportedly benefited from a strong fundraising haul, collecting $54,424 over the course of her campaign and $18,000 just between March 22 and April 17, according to The Detroit News. Regan, by contrast, raised a total of $12,943, most of which was self-funded. 

RELATED: Michigan GOP candidate slammed for saying rape victims should “lie back and enjoy it”

In the past, Regan has made numerous headlines over his inflammatory comments about rape, COVID-19, Jews, and the 2020 election.

In May 2021, Regan claimed over social media that “feminism is only applied against white men, because it has absolutely nothing to do with protecting women as a sex or defending the feelings of individual women. It is a Jewish program to degrade and subjugate white men.”

And this March, Regan suggested that giving up on efforts to certify the 2020 presidential election is like accepting rape. 


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


“You know that’s kind of like having three daughters, and I tell my daughters, well, if rape is inevitable, you should just lie back and enjoy it,” Regan said during campaign event. “That’s not how we roll. That’s not how I won this election.”

Regan’s comments drew widespread scorn, including from some Republicans in the state legislature. 

“Mr. Regan’s history of foolish, egregious and offensive comments, including his most recent one are simply beyond the pale,” Michigan Republican Party Chair Ron Weiser said back in March. 

RELATED: Michigan GOP launches not-so-secret plan to undo Whitmer’s veto on voting bill

Glanville won the 74th District’s special election, meaning that her term is set to expire on December 31, when new district lines will go into effect. The Democrat has already filed to run for office in the 84th House District this coming fall. Glanville will face opposition from both Regan and Mike Milanowski, a Republican who ran to represent the 74th District. 

At present, Republicans hold 55 seats in the state House, while Democrats hold 51. The new House district maps are expected to diminish the electoral advantage Republicans have historically held

6 Latinx and Asian pantry staples this recipe developer swears by

Welcome to Kiera Wright-Ruiz’s Pantry! In each installment of this series, a recipe developer will share with us the pantry items essential to their cooking. This month, we’re exploring six staples stocking Kiera’s kitchen.

Nothing makes me realize how packed my pantry is as when I move. It’s easy to toss everything into a box and (sort of easy to) lug them to the next place. Once, an unopened 35.2-oz jar of Nutella somehow made its way from my San Francisco studio to my new spot in Brooklyn. (What was I supposed to do, just leave it?) But when I moved from New York to Hawaii last year, there was no room for Nutella. I had to do a complete pantry purge. As I laid out every half-used bottle of vinegar and seasoning jar in front of me, I felt like I had been slapped in the face. Did I really need all of this? But as I examined each item closer, memories of why I bought them flooded back.

My pantry has always been a blend of who I was in the past, who I am today, and who I want to be. The weathered box of sazón is for dishes that remind me of my grandma’s house. That crumpled envelope of yeast was last used when I tested a Japanese milk bread recipe and was tight on deadline. The big bottle of Thai seasoning sauce that remains unopened is from that time I got really excited after reading a cookbook and impulse-bought every Thai ingredient I could find. My life has been in limbo for the past two years, and though I currently reside in Hawaii, it is a temporary home with an ever-changing move-out date. I’d like to pack my pantry with everything I’m interested in, like I did in New York, but right now, I simply can’t — which leaves me with only the true essentials.

My 6 Latinx and Asian pantry staples

1. Lots and lots of rice

Ethnically, I am half-Latinx and half-Asian. Rice is an absolute necessity to both sides. There are days when I eat it for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and dessert. It’s one of the most diverse ingredients, with countless varieties to choose from. When possible, I like to keep at least six types on hand: long-grain white, sushi, jasmine, basmati, multigrain, and sticky rice. Each type offers something unique that the others lack. If I’m making something like rabo encendido (Cuban braised oxtails), I reach for a long-grain white rice; the floral taste of jasmine might compete against that dish’s flavors, but it’s my preferred choice when cooking with coconut milk or lemongrass. If I could have just a single pantry item, rice would be the only ingredient I’d need.

2. Instant dashi

Dashi is a fundamental stock in Japanese cuisine that is traditionally made with water, kombu, and bonito. It’s loaded with umami and acts as a flavor building block in many Japanese dishes. Miso soup, nikujaga, and chawanmushi all contain dashi, just to name a few. While I usually don’t mind spending the 10 minutes to make it, sometimes I don’t want the excess liquid (and other times I feel lazy). Enter instant dashi, a dried powerhouse ingredient that creates dashi flavor in seconds. Like a bouillon cube, instant dashi activates with any amount of liquid. I’ll put it in anything from a soup base to grated potatoes for the best crispy hash browns ever.

3. Sazón

Sazón is a spice blend: usually a combination of garlic, onion, cumin, salt, achiote, and sometimes MSG. It’s the flavor of my childhood, and a staple ingredient of the Latin American kitchen. Growing up, all my favorite dishes, like pernil and tamales, had some sazón in them. From yellow rice to marinades, there are endless ways to cook with it. Goya remains the prominent store-bought brand, but newer companies like Loisa have started producing it as well. And if you’re feeling more hands-on, it’s also easy to make your own version at home. My sazón ramen recipe uses this spice blend and instant dashi to create a rich base for plump shrimp and noodles.

Recipe: Sazón Ramen

4. Instant ramen

Long gone are the days when instant ramen was viewed as a cheap meal for college students. Ramen options continue to grow in the U.S. along with demand. Every time I step into the ramen aisle, I’m greeted with the rainbow of packaging and feel giddy. (I love ramen so much I’m even writing a picture book about it.) My current favorites are actually ramyeon, the Korean style of instant ramen inspired by Japan’s version, like Shin Ramyun and Samyang Carbo Hot Chicken. But on days where I want to feel extra, I combine Neoguri and Chapagetti with steak to make ram-don, also known as jjapaguri, a play on both brand names. Neoguri has a spicy seafood flavor; Chapagetti is based on the beloved Korean dish jajangmyeon that is made with black bean paste. Combined, they make the ideal meal to cozy up on the couch with and binge anime, which is usually how I enjoy it.

5. Kewpie mayonnaise

Thanks to TikTok, Japanese Kewpie mayo is everywhere these days. And it’s popular for good reason. As opposed to American jarred mayonnaise, which is made with whole eggs, Kewpie made using just yolks, giving it a richer texture and flavor. But the real secret is the MSG, which not only replaces the salt and sugar you’ll usually find in other brands, but brings out the essence of whatever you put it on. I also love its cute baby logo — I even own a pair of Kewpie-baby earrings. I use Kewpie in everything: tuna, katsu batter, sandwiches, dipping sauces, soup, and drizzled as a garnish. Even if you don’t think you like mayo, it’s worth giving this brand a shot; I’ve seen the biggest haters become Kewpie converts after a single taste.

