Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Kentucky GOP overrides governor’s veto to ban abortions — even in cases of rape or incest

On Wednesday, the Republican-led Kentucky legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of a bill that would ban abortion after fifteen weeks into pregnancy, making Kentucky just about the first state without legal abortion options since 1973.

The far-reaching bill, H.B. 3, includes provisions that ban abortion after fifteen weeks into pregnancy, prohibit abortion pills by mail, raise the legal threshold for minors seeking an abortion, and establish an extensive state system to monitor all abortions in the Bluegrass State, according to The Lexington Herald Reader. 

The measure also mandates that fetal remains be cremated or interred and requires that all birth-death or stillbirth certificates be issued after any procedure, according to Reuters.

Opponents have argued that the bill makes the administration of abortions so bureaucratic that it will just about end the practice altogether. 

“There’s nothing in place for providers to be able to comply [with HB 3’s regulations],” Nicole Erwin, a Kentucky-based spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, told The 19th. “That’s why we would stop providing care. Literally we can’t meet the demands this bill would require.”

RELATED: Oklahoma Republicans ram through most restrictive abortion ban in the nation

Last Friday, Beshar, vetoed the measure, writing in a letter that “rape and incest are violent crimes. Victims of these crimes should have options.”

But on Tuesday, the state House overrode Beshear’s veto with a 76-21 vote, sending the vote to the state Senate for final approval. The move came as a crowd of pro-choice demonstrated protested below the House chamber, chanting slogans like “bans off our bodies.”

Democratic lawmakers and abortion advocates have widely condemned the bill, opposing it on both moral and constitutional grounds. 

“I can hear people outside chanting, ‘Bans off our bodies’ right now,'” said state Rep. Rachel Roberts, a victim of rape, during a floor speech. “This issue is so important that people showed up today. That should tell you something. I urge you to consider the ramifications of this bill. I urge you to allow this veto. Think of me as a 14-year-old rape victim.”

“This bill is discrimination in search of children,” Democratic state Rep. Josie Raymond echoed. 

Carrie Flaxman, an attorney with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told The 19th that the bill imposes too high of a burden on abortion seekers to be constitutional, saying, “The law is quite clear that the government cannot require action with such consequences without giving people the means to comply.”

RELATED: Woman charged with murder for self-induced abortion

The bill is likely to be challenged in court by opponents, but that effort could be impacted by the Supreme Court’s impending decision on a case around a Mississippi abortion law.

Trump admits he wanted Barr to take the fall for election scheme: “I said look, get impeached”

Former President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he pressured then-Attorney General Bill Barr to pursue bogus voter fraud claims after his election loss even if it meant being impeached.

Trump claimed in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity that Barr did not want to investigate his baseless voter fraud claims because he was worried about being impeached even though Barr has repeatedly said the Justice Department did not pursue the claims because there was no evidence of any widespread fraud that could have affected the election outcome.

“Look, we also had a chance, but Bill Barr, the attorney general, didn’t want to be impeached,” Trump said. “How do you not get impeached? You sit back and relax and wait out for your term to end. That’s what he did. And it was a sad thing and a sad day for our country.”

Trump also lashed out at Barr for writing what he called a “crummy book” that was “so false.” Barr in his book rejected Trump’s debunked fraud claims and blamed him for the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot, arguing that Trump was not fit for office.

RELATED: Bill Barr’s pride gets in the way: Trump’s top lackey just blew up his own redemption tour

“Had Bill Barr had the courage, a lot of this could’ve been taken care of,” Trump said. “The U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia said Bill Barr told him not to investigate the fraud in the elections, and he said ‘Don’t do it.’ And he wrote a letter to that effect and you know, had Bill Barr had the courage to do what he should’ve done instead of being worried about being impeached.

“I said, ‘Look, get impeached. I went up a lot in the polls when I got impeached. You have to get impeached, maybe,'” Trump added. “But he was so afraid of being impeached that he refused to do his job.”

Barr had been a top Trump loyalist who helped run interference in special counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation and led the administration’s violent crackdown on Black Lives Matter protests. But Barr told MSNBC that Trump became enraged at him after he told him the election fraud “stuff was bullshit.” Barr blindsided Trump in December 2020 by giving an interview revealing that the DOJ had found no evidence of widespread fraud, which led him to being pushed out just weeks before Trump left office. Trump continued to pursue the false fraud claims, culminating in the Capitol riot and his record-setting second impeachment. He left office with the lowest approval rating on record.

Barr in his book wrote that Trump surrounded himself with “sycophants” and “whack jobs from outside the government, who fed him a steady diet of comforting but unsupported conspiracy theories.” He said that the “absurd lengths” to which Trump took the conspiracy theory “led to the rioting on Capitol Hill.”

But despite criticizing his former boss, Barr vowed to vote for Trump if he is the Republican nominee in 2024 even though he is “going to support somebody else for the nomination.”

Barr isn’t the only former DOJ official Trump has lashed out this week for not doing enough to help him try to steal the election. The former president issued an anti-endorsement of sorts against Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Bill McSwain, the former U.S. attorney in Philadelphia that Trump mentioned in his Hannity interview.

“He was the U.S. Attorney who did absolutely nothing on the massive Election Fraud that took place in Philadelphia and throughout the commonwealth,” Trump said in a statement on Tuesday.

McSwain last year sent Trump a letter seeking his endorsement and blaming Barr for stopping him from investigating the bogus fraud claims.

“He should have done his job anyway,” Trump said. “Do not vote for Bill McSwain, a coward, who let our country down. He knew what was happening and let it go. It was there for the taking and he failed so badly. Many of the U.S. Attorneys were probably told not to do anything by Barr. Hence, our Country is going to hell.”

While Trump has not endorsed a candidate in the race, every viable candidate in the race is an election conspiracist. Leading GOP candidates Doug Mastriano and Lou Barletta even took part in Trump’s fraudulent elector scheme.

But as Trump and his allies continue to stoke debunked claims about the 2020 election, the schtick seems to be wearing thin on Republicans concerned the conspiracy theory mongering could cost them key seats in the midterms. Trump’s recent endorsements have prompted infighting among his supporters and his rally attendance has dwindled, suggesting a “very shrinking base,” one Republican strategist said.

“Many Republicans are tired of going back and rehashing the 2020 election,” longtime Republican pollster Frank Luntz told The Daily Beast. “Everybody else has moved on and in Washington, everyone believes he lost the election.”

Read more:

Trump, Putin and their kind are still dangerous — but their time is almost up

My phone vibrated, indicating a new text message.

I checked and found one from a Turkish colleague who occasionally visited the White House during the Trump presidency: “I’m a 26-year-old journalist. I don’t want to end up in jail.”

At the time I was in a private screening of the movie “Navalny,” about the Russian politician who is widely considered to be Vladimir Putin’s greatest national rival. Alexei Navalny survived an attempt on his life, by way of poison applied to his underwear, only to be arrested upon his re-entry into Russia from Germany, where he had been recovering from the attempt on his life in Siberia.

That text message felt even more ironic and surreal as I waded through a sea of happy NHL fans outside the Capital One Arena in D.C. to get to the private screening, hosted by former congressman Joe Walsh and the movie’s producer, Olivia Troye

From behind prison bars, Navalny has called for protests against Putin’s chosen war in Ukraine, where Navalny has ancestral roots. He is viewed by Amnesty International as a “prisoner of conscience” and re-entered his country knowing he might be jailed for up to 20 years because he wants to fight the “corruption and thieves” at the heart of the Russian government.

RELATED: We didn’t start the fire — Trump and Putin did. But we’ve got to put it out

As for my friend Ibrahim Haskologlu in Turkey, he reported on news that the authoritarian regime of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan didn’t like. He was called “Fake News” and told me that pro-government groups “started to share my home address and identity information.” He reports that he’s gotten threatening messages and Turkey’s minister of the interior sent him a message that there was “an investigation launched against me.”

“There is no false news we have made, we have conveyed what happened completely,” he said. “If international journalists do not react on this issue, unfortunately I may not be among you. I don’t know where I will be.”

There is no doubt we live in dark times. Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed, dismembered and apparently incinerated by a hit squad that was almost certainly working for Crown Prince Mohammed, the effective leader of the Saudi government. Those who tried to kill Navalny have been linked to other prominent deaths in Russia. In January 2021, Bellingcat, Insider and Der Spiegel linked the unit that tracked Navalny to other deaths, including activists Timur Kuashev in 2014 and Ruslan Magomedragimov in 2015, and politician Nikita Isayev in 2019. Another investigation found that Russian opposition politician Vladimir Kara-Murza was followed by the same unit before his suspected poisoning.

Authoritarian forces are at work around the world, trying to support their greed and avarice by stifling dissent, and dividing the populace through means and methods known and understood by despots since the beginning of time. In the process, they are locking up, killing and jailing the reporters who are trying to get the truth out to the general population — even if the population adopts the voices of grifters and con men like Donald Trump and calls us “fake news.”


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


Make no mistake, Trump remains one of the leading figures in this authoritarian movement. He is out of office and off social media, but he continues to command a following, including wannabe dictators and Putin lovers across the world, like Erdogan of Turkey. The single greatest threat Trump represents is the march of authoritarianism under the guise of democracy. Trump is the ultimate con. He learned the grift well and has coddled up to and embraced Putin, Erdogan and others who rule with an iron fist. He longed to be like them, and they learned from him. There is no doubt among those of us still capable of independent thought and reason that Trump had a heavy hand in the Jan. 6 insurrection — and that he explored any means of staying in power. As he told me and the world from the Brady Briefing Room on Sept. 23, 2020, a full six weeks before the election, if we stopped counting ballots there would be no change of power.