6. Ssamjang

I’ve always struggled to connect with my Korean side, but ssamjang helps. This thick paste is usually made with fermented soybeans, garlic, onions, sesame oil, and red chile paste. There were no Korean restaurants around me as a kid, so the only time I would eat Korean food was on a trip to a big city. My mom, brother, and I would find the closest Korean barbecue restaurant and throw down as if we had been doing it every day of our lives. To me, ssamjang is the trusty sidekick to the caramelized meats of KBBQ. You technically could do without it, but something would be missing. It’s pungent, salty, and loaded with umami. Also, it’s great for dipping dumplings or raw vegetables. These days I make KBBQ at home — few things make me feel prouder to be Korean than slathering ssamjang on a thick ssam bundle stuffed with crisp brisket, warm rice, and tangy kkakdugi.

Why Donald Trump is downplaying the Supreme Court’s leaked abortion ruling

I think a lot of us remember that sick feeling we felt on the morning of November 9th, 2016 when we realized that Donald Trump was going to become president. I know I had never felt that way after a disappointing election before and I’ve been through many in my life. But this one was different and it wasn’t just because I feared for the future of the country in the hands of such a patently unqualified, unfit president. I felt that the election of such a man signaled that the nation was rapidly deteriorating into an antediluvian state in which the progress of the 20th century was rapidly unraveling.

And there was a very specific sense of doom on one particular issue.

Since Mitch McConnell had unethically held open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia it was clear that they would replace him with another right-winger and that the Republicans would almost certainly have a chance to fulfill their promise to curtail women’s rights. The day Donald Trump was elected was the day women in America lost the right to control their own bodies in every state. It just took until now for the right cases  — and a couple more Federalist Society recommendations for backup — to finalize the loss.

The leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion of the pending Supreme Court case Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization was surprising but the opinion itself was not, however emotionally jarring it was to read. As with so much else these last six years, the U.S is poised, once again, to abandon its status as an advanced democracy. The New York Times reported, “since 2000, 31 countries, many just as pious as Mexico, have expanded access to abortion, only three have rolled it back: Nicaragua, Poland and the United States.”

I think the satire site DPRK News Service on Twitter said it best, however:

It’s just one more example of our vaunted exceptionalism. The American right-wing’s moral preening about the unborn combined with its fetish for gun violence and resistance to guaranteed health care makes the U.S. a very special place indeed.

That’s where we’re going with this, folks, right into the bedroom.

It’s very telling that the reaction to the news that the Supreme Court is poised to deliver the Holy Grail hasn’t resulted in dancing in the streets by the usual suspects. I would have thought Republican voters would run out of their houses cheering and crying with joy at the news as the pundits on Fox and Newsmax high-fived each other and passed out cigars. But instead of celebrating their sweet victory, they are obsessed with the leak as if the “integrity of the court” is more important that the fact that they have finally achieved their most precious goal.

Apparently, they have mixed feelings about their latest triumph. Why else would they care if the ending of what they term a “holocaust” is announced in May or June? Could it be that they know that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to this and it may not redound to their political benefit? Is that why Trump told Fox News that he doubts a decision in the case will have a “tremendous effect” on November’s midterm elections?

RELATED: Why the right-wing is having a complete meltdown over the Supreme Court’s leaked anti-abortion draft

Almost everything about the Republican Party’s embrace of anti-abortion zealotry has been nothing more than a cynical tactic to co-opt the large conservative Evangelical Christian bloc of voters and I’m not sure they were prepared to actually deliver. Like many people, I suspect they thought the court would whittle away at Roe v. Wade in bites small enough to keep Democrats from mobilizing but enough to keep their anti-abortion faction agitated and engaged. The Supreme Court overturning Roe may complicate the GOP’s immediate plans to win the midterms, sabotage the Biden administration and then “win” the trifecta in 2024.

This statement from anti-abortion zealot and Nevada GOP Senate candidate Adam Laxalt illustrates the problem for some of them:

One of the most cunning aspects of the decades-long anti-abortion political strategy has been to argue that they are morally outraged by what they call the wanton murder of babies while in the same breath blithely insisting that they are fine with a bunch of faceless state politicians and courts doing whatever they want if Roe was overturned. It makes little sense but I’ve rarely seen anyone challenge them on it.

RELATED: Samuel Alito’s leaked anti-abortion decision: Supreme Court doesn’t plan to stop at Roe

The Alito draft relies on this “states’ rights” argument as well, which is really rich considering that he contemptuously compares Roe to Plessy vs Ferguson, which upheld Jim Crow on the basis of the same states’ rights doctrine. Adam Serwer in the Atlantic explains:

In Plessy, Justice Henry Billings Brown held that Louisiana’s segregation law, as far as the Fourteenth Amendment was concerned, “reduces itself to the question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation, and, with respect to this, there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature.” Alito has now applied this same logic to abortion—but not just abortion—arguing that in the future, courts should defer to state legislatures “even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance.”

I do think it’s fair to assume that Alito will not object if a future Congress and president pass a total ban on abortion, as the Washington Post reported was already being plotted by “pro-life” movement activists and their GOP allies. But in the meantime, Alito’s “states’ rights” logic, which served its purpose well until 50 years ago, will likely be put to good use by this radical Supreme Court majority to roll back much of the progress of the second half of the 20th century and the first 20 years of the 21st. Despite his protestations that this argument only applies to abortion, it’s pretty clear that the driving forces behind this movement will not be satisfied with that. Almost certainly, marriage equality and contraception are at the top of their agenda.

Some have even bigger ambitions:

The New York Times just reported over the weekend that VDARE’s Peter Brimelow was recently on the Fox News organization chart reporting directly to Rupert Murdoch, although the network says Brimelow does “not currently have any relationship with the company.”


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


Until they can get their nationwide ban, the anti-abortion zealots will be hard at work in the states. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion politics, there are already 23 states with restrictions waiting to be enacted the minute the decision comes down. There are “trigger laws,” in Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming instantly limiting or banning abortions, most without any exceptions for rape or incest. Nine states have pre-Roe laws that were never repealed.

The Supreme Court overturning Roe may complicate the GOP’s immediate plans to win the midterms, sabotage the Biden administration and then “win” the trifecta in 2024.

And they are already feverishly writing new laws to prevent women from accessing the abortion pill through the mail and from travelling to other states to obtain abortions, which they will now feel free to criminalize. CNN reports that Missouri, for instance, is contemplating a bill that would expand its already draconian abortion law to “abortions obtained out of state by Missouri residents and in other circumstances, including in cases where ‘sexual intercourse occurred within this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.'” How do they expect to know such information?

That’s where we’re going with this, folks, right into the bedroom. Justice Samuel Alito has written an opinion designed to destroy the right to privacy so that he and his compatriots can metaphorically pull up a chair at the end of your bed and decide what you are allowed to do and with whom. It won’t end with abortion. It’s never just been about abortion. 

Reservoirs aren’t emission free

This month regulators greenlighted a transmission line that would bring power generated from Canadian hydroelectric dams to New York City. New York’s plan to achieve a zero-emissions grid by 2040 depends on hydropower, and it’s not alone.

Globally hydropower is the largest source of renewable energy. In the United States it makes up 7% of electricity generation, and 37 states allow some form of hydropower in their renewable portfolio standards, which establishes requirements for the amount renewable energy that must be used for electricity generation.

As U.S. states and countries across the world work to reduce fossil fuels and boost renewables, hydropower is poised to play an even bigger role.