But what Trump and the rest of these old, dangerous, atavistic, arrogant authoritarians haven’t learned yet is that their time is up. It’s done. The Navalny documentary — partially shot on cellphone — the text sent by my colleague in Turkey, the home videos posted on a variety of apps by those suffering from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and even the videos posted from Trump rallies are exposing these cretins for what they are: narcissistic power-mongers who care about no one but themselves. Because of social media, they cannot hide and lie with impunity as they could in the past.

These autocrats have experienced success up to this point by using the old methods of controlling access to information — jailing, killing and smearing the opposition and the reporters who try to report the truth.

Social media is the tipping point. Putin can’t cover up genocide. Trump’s followers are scared, aging white people. These guys are still a menace — but they’re not the future.

But social media is proving to be the tipping point. Putin can’t cover up genocide. He can’t sell his propaganda because he cannot control the dissemination of information, even as he tries to shut down access to the internet in Russia. Erdogan cannot stop the word from getting out because he can’t control the 21st-century printing press — the cellphone.

Trump can no longer succeed as he once did because he cannot control social media either. Those left worshiping Trump are, for the most part, scared, aging white people (many of whom are racists, misogynists and religious fanatics) who rely only on Trump and Fox News for the information they receive. 

This is not the future. Trump isn’t the future. Putin and Erdogan are not the future. The future belongs with teenager Darnella Frazier, who recorded video of George Floyd’s death and won a special Pulitzer for it. It resides with brave young reporters like Ibrahim Haskologlu who can reach out across the globe to tell the truth. And it resides with younger politicians like Navalny who — as is clearly shown in a well-constructed documentary — know how to reach out through a variety of social media applications and interact with millions of people who might otherwise never know his name. With millions of followers on YouTube, there is no way to silence him — which is why Putin apparently tried to kill him, though he still won’t say Navalny’s name.

Social media is much maligned by those in power, and by those who operate large media companies. CNN launched an online streaming service that has so far garnered little more than 10,000 viewers — but that’s less an indictment of social media than of the corporations struggling to keep up with the independent and “citizen” media that has become such a dynamic and important player across the globe. Corporate media, slow to react to change, and convinced of the star power of many of its anchors, remains a step behind.

The latest person to fall victim to Putin’s rage against the dying of the light is Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian politician mentioned above who has been a strong critic of Putin and his disastrous war against Ukraine. Kara-Murza said in a CNN interview this week that Putin’s government is “not just corrupt, it’s not just kleptocratic, it’s not just authoritarian, it is a regime of murderers.” 

Of course Russian police arrested him almost immediately. Of course they sentenced him to jail on charges of disobedience. Of course Putin was behind it. 

Putin, as it turns out, is the true phantom menace (with apologies to George Lucas). No matter how strongly he tries to squeeze in order to become the 21st century’s pre-eminent totalitarian, more countries will continue to slip through his fingers. 

Make no mistake, Putin and others like him still have the ability to sway a large number of people. Navalny, quoting many before him, says in the documentary, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” That will always remain true.

But it’s becoming easier by the day to rouse people from their slumber.

Putin cannot and will not succeed. His chosen war with Ukraine will ultimately be his downfall. It will cost Russia untold billions, if not trillions, of dollars — and threatens to take the nation back to where it was in 1917: destitute and starving.

The more desperate Putin becomes in trying to hold onto power, the more tenuous the survival of our species becomes. He has world-ending cards to play, and has threatened to use them.

Expect people like Putin, Trump, Erdogan and others to continue playing the cards they believe they were dealt. But all will eventually fail.

The future threat comes from autocrats who know how to manipulate social media, not stifle it. The first of those to emerge will be truly dangerous and terrifying — even more so than an aging sideshow clown who once anchored a network entertainment show and an aging ex-KGB officer who resorts to elaborate Cold War stunts to stifle the opposition.

But as long as there are despots, there will be journalists trying to expose them. Many will be young men and women who will risk prison, or worse, to deliver the facts to a needful public — even if some of the public don’t want to hear it. 

Read more from Brian Karem on the Biden White House:

The climate case for seizing superyachts, Russian and otherwise

On Monday in Mallorca, Spain, the U.S. government seized a 254-foot yacht linked to Russian businessman Viktor Vekselberg, a billionaire and close ally of Vladimir Putin. This was the first such capture for the Biden administration under its own sanctions imposed after the invasion of Ukraine. It’s one of several recent developments that drive home the outsize influence that the assets of the uber-rich have on both international diplomacy — and climate change.