There’s just one problem: A growing body of research published over the past two decades has found that most reservoirs, including those used for hydropower, aren’t emissions-free.

“Hydroelectric reservoirs are a source of biogenic greenhouse gasses and in individual cases can reach the same emission rates as thermal power plants,” Swiss researchers found in a 2016 study published in the journal PLoS ONE.

Hidden Emissions

Despite the green reputation of hydropower among policymakers, some reservoirs emit significant amounts of methane, along with much smaller amounts of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide.

That’s bad news because we already have a methane problem. This short-lived but potent gas packs 85 times the global warming punch of carbon dioxide over 20 years. If we hope to stave off catastrophic warming, scientists say we need to quickly cut methane. But new data show that despite this warning it’s still increasing at record levels — even with a global pledge signed by 100 countries to slash methane emissions 30% by 2030.

Methane can rise from wetlands and other natural sources, but most emissions come from human-caused sources like oil and gas, landfills and livestock. We’ve known about the threat from those sources for years, but emissions from reservoirs have largely been either uncounted or undercounted.

In part that’s because tracking emissions from reservoirs is complicated and highly variable. Emissions can change at different times of the year or even day. They’re influenced by how the dam is managed, including fluctuations in the water level, as well as a host of environmental factors like water quality, depth, sediment, surface wind speed and temperature.

But recent scientific research provides a better framework to undertake this critical accounting. And environmental groups say it’s time for regulators to get busy putting it to work.

A Paucity of Policy

In the United States “there are no policy requirements and no regulatory requirements that reservoir emissions be assessed and reported,” says Kelly Catlett, director of hydropower reform at American Rivers.

And that’s concerning, says Daniel Estrin, general counsel and advocacy director at Waterkeeper Alliance. “We think hydropower is a totally false solution to the climate problem and would really dramatically exacerbate problems for our rivers’ biodiversity.”

Dams disrupt free-flowing rivers and cause a well-documented list of harms to fishfreshwater mussels and other animals.

Gary Wockner, executive director of the river advocacy group Save the Colorado, likens the current push for more hydropower to fracking, which was once thought of as a low-emissions “bridge fuel” to ease transition between fossil fuels and renewables.

“But as the science evolved, we now know that’s not true,” he says. “In some cases, with all the leaks of methane, fracking can be worse than coal. And so here we are again in essentially a similar situation with hydropower as the science continues to evolve.”

That’s why this March his organization, along with outdoor retailer Patagonia and the nonprofit Earthjustice, started pushing regulators for more accountability. The groups, along with more than 100 other signers (including “The Revelator’s” parent organization, the Center for Biological Diversity), have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to begin a rulemaking that would add dams and reservoirs under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.

The program currently requires 8,000 facilities to report their greenhouse gas emissions — but none are hydropower plants or other reservoirs. The United States currently has 90,000 dams, 2,500 of which provide hydropower.

“Just like we require coal-fired power plants and natural gas power plants to report their emissions, I think we should require hydropower systems to report theirs,” says Mark Easter, a senior research associate at Colorado State University studying greenhouse gas emissions and a backer of the petition effort.

Mounting Evidence and Better Methods

It’s hard now to sidestep the issue of reservoir emissions if you’re serious about cutting greenhouse gases.

The first studies digging into the topic took place in Canada and Brazil in the 1990s. Research continued in the years following, with a 2000 study being the first to take a more global look at the issue. In 2013 another study found that 10% of reservoirs have emissions factors larger than equivalent carbon dioxide emissions from gas-powered plants.

The issue got a big bump in the public’s consciousness in 2016, when major media outlets picked up a study of global reservoir emissions published in “Bioscience” that found that previous research had underestimated methane emissions, which we now know to be the second biggest contributor to climate change.

The researchers urged policymakers across the world to take note and concluded that global reservoirs account for just under a gigaton of annual carbon dioxide equivalents — about 1.3% of all global emissions.

They also cautioned that their numbers still likely underestimate reservoir emissions. Most studies analyze emissions over a 100-year time frame, but methane has a much larger impact in the short term. There are also multiple pathways for methane to reach the atmosphere from reservoirs, some of which weren’t captured in their research but could be major contributors in certain places.

When areas are flooded to create a reservoir, microbes decompose the submerged organic material, a process that can lead to methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions depending on the water chemistry and other factors. A lack of oxygen triggers methane production.

Early studies tracked the release of methane as it diffused from the surface of reservoirs. But recent research has found that it can also bubble to the surface sporadically — a process that’s enhanced when reservoir levels are lowered. New acoustic tools have made it easier to capture these variable fluxes. Additional emissions can occur downstream after water passes through dam turbines, which usually draw water from the deepest, most methane-rich parts of a reservoir.

“Much more methane either bubbles out of reservoirs or is emitted just downstream from reservoirs than was previously known,” found the researchers of a 2021 study that focused on developing a new framework for calculating reservoir emissions, called the G-res tool.

When taking these factors into consideration, they found global reservoirs emit around 29% more greenhouse gas emissions per area than previously calculated.

Methane emissions are a bigger concern in tropical climates where there’s more biomass and warmer temperatures, the study found. But additional research has revealed that more temperate climates like the United States aren’t immune from the problem, either.

2014 study of an Ohio reservoir led by EPA scientist Jake J. Beaulieu found that mid-latitude reservoirs can have comparable methane emissions to those in the tropics. “We estimate that CH4 [methane] emissions from agricultural reservoirs could be a significant component of anthropogenic CH4 emissions in the U.S.,” the researchers wrote.

Six years later Beaulieu and other researchers found that methane emissions from reservoirs in Ohio were the state’s fourth largest source of human-caused methane. That’s because nutrients continually wash into reservoirs from the upstream watershed. For reservoirs near developments and agriculture, the nutrient runoff can cause algae blooms that lead to more methane production.

“Reservoirs draining watersheds that are subject to high levels of nutrient loading, such as fertilizer application to croplands, tend to have higher methane emission rates than reservoirs draining undeveloped watersheds,” Beaulieu explained in an email to “The Revelator”.

That finding also means we can expect methane emissions from reservoirs to increase with climate change. Warmer waters produce more algae, and increased storms and runoff will send more nutrients into rivers and the impoundments created by dams. That creates a vicious cycle: more algae, more methane emissions and more warming.

A Global Concern

The work scientists have done to advance the methods used to calculate these greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs is helping to push real-world action. And it’s coming at a critical time.

Governments and utilities have planned thousands of new dams throughout the world. And many of these would be built in tropical and subtropical areas likely to have the largest emissions.

“What you could be worried about is the fact that there are hydropower building booms going on in South America, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa,” says Tonya DelSontro, an assistant professor at the University of Waterloo and a co-author of the 2016 “Bioscience” study. “If you build these large water surfaces for reservoirs, then we’d be increasing emissions.”

One thing that could help is action from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A 2006 report from the IPCC on climate change included an appendix “that gave some crude method to estimate greenhouse gases from reservoirs,” says Yves Prairie, an aquatic ecologist and the UNESCO chair in global environmental change at the University of Quebec at Montreal. “But because it was in an appendix, it was never formerly adopted as a method and countries didn’t have to report their greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs.”