Since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we’ve seen world leaders repeatedly use the tactic of appealing to the interests of the super rich to further their own agendas. On Sunday evening, for example, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed the glamorous attendees of the Grammy Awards ceremony to urge them to support stronger sanctions against Russia. And over the past month, a number of international governments have worked to ban billionaire Russian oligarchs from their borders and to seize their most valuable assets, in hopes that they will demand Vladimir Putin put an end to the war so that they can get their yachts back.

Vekselberg’s Tango is the latest superyacht owned by Russian oligarchs to have been seized from various harbors around the world. Multiple vessels owned by industrial billionaire and soccer club owner Roman Abramovich — including the Eclipsethe second-largest private yacht in the world — have so far eluded capture in Antiguan and Turkish waters.

 In the case of defense conglomerate CEO Alexander Mikheyev’s Lady Anastasia, which has been docked in Port Adriano in Mallorca, the story is particularly dramatic: A Ukrainian man who had worked as the yacht’s chief engineer for a decade attempted to sink the boat in an attempt to retaliate against his former boss for his role in attacks on Kyiv. The vessel was captured by authorities a couple of weeks later.

Why do we care so much about the yachts? Well, for one, even the richest people in the world would probably feel the loss of a superyacht, as they’re valued at tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. They’re also such a poetic symbol of fuck-you wealth — you’d be hard-pressed to imagine anything more egregiously extravagant than a football-field-size boat complete with helicopter pad, pool, and movie theatre. And, to that end, they are also the most carbon-intensive asset you can own. (Well, not you. You will not own a superyacht. Neither will I.)

It remains to be seen whether this yacht-seizing tactic will lead Putin to rethink his invasion of Ukraine. But it does raise some questions about yacht-seizing as a form of climate mitigation! Bear with me. 

Last month, “Bloomberg Green” published a breakdown detailing how much the carbon footprints of the world’s 0.1 percent vastly exceed those of everyone else, but I’d like to focus on the yachts alone – specifically, the ones seized from Russian oligarchs in the past month. An analysis by Richard Willk and Beatriz Barros of Indiana University estimated the carbon emissions of Abramovich’s 500-foot-long Eclipse at 22,440 metric tons of CO2-equivalent per year. (That doesn’t even take into account the emissions that go into building the Eclipse in the first place, which are surely considerable.) 

Using that figure, I’ve calculated some very rough estimates of the annual carbon emissions of our favorite currently impounded assets.

Altogether, they add up to about 112,000 metric tons of CO2-equivalent per year. To put that figure into context, it exceeds the combined carbon emissions produced by the Pacific Island nations of Kiribati and Tuvalu in 2018. It is worth noting that these nations in particular are so endangered by climate change that they could be lost entirely by 2100

Which brings us to the (carbon) elephant in the room: Russian oligarchs are hardly the only super-polluting yacht-owners on Earth. American offenders in this department include business magnate and producer David Geffen, tech founder Larry Ellison, and Walmart heiress Ann Walton Kroenke. If we’re trying to seize yachts as a roundabout method of international diplomacy, why not seize them to cut out millions of metric tons of CO2 per year? I mean, I don’t know if you’ve read the latest IPCC report

Do Jewish bankers control the weather? A short history of this dumb but ugly conspiracy theory

This week in the annals of Republican projection, just in time for Passover, comes a doozy: After six years of steady conservative antisemitic insinuations, conspiracy theories and the inevitable violence those narratives can inspire, it’s Democrats who are the real antisemites. 

On Monday, one of the Republican Party’s social media accounts, @RNCResearch (dedicated to “Exposing the lies, hypocrisy, and failed far-left policies of Joe Biden and the Democratic Party”), tweeted a brief clip of Biden in the Rose Garden introducing his nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Steve Dettelbach. In the clips, Biden makes the daddest of Dad jokes: that Dettelbach, a former DOJ prosecutor, “was responsible for” the fine weather that day. “Dettelbach is Jewish,” commented @RNCResearch, in what was apparently meant as a gotcha. 

All of this dumb. Boy, is it dumb. Unfortunately, it also means something. 

On the most basic level, the GOP tweet is a reference to one of the goofier antisemitic conspiracy theories out there: the idea that Jews, and more specifically the Rothschild banking family, can control the weather. In 2018, this conspiracy theory ranked a brief moment in the sun when Washington, D.C. council member Trayvon White Sr., a Democrat, posted a Facebook video on a snowy day, talking about “climate manipulation” and saying, “that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.” 

A few hours after the Washington Post reported on his comments, White apologized, saying he hadn’t realized the conspiracy theory was antisemitic, but that a progressive Jewish group that had endorsed him “was helping him understand the history” behind it.

RELATED: Eight mistakes the media makes about antisemitism in America today

It’s a long history. In the last decade, as Michael Rosenwald wrote at the time, also in the Post, the fact that one branch of the Rothschild family had acquired a controlling stake in the company Weather Central, which provides weather forecasts to media outlets, became fodder for conspiracy theorists who have long attributed vast, world-shaping powers to Jewish bankers in general and the Rothschilds in particular. 