However, the large body of scientific research done since then — including the G-res tool developed by Prairie and colleagues — led the IPCC to adopt a new methodology in 2019 that draws on these advances. It’s expected that soon countries will be required to report their reservoir emissions in their annual greenhouse gas inventories, he says.

U.S. Action

Wockner, who started the EPA petition, hopes to see counting and reporting of emissions begin soon in the United States, too.

“Then you can start talking about what to do about it,” he says. “How do you regulate emissions or how do you stop them?”

It may be months before the EPA responds to their petition, and even then it could decide not to take action. Although Beaulieu reports the agency is already at work on the issue from other angles, including conducting a nationwide survey of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. reservoirs.

The four-year project, scheduled to be completed next year, “will improve our understanding of how reservoir greenhouse emission rates vary,” he says.

And the EPA has also included reservoirs in its national greenhouse gas inventory for the first time in a newly-published report.

This is promising news. “Emissions must be fully accounted for in the U.S. greenhouse gas inventory and evaluated in the context of regulatory compliance,” says Easter.

Having this information on emissions available to other agencies would help them to make decisions on whether to permit new dams, or remove or relicense existing ones, and contribute to a more complete understanding of the environmental impact of dams. It could also inform the action of states like New York that plan on boosting its clean energy portfolio with hydropower.

“Having a peer-reviewed scientific process for tracking emissions would help not just dam operators, but regulatory agencies and the public, too,” says Easter. “That way they can understand where the issues are — and where they aren’t — to be able to make informed decisions about whether to maintain these systems or if alternatives need to be found.”

California opens investigation into plastics deception campaign

California’s attorney general has announced an unprecedented investigation into the fossil fuel industry — not for its knowledge about climate change, but for its role in causing the global plastics pollution crisis. 

In a press release on Thursday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta accused fossil fuel and petrochemical companies of disingenuously promoting recycling, even though they knew it would never be able to keep up with growing plastic production. “Enough is enough,” Bonta said in a statement. “For more than a century, the plastics industry has engaged in an aggressive campaign to deceive the public, perpetuating a myth that recycling can solve the plastics crisis.” 

As part of the investigation, the attorney general’s office has issued a subpoena to Exxon Mobil for information relating to its alleged role in a “decades-long plastics deception campaign,” and seeks to determine if the plastic industry’s actions have violated California state law.

In response to Grist’s requests for comment, both Exxon Mobil and the American Chemistry Council, a plastics industry trade group, said they rejected Bonta’s allegations and vowed to remain focused on improving waste management, including through better plastic recycling.

Whatever the investigation’s findings, it’s clear that the world’s recycling infrastructure has failed miserably to deal with the past several decades’ proliferation of plastic. Between 1950 and 2015, the world produced some 5.8 billion metric tons of plastic waste and only recycled 9 percent of it. The vast majority of the rest has either been littered or is accumulating in the world’s landfills, where it takes hundreds of years to degrade and leaches hazardous chemicals into the soil and groundwater. A smaller amount has been incinerated — but that too causes problems, as burned plastic clogs the air with nasty pollutants that are linked to lung disease, heart problems, and cancer.

Efforts to get at the root of the problem by limiting plastic production have faced opposition for decades from the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries, which insisted to the public that more and better recycling infrastructure could deal with a growing glut of plastic. However, documents unveiled in a 2020 investigation from NPR and PBS Frontline suggest they were lying through their teeth. One industry insider wrote in a 1974 speech that there was “serious doubt” that recycling plastic “can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”

In other words, the industry correctly predicted decades ago that it would be too expensive to sort, clean, and recycle vast quantities of plastic. Plus, because plastic degrades every time it’s reused, it can only be successfully recycled once or twice before it’s unrecoverable.

The California attorney general’s office argues that disingenuous recycling campaigns allowed the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries to dramatically ramp up plastic production, threatening people’s health and the environment at every stage of plastics’ life cycle. Globally, plastic manufacturing releases greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and air pollution that disproportionately harms low-income communities and communities of color. In California, cleanup and waste reduction efforts burden local governments with more than $400 million annually as they struggle to keep plastic pollution out of waterways, beaches, and the ocean. And all the pollution that slips between the state’s fingers can strangle wildlife, mar the landscape, and degrade into microplastics — tiny shards of trash — that are now findings their way into people’s lungs and bloodstreams.

Judith Enck, a former regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency and the founder of the advocacy group Beyond Plastics, said Bonta’s investigation is a “long-overdue” opportunity to shine a light on fossil fuel and petrochemical companies’ deceptive practices. Probes from investigative reporters and watchdog organizations into the fossil fuel industry’s knowledge of global warming have yielded compelling documentation of its efforts to undermine climate science. 

“If this investigation accomplishes one thing — to get the plastics industry to stop lying about recycling — that would be extremely helpful,” Enck told Grist. She added that a successful effort from the attorney general’s office could escalate to a lawsuit and force companies to face fines and penalties. It could also create an evidentiary basis for more investigations in other jurisdictions — including at the federal level.

“All eyes will be on the California AG’s office,” Enck said. “I think they’re going to have a lot to work with.”

Anti-abortion zealots target Sotomayor aide as source of leak: Their threats are no joke

Almost as soon as Politico published its explosive story on Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked draft opinion, which strongly suggests the court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade, conservatives responded by focusing not on the content of the news, but how it was obtained. Online Monday night, there were nearly immediate calls to find and punish the leaker. In a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell insistently told reporters that the prospect of recriminalizing abortion was “not the story for today,” but rather the supposedly dangerous precedent of the leak. 

Also on Tuesday afternoon, Operation Rescue, the notorious anti-abortion activist group responsible for some of the movement’s most outrageous tactics, joined the fray, issuing a press release declaring that the leak had most likely come from the office of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

RELATED: Adoption means abortion just isn’t necessary, claims the right: That’s even worse than it sounds

That claim traced back to pretty thin sourcing: a Twitter thread posted by a Republican political strategist who, about an hour after Politico published its story Monday night, suggested he’d solved the mystery: One of Sotomayor’s staffers had joined hundreds of classmates in opposing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and, at an earlier point, had been quoted in Politico regarding a case on which he’d assisted. 

Within hours, the staffer’s name had become a hashtag and his picture was plastered across Twitter, along with abundant calls for the individual’s disbarment, incarceration for life or prosecution for treason.

On Tuesday, Operation Rescue took it a step further, repeating the unfounded allegations in a press release along with the claim that the leak had been designed to “foment social unrest that would apply pressure and intimidate the conservative justices to the point of changing their support for overturning Roe and Casey.” The group’s president, Troy Newman, went on to charge that if the claims proved true — which is quite an “if” — Sotomayor should be impeached or forced to resign; anyone else involved, he continued, should be “arrested immediately for sedition and fomenting an insurrection against the Judicial Branch.” 

There’s abundant irony here — now the right cares about “insurrection”? — as well as, apparently, some basic confusion about how journalism works. But there’s also the more troubling prospect that Operation Rescue, which has long treaded a fine line between vitriolic advocacy and anti-abortion terrorism, and was deeply implicated in the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider in Kansas, could again be stoking vigilante violence against its political enemies. 