But the notion that one affluent family — which rose to prominence after Mayer Amschel Rothschild founded a banking business in Frankfurt in the 1760s — can literally control the weather is just one in a long series of conspiracy theories that have circulated around the family for the last 200 years. That’s where the narrative becomes less funny. That history starts in the mid-1800s, when an anonymous pamphlet — supposedly authored by “Satan” — was circulated in Europe, blaming the Rothschilds for exploiting Napoleon Bonaparte’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815 in order to “make a killing on the Stock Exchange.”  

According to the story, London banker Nathan Rothschild witnessed Napoleon’s fall at Waterloo, and raced back to England to use the inside knowledge to game the stock market before anyone else heard the news. This absolutely didn’t happen — Rothschild was not in fact present at Waterloo — but as we know, facts don’t matter in the conspiracy-theory context. This invented narrative became the foundational example of nearly two centuries of conspiracy theories about the Rothschild family’s supposed uncanny ability to manipulate world events to their favor. 

About half a century after the Rothschild-Waterloo pamphlet was published, another anonymous publication — the notorious forgery “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” purporting to reveal the minutes of a meeting of Jewish leaders plotting to achieve world domination — would help spread that narrative worldwide, ultimately helping pave the way for the Holocaust. 


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


The conspiracy theories never really went away, but in recent years, they’ve come roaring back, sometimes to deadly effect. As Spencer Ackerman wrote several years ago in the Daily Beast, the myth was a forgotten undercurrent to the 2016 hacking of the Democratic National Committee. One of the entities behind the hack, DCLeaks, used the publicity it generated to promote another of its projects: a website targeting George Soros that depicted the Jewish liberal philanthropist’s face superimposed atop scenes of chaotic street protests in Ferguson, Missouri — the protesters all apparently non-white. The intended takeaway was that Soros was masterminding racial unrest in America, just as, the website claimed, he was behind “almost every revolution and coup around the world for the last 25 years.” 

The site offered a neat echo of Glenn Beck’s deeply antisemitic 2010 Fox series on Soros, “The Puppet Master,” and foreshadowed Donald Trump’s 2018 suggestion that Soros was bankrolling protests against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, rendering them “fake” and unworthy of attention. (As Ackerman points out, that was projection too, since Trump had in fact hired people to pose as supporters for his now-legendary 2015 presidential campaign announcement.) 

As Soros became a dominant folk devil in both the U.S. and his native Hungary, the conspiracy theory was also invoked in campaigns blaming Soros for immigration and refugee crises. In 2017 in Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s government papered the capital with posters of Soros’ face to promote its “Stop Soros” law, which made it illegal to help undocumented immigrants. In the U.S. the next year, Trump and other Republicans adapted the narrative to declare that Soros was paying Central American migrants to form a “caravan” to “invade” the U.S.

Conspiracy theories focused on George Soros clearly allude to the “Great Replacement” narrative, which directly fueled the synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh and the tiki-torch march in Charlottesville.

Underlying both campaigns was the clear allusion to the “Great Replacement” theory: the far-right narrative that liberals — more specifically, Jewish liberals — are intentionally flooding Europe and the U.S. with migrants in order to “replace” the white population. In 2018, amid Trump’s crusade against the migrant “caravan,” that narrative led Robert Bowers to kill 11 people at a Pittsburgh synagogue, because he blamed a Jewish refugee aid group for bringing “invaders” into the country. The same conspiracy theory inspired both the infamous tiki-torch chants in Charlottesville, Virginia, as well as a number of other replacement theory-driven massacres, in the U.S. and elsewhere. 

Trump also infamously deployed an anti-Hillary Clinton meme in 2016 that paired his rival with a pile of cash and a Star of David, and closed his campaign that year with a video casting Jewish figures, including Soros and Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, as “global special interests” who controlled “the levers of power in Washington.” 

Then, of course, there’s QAnon: the wide-ranging conspiracy theory premised on the idea that Democratic leaders and other “elites” are involved in a massive child sex trafficking (and/or cannibalism) ring that only Trump can stop. 

The central claims of QAnon are a warmed-over version of the blood libel, a medieval slur claiming that Jews ritually murdered Christian children and used their blood to make matzo. 

As innumerable experts have pointed out, the central claims of QAnon are a warmed-over version of another old canard: the blood libel, a slur first generated in medieval Europe, claiming that Jews ritually murdered Christian children in order to use their blood to make matzo. The claim has been used to justify intense persecution of Jews throughout history, from the Inquisition to pogroms to the Nazi regime. It crossed the Atlantic to the U.S., showing up in its original form amid the 1928 presidential election, but then returning in slightly modernized guise in the 1980s Satanic Panic, when thousands of Americans became convinced that child daycare centers were actually fronts for Satanic child sex abuse.