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


Cheryl Sullenger, the author of Tuesday’s Operation Rescue press release, served two years in prison for conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic in California in 1988. In its campaigns against various abortion providers, the group has blockaded clinics; commissioned raucous and graphic “Truth Trucks” to drive through neighborhoods where abortion-clinic staffers live; threatened clinic employees that unless they quit they will be subjected to “campaigns of exposure,” including vigils outside their homes; and posted “WANTED” posters with abortion providers’ photos — a tactic that, in Florida, preceded the murder of two other abortion providers and a clinic volunteer, and has since been ruled in court to be tantamount to a death threat.

Operation Rescue was implicated in the 2009 murder of Dr. George Tiller — and could again be stoking vigilante violence against its political enemies.

For seven years before Tiller was murdered in his church, the group conducted a wide-ranging campaign against him, including mobilizing state legislators to try to bring bogus criminal charges against him and round-the-clock harassment. After Scott Roeder — who donated to and organized alongside Operation Rescue, and claims he discussed “justifiable homicide” over lunch with Troy Newman — killed Tiller, Sullenger’s phone number was found on his car dashboard. It would later emerge that Sullenger had supplied Roeder with information about Tiller’s whereabouts and schedule. 

In many ways, Operation Rescue’s campaign against Tiller lines up with a phrase that became popularized during the Trump era: “stochastic terrorism,” meaning the public demonization of a person or group that leads, almost inevitably, to violence. In 2009, that pattern was still rare enough to be notable; today, it’s the air we all breathe. 

“The vilification of abortion rights supporters generally and even the Supreme Court has contributed to a one-way history of harassment, violence and threats of violence over time,” said Frederick Clarkson, a senior research analyst at Political Research Associates as well as author of “Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy,” which focuses extensively on anti-abortion violence. In 1985, Clarkson pointed out, someone shot out a window in the home of Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the 1973 majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Before the attack, Blackmun had received numerous violent and graphic threats from anti-abortion activists, and over the previous year, seven abortion clinics and related facilities in and around Washington, D.C., had been bombed. 

“Beyond this, the history of bombings, arsons, assassinations and more always lurk in the background of the politics of abortion,” continued Clarkson. “In today’s environment, when violent mobs storm the Capitol and other governmental institutions across the country, unproven claims like this add volatility. Cheryl Sullenger served prison time for her involvement in an attempted clinic arson. So she is certainly familiar with what it means to add fuel to the fire.”

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

The abortion divide: What blue states must do in this moment

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, just signed his second abortion ban in two years into law – modeled on the Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks, which is at the center of the Supreme Court’s leaked draft ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Abortion advocates and providers like us are in full agreement with those waging a relentless campaign to eliminate abortion access: the Dobbs case is expected to gut the remaining constitutional protections for the right to abortion, which will open the floodgates of state laws to outlaw abortion.

Not content to wait for the Supreme Court, extremist politicians are pushing abortion bans imposed at arbitrary time limits with no basis in science, evidence, or medical practice; from 6-week bans modeled after Texas’ SB8, to15-week bans like Arizona’s.

Arizona already has a plethora of medically unjustified barriers designed to pressure and punish those seeking and providing abortions – from forced delays to onerous clinic regulations to denial of coverage for this care to racist and sexist “reason” bans. Arizona is not alone: Twenty-one states have at least four highly restrictive abortion laws, which already push abortion out of reach for far too many people, and taking their greatest toll on low-income individuals, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities, immigrants, disabled and rural communities.

This latest abortion ban is no exception. It eliminates access to care for people with widely ranging and equally valid reasons for needing abortion care: from not knowing they’re pregnant earlier on, fatal fetal diagnoses, significantly changing life circumstances to financial and logistical barriers to care that simply push them father along into pregnancy. And we know firsthand the immediate and life-long harm done to women who are forced to continue these pregnancies.

Even with these dire predictions, we have reason to press forward. Because in Arizona, like in every state across the nation, there is a growing allegiance of advocates, providers, grassroots organizers, abortion funds, elected officials, and more who are preparing for the Dobbs decision and building toward a better tomorrow, including the just-launched Empower Alliance for Reproductive Justice in Arizona, an alliance of Black-led organizations based in Arizona fighting for reproductive justice for and with their communities.

These are the movements that we know will ultimately prevail in reversing abortion bans and other restrictive laws. And, if we act now in states where the majority in government reflects the majority of the populace, we can safeguard abortion rights and do so much more to support those who may seek care in another state, who may safely self-manage their own abortions, and who will continue their pregnancies – regardless of the abortion laws in their states.

We saw thirty-six states and Washington D.C. pass a record 179 laws last year to advance reproductive health, rights and justice. There are now 17 states whose legislatures have enacted explicit protections for reproductive rights, decriminalized abortion, or both – half of them in the last three years.

State lawmakers all across the country should follow the lead of their counterparts with the same zeal that we’re seeing from anti-abortion extremists. And there’s a lot they can do: codify the right to abortion care, dedicate funds for abortions and the reproductive health infrastructure, remove medically unnecessary abortion restrictions, and more.

The same goes for local elected officials. In Portland, Oregon, the city council allocated $200,000 to the Northwest Abortion Access Fund that supports those who could not otherwise afford an abortion. (The state legislature followed suit – allocating $15 million in resources to build up the abortion care infrastructure there).

There’s too much at stake for elected officials at any level not to get creative – in the laws they pass and the stands they take. Now is the time to act as though our lives, health, and futures depend on it. Because they do.

Forced pregnancy and childbirth are violence against women — and also terrible health policy

In 1995, while working as a legislative assistant for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of us advised state ACLU affiliates how to deal with bills restricting abortion rights. It’s impossible to forget a harrowing phone call received one day from an affiliate in an upper Midwest state. The state legislature was considering a parental consent bill, and the parental notification law had already wreaked havoc on young lives, as she explained, “We had a case where a young girl was raped daily by her father, starting at age five. At 13, she became pregnant. A relative decided to help her and scheduled an abortion. The father was notified, and the night before the procedure, he shot and killed her.”

While pregnancy can be a joyous and miraculous event for those who freely choose it, forced pregnancy and childbirth is violence. It is sexual abuse. It is trauma. There exists no other comparable situation in which a human being (who is not incarcerated) is forced to undergo a potentially traumatic and even deadly medical event against their will. Legally mandating that a person continue an unwanted pregnancy — as the Supreme Court now appears poised to do — will destroy lives and futures. We know this because it happened prior to the Roe v. Wade in the U.S., and it happens all over the world.

RELATED: Samuel Alito’s leaked anti-abortion decision: Supreme Court doesn’t plan to stop at Roe

In policy schools, we teach students to evaluate policies and determine their intended outcomes and unintended consequences by examining empirical evidence and data. When policies are controversial, it is even more critical to weigh the outcomes. In the case of public health policy, the data is incontrovertible: Criminalizing abortion results in irreparable harm. In fact, it actually has the opposite policy effect that anti abortion advocates say they want: It can increase abortion rates, unintended pregnancies and infant mortality. 