In 2018, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the congresswoman from Q, indulged in a spinoff theory that one of California’s apocalyptic wildfires had been caused by a “laser” from “space solar generators” somehow connected to the Rothschilds. (She did not actually say “Jewish space lasers,” but that’s a plausible interpretation.)

Scholars of conspiracism have long noted that below even the most fantastic and baseless examples of the genre, conspiracy theories tell us something true, if only in how they serve as a mirror to society, reflecting back something about ourselves. 

As British philosophy professor Qassim Cassam noted in his 2019 book, “Conspiracy Theories,” conspiracism is “first and foremost a form of political propaganda,” spreading theories that are unlikely to be true, or are even ludicrous, but which “are likely to influence public opinion.” 

Or as Reason editor Jesse Walker wrote in “The United States of Paranoia,” a meditation on the topic published in 2014, “A conspiracy theory that catches on becomes a form of folklore. It says something true about the anxieties and experiences of the people who believe in and repeat it, even if it says nothing true about the objects of the theory itself.” 

In his article on antecedents for today’s anti-Soros panic, Ackerman observed that, “A recurrent theme of 19th-century anti-Semitism is that it finds substantial currency at moments when old regimes appear exhausted and fear about revolutionary dislocation intensifies.” That is to say, when public discontent grows more intense, antisemitic yarns provide a convenient scapegoat and “an omnibus explanation for the anxieties of the age” — something that helps unpack both how Jewish figures throughout history have been simultaneously blamed for the excesses of capitalism and for spreading Marxism, and why upticks in antisemitism are reliably considered warning signs of looming social instability. 

So what does it mean that an official account of the Republican Party clumsily attempted to turn the tables and suggest that — despite the modern blood libel, the “Protocols” fanfic, the space lasers — actually Democrats are the real antisemites? 

To Sarah Posner, author of the 2020 book “Unholy” and a religion journalist who’s written extensively about QAnon, it’s a particularly vulgar form of projection. “The RNC’s attempt to claim Biden’s Dad joke was somehow antisemitic,” Posner says, “is an obvious deflection from its unmitigated support for Donald Trump, who spent his candidacies and presidency elevating, electrifying and mainstreaming white nationalists and antisemites; claimed ‘very fine people’ marched chanting ‘Jews will not replace us’ in Charlottesville; and cheerleaded conspiracy theories about QAnon, which traffics in one of the oldest antisemitic tropes.” 

Such a deflection is not just farcical amid the GOP’s growing elevation of Greene as a legitimate party leader, but represents a broader effort to diminish the more serious, and sometimes deadly, antisemitism that the right traffics in on a regular basis. 

As Salon’s Amanda Marcotte wrote recently, Greene exemplifies that pattern herself, pairing her QAnon and space laser talk with abundant accusations that pandemic public health policies are equivalent to the Holocaust and Democrats are just like the Gestapo. 

“Greene’s relentless accusations of Nazism are a crude but potent form of propaganda,” Marcotte writes, serving to “defang” accusations of fascism so that “when Republicans commit actual acts of fascism, it’s difficult to persuade the people to be as alarmed as they should be.” In other words, she continued, “If everyone is a ‘fascist,’ then no one is.”

Regardless of how spectacularly this particular attempt may have flopped — the ratio was extreme — it’s fair to assume @RNCResearch is betting the same strategy works for calling out bigotry. 

“This has been a favorite right-wing rhetorical tactic for a long time: to adapt leftist language as a way of throwing it back in the faces of their liberal targets,” says David Neiwert, author of “Red Pill, Blue Pill: How to Counteract the Conspiracy Theories that are Killing Us.” But beyond just inverting reality and muddying the waters, Neiwert said, “The pernicious effect is that eventually it undermines situations where someone like Paul Gosar tweets out something crudely antisemitic. People learn to write these things off as a result of these non-controversies that get whipped up as political gotchas.” 

In other words, if Biden’s obviously harmless banter can be cast as antisemitic, then the entire notion of antisemitism becomes absurd — as conservatives will surely claim the next time they’re called out for tapping into society’s darkest narratives to win support. 

Read more from Kathryn Joyce on religion and the global far right:

“Based on a lie”: GOP’s Zuckerberg obsession threatens to starve local election offices of funding

Republican lawmakers across the country want to block cash-strapped local election offices from getting private funding to help administer elections, which election officials warn could cut off a vital lifeline.

At least 18 Republican-led states have banned or restricted the use of private funds for election offices, according to the right-wing think tank Capital Research Center, and Republican-led legislatures have passed similar legislation in six other states that were vetoed by Democratic governors. The push is part of a well-funded right-wing campaign by groups like Heritage Action for America, which has helped write many of the new voting restrictions imposed by Republican-led states. Some states have gone even beyond the Heritage recommendations, making it a misdemeanor or a felony for election officials to accept grants.

Private donations to election administrators proved crucial amid the pandemic after Congress provided relief funds during the primaries but rejected pleas from election officials to send more aid for the general election. Much of the private funding came from an election grant program from the Chicago-based nonprofit Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which received $350 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan. The couple also donated more than $60 million to the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which provided grants for voter education to election officials in 23 states.

The Republican bills are “based on a lie,” David Becker, the founder and executive director of CEIR, said in an interview. “They’re based on the idea that somehow these donations were nefarious or created problems when in fact they solved problems. They helped Biden voters and Trump voters navigate the process.”

RELATED: Michigan GOP’s latest vote-crushing scheme could eliminate 20% of polling sites

Many election officials credited the programs with “saving” the election as local officials struggled to maintain adequate staffing and resources, noting that it was essential to preventing an “election meltdown.” Philadelphia was able to buy new high-speed machines to help sort mail ballots. Coconino County, Arizona, was able to pay temporary staffers to help Native Americans register to vote. Chester County, Pennsylvania, was able to afford new ballot drop boxes and body cameras that employees wore to collect the ballots.

The money also helped election officials make in-person voting safer and manage a sudden influx of mail ballots. After former President Donald Trump lost, he and his allies were quick to blame his loss on the unprecedented rate of mail voting, despite research showing little if any partisan effect from mail voting expansion. Republicans have since decried so-called “Zucker bucks” and GOP lawmakers in more than a dozen states have banned private donations entirely, which could cut off a vital lifeline for local election offices.

Republicans have baselessly accused Zuckerberg of using the funds to help Democrats. Michael Gableman, who is leading a highly dubious investigation into Wisconsin’s 2020 elections, claimed that in some cities “private Zuckerberg agents” effectively “took over the election.” Right-wing groups have argued that the grants largely went to Democratic areas.

But in many cases, that was the result of Trump’s own pre-election conspiracy theories. Many of the grants went to urban districts with large populations as they prepared for a huge increase in mail voting. Trump’s fear-mongering about potential mail voting fraud, even though it is incredibly rare, meanwhile turned off rural Republican areas from casting ballots by mail entirely.


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


Both the CTCL and CEIR rejected the Republicans’ allegations of partisan bias.

“I’ve been working with election officials for about a quarter-century and we offered grants to states to assist them in educating their voters and specifically for voter education, nonpartisan, to allow them to help voters navigate the challenges of voting during a pandemic,” said Becker, a former Justice Department voting rights attorney who later led the elections program at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

“All U.S. local election offices responsible for administering election activities covered by the grant program were eligible to apply for funds, and every eligible local election office that applied was awarded funds,” CTCL said in a statement. “Once applicants were verified as legitimate, they were approved for grant funds which had to be used exclusively for the public purpose of planning and operationalizing safe and secure election administration. Grants were distributed to nearly 2,500 U.S. election departments. Over half of all grants nationwide went to election departments that serve fewer than 25,000 registered voters.”

CTCL on Monday announced that it will launch the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a five-year, $80 million program that makes funding available to every election department in the country.

“U.S. election infrastructure is crumbling,” says the founder of the Center for Tech and Civic Life. “Election officials who serve millions lack basic technology. … It either doesn’t exist or it’s shockingly outdated.”

“The United States election infrastructure is crumbling,” Tiana Epps-Johnson, the founder and executive director of CTCL, said at a TED conference this week in Vancouver, according to the Washington Post. “Election officials who serve millions of voters lack the basic technology they need to reliably do their work,” she said. “It either doesn’t exist or it’s shockingly outdated.”

Zuckerberg and Chan did not respond to a request for comment but spokesman Ben LaBolt told The New York Times on Tuesday that the couple would no longer donate to election offices, including the new CTCL initiative, and that they never intended for it to be a stream of funding for election administrators.

“As Mark and Priscilla made clear previously, their election infrastructure donation to help ensure that Americans could vote during the height of the pandemic was a one-time donation given the unprecedented nature of the crisis,” LaBolt said. “They have no plans to repeat that donation.”

The groups essentially stepped in to fill a void left by Congress. Lawmakers provided $400 million to help election officials during the 2020 primaries, even though the Brennan Center for Justice estimated that $4 billion was needed. Congress did not provide any additional funding for the general elections or in 2021.

“Election officials begged Congress and their state legislatures to provide adequate resources and funding for a historic and unusual and particularly high turnout and particularly difficult election as a result of the pandemic,” Becker said. “And Congress and state legislatures failed to do that. As a result, philanthropy stepped in.”

Congress earlier this year allocated $75 million to help election offices as part of a larger package. Becker said the amount was just a “tiny drop in the bucket.”

“It really doesn’t make much of an impact,” he said. “That’s literally less than a quarter per eligible voter in the United States.”