Forced pregnancy and childbirth is violence. And it often results from violence. One in five women in the U.S. experience rape or attempted rape. One in four girls experience sexual abuse. One in four women experience intimate-partner violence during their lifetime. One in six women have been stalked. Pregnancy can increase the likelihood of partner violence. For those who are poor, Black, indigenous, a person of color, LGBTQ, an immigrant, disabled or unhoused, the likelihood of experiencing violence is even higher. Forced pregnancy and childbirth impacts the babies born as a result of it, another form of violence. Medical research shows that spacing babies is critical to their survival. Low-income women with shorter intervials between pregnancies have higher odds of precipitous labor, and infants whose birth was not spaced have higher odds of low birth weight, NICU admission and mortality. In places where abortion is completely illegal, women are often prosecuted for murder when they experience miscarriages and stillbirths, because it is nearly impossible to distinguish those events from abortion. This violence will happen regularly in the U.S. if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.


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


Forced pregnancy and childbirth is sexual abuse. Both require the sexual reproductive capacity of human bodies. Being forced to provide that capacity, and to endure the physical intrusion and penetration of the body that both pregnancy and childbirth require, is nothing less than sexual abuse. In no other circumstance can the state legally force a human being to endure sexual abuse — the violation of their sexual autonomy and bodily integrity. It is particularly egregious that poor and minority communities will be disproportionately subjected to this abuse.

Forced pregnancy and childbirth are unique: In no other circumstance can the state legally force a human being to endure sexual abuse. 

Forced pregnancy and childbirth is trauma. A crucial fact that is often missed in the abortion debate is that all pregnancies carry risk. Women regularly experience post-birth health and medical conditions, some of which are life-threatening, including hemorrhage, stroke and infection, among many others. Pregnancy-related mortality ratios for Black women are more than three times higher than for white women. Ten to 20 percent of women experience postpartum or perinatal depression, which can be severe and debilitating. Those with certain common conditions before or during pregnancy are at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and stroke after giving birth. And many women experience long-term effects of pregnancy and childbirth for the rest of their lives, including pelvic organ prolapse, stress incontinence and abdominal separation.

All these medical outcomes require ongoing expensive medical care that many cannot access because health care is not a guaranteed human right in the U.S., as it is in many other countries. When the state outlaws abortion, it forces women to experience multiple compounding traumas that risk their physical and mental health, financial security and well-being.

Abortion access is freedom-enhancing, in the truest sense of the word. Consistent with integral human development that emphasizes social justice and human dignity, abortion access respects the inherent dignity of women, their freedom to make choices and to evaluate medical and other risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Perhaps most important, abortion access also prioritizes and values women’s freedom from experiencing violence, sexual abuse and trauma through forced pregnancy and childbirth. When the state supports forced pregnancy and childbirth, it is complicit in this violence. When we stand by as it does so, we are complicit as well.

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

“State-against-state battles” predicted after Roe v Wade is thrown out

According to a report from the “Guardian”, conservative lawmakers in so-called “red states” are already making plans to make sure women in their states won’t be able to cross state lines to obtain abortions once the Supreme Court tosses out the historic Roe v Wade decision.

On Monday night, Politico released a leaked first draft ruling from Justice Samual Alito that indicates the conservative-leaning court plans to gut the privacy protections guaranteed by the 1973 ruling that forestalled the government from placing excessive government restrictions on women seeking an abortion.

According to the report, in the early draft, Alito wrote, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” before concluding, “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

With that in mind, the Guardian’s Melody Schreiber writes that efforts are afoot to not only ban abortions outright within state lines but also to interfere with a woman’s right to choose if she seeks help across state lines.

“Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion. The law was ultimately blocked in the state’s legislature, but experts expect such legislation to gain more support if Roe is weakened or overturned,” Schreiber wrote.

According to David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University’s Kline School of Law, expect states to go to war with each other after the court makes its ruling official.

“I think states are not going to rest with just saying ‘there won’t be abortions in our state.’ I think they’re going to want to ban abortion for their citizens as much as they can, which would mean stopping them from traveling,” Cohen explained, amplifying an argument he co-authored on what to expect after Roe v Wade is demolished.

“We’re going to see state-against-state battles that are really going to divide this country even deeper on this issue,” he continued, adding he could see the court siding with the even more restrictive laws.

“The Supreme Court does not have well-developed case law regarding extraterritorial application of state law,” he explained before adding that a court willing to dismantle the 50-year-old ruling is capable of anything.

“States are also likely to crack down on other efforts to access care. In Texas, a law passed last year made it illegal to ship medication for self-managed abortion, including across state lines – another potential template for copycat legislation,” Schreiber reported. “Since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced last year that it would continue its pandemic-era policy to allow medication abortion, also known as the ‘abortion pill” to be prescribed via telemedicine, the drugs have become a greater target from anti-abortion advocates. Medication abortion now accounts for the majority of abortions in the US.”

However, Cohen warned, “Pills are going to be a major part of how people continue to get abortions after the Supreme Court rules, so I think that we’ll see states trying to ban pills in all sorts of different ways.”

Why can’t Susan Collins admit that she was wrong about Brett Kavanaugh?

On Monday night, May 2, Politico published some bombshell reporting by journalists Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward — who revealed that according to a leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to fully overturn Roe v. Wade. Alito writes, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” declaring “We hold that Roe and (Planned Parenthood v.) Casey must be overruled.”

In response to Politico’s reporting and the news that legal abortion is almost certain to end in a long list of Republican-controlled states, journalist Eleanor Clift turns her wrath on Sen. Susan Collins of Maine in a scathing op-ed published by the “Daily Beast” early Tuesday morning, May 3. Collins, a moderate conservative who considers herself a staunch defender of abortion rights, infamously claimed, in 2018, that Justice Brett Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if confirmed to the High Court. And Clift slams Collins as hopelessly gullible in her op-ed.

“The one person most responsible for the looming loss of abortion rights — aside from the president who appointed three anti-Roe justices — is Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who in October of 2018, became the 50th and deciding vote in the Senate for Brett Kavanaugh,” Clift argues. “He would not have been confirmed if it weren’t for Collins, who wanted women to believe, as she did, that he would keep his word to her. He did not.”

Clift continues, “Maybe his fingers were crossed because whatever he said to Collins, it was a lie. Kavanaugh’s confirmation on a bare 50 to 48 vote was the beginning of the end for Roe v Wade, and everybody knew it except maybe Collins, who insisted Kavanaugh was telling her the truth — that he had such reverence for precedence, what they call stare decisis, which means ‘to stand by things decided,’ that Roe would be safe in his hands.”

When Collins voted to confirm Kavanaugh in 2018, her critics argued that she was unbelievably naïve if she really believed that he would vote against overturning Roe and that stare decisis was sacrosanct to the Donald Trump appointee.

“She was too eager to believe all that fluff about stare decisis, and now, a constitutional right that has been in place for 50 years is about to be shattered on the wing of a promise to her that predictably turned out to be a lie,” Clift emphasizes. “Susan Collins told the women of America that they could trust her to protect their reproductive freedom. She let us down.”

Mysterious hepatitis cases in children may be caused by a virus — but not SARS-CoV-2

The bizarre rise in children being diagnosed with severe acute hepatitis had all the makings of a medical mystery. There was no tangible cause, and it didn’t seem to be related to COVID-19. Some of the cases were so severe that children had to receive liver transplants, as the CDC noted in a health advisory issued in April 2022. In Minnesota, a four-week-old became Minnesota’s youngest-ever liver transplant recipient. In Alabama, two children needed liver transplants. In Wisconsin, one child needed a liver transplant and one died. 

More peculiarly, the incidence of hepatitis in children wasn’t confined to the United States. In the United Kingdom, 10 children required a liver transplant out of the 114 cases that were been reported in the region. The World Health Organization stated this week that it has received reports of at least 228 probable cases of pediatric hepatitis with dozens more under investigation.

Now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally has a working theory. The agency released a report last week naming a top contender for the cause behind the strange clusters of pediatric hepatitis outbreaks in children: an adenovirus. Adenoviruses are a common type of a virus that are sometimes genetically manipulated to deliver vaccines, and which in their wild form sometimes cause mild colds. A specific type of adenovirus, known as type 41, is implicated in these pediatric hepatitis cases.

Hepatitis is a general term to describe inflammation of the liver, which is a vital organ that filters blood, fights infections, and processes nutrients. There are five hepatitis viruses that can be identified by the letters A through E, which can be caused by a variety of origins.

“The damage to the liver was so severe — that’s what’s unusual about it.” 

“Any kind of viral infection can cause a hepatitis,” Dr. Ilana Fortgang, a pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition specialist at Ochsner Health, explained to Salon. “Similarly, drugs and alcohol can cause hepatitis, fatty liver can cause hepatitis.” Then there’s autoimmune hepatitis, which, as Fortgang noted, happens when the body’s own immune system attacks the liver.

RELATED: Another delay for five-and-under vaccine

Speaking to the hepatitis cases in children, Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases and associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, told Salon that “several of [these cases have] required liver transplant.”

“The damage to the liver was so severe — that’s what’s unusual about it,” he added. 


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


The mysterious origin of hepatitis in these cases resulted in the spread of misinformation across the internet. Some commentators falsely claimed that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were to blame. Others wondered if COVID-19 was the virus causing the outbreaks. Yet according to the CDC report, one commonality patients had in Alabama was that all nine children who were recently hospitalized with acute hepatitis of unknown origin also had adenovirus. Six of the nine patients also tested positive for Epstein-Barr Virus, but did not have antibodies, which suggested they had a previous infection but not an active one.

While further investigation is underway, experts say it’s not unusual for adenovirus to cause hepatitis. Yet it has only been known to cause hepatitis in children who are immunocompromised, which isn’t the case with the most recent outbreaks, which occurred in children with healthy immune systems.

Blumberg says that he has seen “severe infection” from adenoviruses, but only in his immunocompromised patients. “In my practice, I’ve seen patients with adenovirus who have had bone marrow transplants or other underlying conditions, and they’ve had severe hepatitis, pneumonia, and they’ve even died from that,” Blumberg said. “But for previously healthy children, they tend to only have mild outpatient disease — and this particular type of adenovirus, type 41, usually causes gastrointestinal illness like vomiting, diarrhea, but it usually doesn’t cause invasion into the liver and hepatitis.”

Blumberg said that it doesn’t make any sense that the mRNA vaccines could be causing the pediatric hepatitis cases, because children under five still aren’t eligible for the COVID-19 vaccines. However, Blumberg said there was a “solid link” between the presence of the adenovirus and the hepatitis cases in children. 

Fortgang said that not all kids who are infected by an adenovirus are getting severe hepatitis, which could suggest there is something else at play, too.

“It may be that there are two things going on, so that having this adenovirus infection confers a certain vulnerability and requires a second hit, as of yet we have not determined,” Fortgang said. Fortgang noted that these reactions to the adenovirus may be happening now because children’s immune systems have been weakened throughout the pandemic by being exposed to far fewer pathogens by virtue of social distancing.

Fortgang emphasized there are ways parents can keep their children safe.

“Hand washing is always a good first start, no rubbing your eyes, no touching your nose, no putting your hands in your mouth, and that’s because adenovirus is transmitted in a fecal-oral route,” Fortgang said. “But that’s also because these are just good hygiene protocols to live by.”

Fortgang emphasized: “I think that this is a scary time for parents of young children, but it’s important to remember that this is still a really very rare phenomenon.”

At Ochsner Health, where Fortgang works, doctors have been collaborating and sharing information with each other across the world.

“This has always been a very generous group, and we’re certainly poised here at my institution where we have really great resources, where we can take care of these kids, even if we don’t know the absolute finest details of what’s causing it,” Fortgang said. “And so I think that’s what’s really been heartening is that the medical community has come together, has identified this as an issue and been able to take care of these kids up to and including transplant.”

Read more on children’s health:

“The View” sees “fascism down the line” after SCOTUS Roe draft leak

On Tuesday, the women on “The View” were fired up to address the news that the Supreme Court has voted to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision after a draft majority opinion was shockingly leaked by Politico the night before.

On the show, Whoopi Goldberg – who took some time off the show to film “Anansi Boys” – reminds viewers that a woman’s right to have an abortion is still legal in America. The draft opinion is merely just a draft and not an active law, yet.

“My worry is that this is just the beginning,” says Joy Behar of the Republican justices who sided with Samuel Alito: Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.  

“Next they’ll go after gay marriage and maybe Brown v. Board of Education,” Behar continues. “They already eroded our voting rights a little bit, so I see fascism down the line here. I don’t know.”

RELATED: Leaked majority opinion says Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade

Guest co-host Lindsey Granger, who also hosts the nationally syndicated talk show “Daily Blast Live,” says the recent leak showcases a newfound precedent that the Supreme Court is no longer “apolitical” and can’t be trusted.  

“If you live in a state and you need an abortion or you decide to get an abortion, you will either travel to another state to get an abortion or, unfortunately, you will do what women did back in the day and have your own abortion,” Sunny Hostin explains of the consequences if both landmark decisions are ultimately overturned.


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


“The problem that I have with this opinion — and everyone knows I’m Catholic, my faith tells me that an abortion is wrong, my faith tells me that life begins at conception,” she continues. “But I don’t want to put my beliefs on anyone else. I think that is wrong. And when I looked at this opinion, it was so religiously and morally grounded . . . I don’t think that should ever be in a Supreme Court opinion and I’m very disappointed.”

The panel agrees that if the decisions are overturned, it will reduce “safe abortions” and “cost more lives.”

“Dirty Dancing” star Jennifer Grey, on the show to promote her latest memoir “Out of the Corner,” says the government’s attempts to limit women’s choices illustrates how women are seen as a threat. 

“I’m horrified that this is really on the table again in 2022. I mean talk about being in the corner like this is the ultimate . . . if you don’t want to have an abortion, don’t have one just don’t have one,” she adds.

Goldberg then concludes the discussion on an emotional and powerful note, asserting that women are the only individuals who can control their own bodies.