The Brennan Center for Justice, in a report last month, estimated that it would cost more than $350 million to replace outdated polling place equipment. The Election Infrastructure Initiative, a coalition of election officials, nonprofits and others, estimated that it would cost about $49 billion over the next decade to modernize election administration and operations, including $2 billion to replace outdated voting machines, $1 billion to improve cybersecurity and nearly $1 billion to update voter registration systems.

Election officials say that Republicans who want to block private funds from elections should step up to provide taxpayer funds instead to ensure elections run smoothly and securely.

“Our local election officials delivered a secure election in 2020 in part because they had additional philanthropic funding. The best long-term solution is not to hope for last-minute funding, but regular funding from Congress,” said former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, in a statement. “Large urban cities have infrastructure needs that smaller jurisdictions simply do not. Regular, ongoing funding from Congress over 10 years can set all election departments large and small up for safe, secure and successful elections.”

Zuckerberg, who has denied any involvement in how the grants were distributed, also called for increased public funding of elections.

“To be clear, I agree with those who say that government should have provided these funds, not private citizens,” he said in a statement ahead of the 2020 election. “I hope that for future elections the government provides adequate funding. But absent that funding, I think it’s critical that this urgent need is met.”

Even though the 2020 election and election integrity has dominated political rhetoric on both sides since Trump’s loss, there appears to be little movement toward boosting funding for election offices. A recent MIT study found that the U.S. spends about as much on elections every year as it does to “maintain parking facilities.”

“In 2020, we supported an election department in a small New England town replace their hand-crank ballot boxes they had been using to count votes since the early 1900s,” Epps-Johnson said this week. “One was literally held together by duct tape.”

But election offices don’t just need an infusion of cash, Becker said. They need a “regular predictable stream of funds to allow them to plan out 10, 15 years into the future. You don’t hire a staff member and then worry about whether you’re going to be able to pay them the second year,” he continued. “Election technology has a lifespan. You need to know when you’re going to be able, or need, to buy new technology. You don’t buy a laptop and think it’s going to last through until they put you in the ground.”

Not only are Republican lawmakers threatening to cut off vital funds for election offices to maintain their existing operations, some state legislatures are looking to foist new unfunded mandates on election administrators to prevent voter fraud, which many continue to maintain tainted the 2020 election despite extensive investigations, recounts, audits and lawsuits that have failed to turn up any evidence.

In some states, Republicans want to require hand counting of all ballots, which is much slower and less accurate than machine counting and would require a massive increase in staffing.

Republicans in key swing states like Nevada are pushing to require all ballots to be hand-counted, a process that is vastly time-consuming and much less accurate than machine counts, and would require a massive increase in staffing. Republicans in states like Arizona are pushing legislation that would require special paper for ballots to prevent fraud, adding additional costs to election offices without providing any additional funding.

“It’s not just unfunded mandates, it’s a reduction in budget,” Becker said, noting that some states are threatening to impose fines on election workers who don’t abide by new restrictions. “The fictional world in which some legislators live, where these mandates can be placed on election officials without additional funding and, in fact, with restrictions on additional funding, is very dangerous,” he said.

But even blocking funds without additional mandates threatens to shutter polling places, reduce access to early voting or mail ballots, and create other potential pitfalls. Not to mention inflation: The cost of paper to print ballots has gone up by about 50% alone, according to the Washington Post, already resulting in shortages in states like Texas.

While most of the pressure has been on Congress to provide assistance to election administrators, Becker warned that it was important not to let state legislatures “off the hook.”

“States want autonomy in elections, they want to have control over their own elections and they get very upset when it’s perceived that the federal government is seeking to take control away from them,” he said. “But if you want control, you also have responsibility — and with that responsibility comes the responsibility to pay for the necessary administration of elections.”

 Read more on the GOP’s crackdown on voting:

Mississippi Governor designates April as Confederate heritage month

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) is designating the month of April to celebrate Confederate heritage; a tradition Mississippi Republicans have commemorated for nearly three decades.

According to Mississippi Free Press, the Republican governor released a proclamation highlighting the checkered history of the Confederacy. “April is the month when, in 1861, the American Civil War began between the Confederate and Union armies, reportedly the costliest and deadliest war ever fought on American soil,” the proclamation said.

That proclamation also offered a description of genocide labeling it as “the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group by destroying a group’s political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and economic existence, and destroying the personal security, liberty, health, dignity and lives of individuals belonging to the group.”

Tate’s proclamation also highlights that in the state of Mississippi, April 30 has been declared Confederate Memorial Day, emphasizing Reeves’ previous document signed back in 2021.

Following the release of the 2021 proclamation, Reeves appeared on Fox News where he argued that “there is not systemic racism in America“— a claim that the Mississippi Free Press notes is a contradiction of “mountains of evidence, including the vestiges of Jim Crow that remain in force in.”

The news outlet went on to dissect Reeves’ “Genocide Awareness Month proclamation” noting that it fails to