“Women in this country lived forever with [abortions] being illegal . . . Well, we got tired of tripping over women in public bathrooms who were giving themselves abortions because there was nowhere safe, nowhere clean, nowhere to go,” she says.

“This law came about because people wanted people to have somewhere safe and somewhere clean. It has nothing to do with your religion, this is not a religious issue. This is a human issue,” Goldberg stresses.    

Watch the full discussion below, via YouTube:

More stories you might like:

Dolly Parton mourns late friend and musician Naomi Judd: “We loved big hair, makeup and music”

Dolly Parton took to social media on Monday to pay tribute to late country singer Naomi Judd.

“I was so shocked to hear about Naomi’s passing,” Parton wrote in a moving statement. “Naomi and I were close. We were very similar. We were the same age and both Capricorns. We loved big hair, makeup and music. I have always loved Ashley, Wynonna and Naomi. They’ve always been like sisters to me.”

Parton then congratulated Wynonna Judd and her mother’s induction into the Country Music Hall of Fame and apologized for not being able to attend the Sunday ceremony.   

RELATED: “Grace and Frankie” blessed us with a “9 to 5” reunion for their series finale

“Congratulations Wynonna for you and your mom being inducted into the hall of fame yesterday,” she continued. “I am sorry I couldn’t be there but I can hear Naomi saying now ‘Oh well, a day late and a Dolly short.’ Congratulations and condolences are both in order. Just know that I will always love you.”

Both Wynonna and her sister Ashley announced their mother’s death in a social media statement posted on Saturday, April 30.

“Today we sisters experienced a tragedy,” the statement read. “We lost our beautiful mother to the disease of mental illness. We are shattered. We are navigating profound grief and know that as we loved her, she was loved by her public. We are in unknown territory.”


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


The pair were also in attendance at Sunday’s ceremony to accept the induction on their mother’s behalf. Wynonna, who sang with Naomi as part of the mother-daughter musical duo called the Judds, delivered an emotional speech about her musical partner.

“I’m going to make this fast because my heart’s broken, and I feel so blessed,” she said. “It’s a very strange dynamic to be this broken and this blessed.”

In addition to Parton’s tribute, fellow country musicians Carrie Underwood, Billy Ray Cyrus, and Mickey Guyton also paid their respects to Judd.

More stories you might like:

Don’t abandon your red state

In the immediate wake of the leak of a draft of a Supreme Court opinion fully repealing abortion rights, calls began again, as they always do, for people, particularly those who might ever need abortion care, to leave red states. Just move away.

Red states are too dangerous. Red states hate women. Any company moving operations into a Republican-controlled state now needs to be fully aware of the policies they’re implicitly supporting. As Rachel Bitecofer wrote on Twitter: “Hard to imagine robust economic growth in red states when any corporation coming in will be sentencing their female workforce to forced birth.”

I lived most of my life in a red state that occasionally leaned purple. My child was born there. I was too, though: different state, same color. The access and affordability of abortions in my longtime state, Ohio, can be prohibitive, especially in the remote and rural area that was my home. But the cost of parenthood is even more impossible, if not for my red state’s secret weapon in both regards: community.

RELATED: Adoption means abortion just isn’t necessary, SCOTUS claims: That’s even worse than it sounds

If you were living in Appalachian Ohio, to obtain an abortion you would need to travel 90 minutes each way into the state capital, which likely means finding a car, as public transportation is inconsistent. You would need to make at least two of these visits, as Ohio currently requires a counseling appointment, including an ultrasound, for those seeking an abortion. This means at least two days off work, though likely more. A medication abortion, though conducted at home via pills, requires a clinical follow-up. That’s another trip, more time off work, not to mention the hundreds of dollars that abortions cost.

When no one is coming to help, when no help has come for a long time, you learn to help each other.

But if you think abortions are expensive, try having a kid. To begin with there is the birth itself, a hospital bill that can set a family back for years, possibly for life. It’s not unusual for an unexpectedly high-risk birth to cost the parents millions. Where I lived, the options were limited for giving birth. There was one rural hospital, the site of various malpractices. No birth center. No women’s center. No choice.

That should have been my first lesson, that the lack of options in my state would continue into my baby’s childhood. The conversations about childcare have finally, firmly acknowledged that it’s too expensive for most Americans — but not that, in places like where I lived, there simply isn’t any. Not enough childcare to go around. Not safe, not licensed, not affordable, not any at all.

There was one childcare center at the state university in my town, but it was so popular with professors, you had to sign up well before your child was born. And in order for your name to budge on the waitlist, you had to know the right people. As a grad student at the time, I did not know the right people.

When I finally found a preschool for my son, at the community center, I was thrilled. Unfortunately, it was affordable because it was only three mornings a week, for three hours. I used to bring my computer and work in the lobby so I wouldn’t waste time going home and coming back. 

The lack in red states extends as a child grows older. It means lack of summer opportunities — i.e., childcare so those of us who are not on vacation can work in the summer months — lack of camp, summer school, lessons, enrichments. Children in rural areas lose more learning over the summer — called the “summer slide” — than their urban peers, according to research

If this is not appearing like a resounding vote to stay in your red state, let me introduce you to the those that fill this gap for many parents, including me: other people. People fill the gaps with care. 

When my son’s public elementary kept cancelling school for snow days, a fellow parent organized Snow Day Camp. We alternated at which house a group of kids would spend the day. For a mother like me, a single parent working full-time, the children didn’t come over to my place but instead I contributed in other ways: I bought board games or lunch. We did the same thing for summer, when one mother organized a Cooking Camp in her home and we all chipped in financially or with supplies. 

Small, rural places have a reputation for gossip, but when people know your story, they know how to help. My neighbors knew when I was on a book deadline, and would entertain my son. I knew when a fellow mom was working late at her new job and I would watch her kid. We all knew when a new baby had arrived, or a family was dealing with sickness or divorce or job loss, and would coordinate dropping off food, taking the kids for a time.

In parts of the country where people have no family and no helpful community, parenthood is untenable because it does take so many people, working together to make it work.

The answer is to stay and fight.

But that’s one of the things small, so-called neglected towns in red states do so well. When no one is coming to help, when no help has come for a long time, you learn to help each other. When you see a need, you try to fill it. 

The same is true of abortions in a red state. That 90-minute drive each way to a clinic? Volunteers will drive you (sometimes the most prohibitive part of abortions is physically getting people to their appointments, especially in rural areas like where I’m from). Funds exist, local to each state, to pay for abortions as well as to support childcare and food. Resources exist for self-managed abortion. Regardless of where you live, medications for abortion are safely and readily available online, though the legal ramifications can vary from state to state. There are networks available to talk people through it.

As the aftershocks of the leaked draft opinion started to be felt, some people called loudly and publicly for the forming of networks to support getting people abortions. But those networks already exist. They have for generations, particularly in the parts of the country that have been cast aside, left behind by others. 


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


When you live in a state that is sometimes difficult, the answer is rarely to leave, if you care about the people. The answer is to stay and fight. The answer is to look around and support those people-led systems, official and just local networks, that already exist, that are already working as hard as they can to lift each other up through abortion, through parenthood and more.  

More stories like this: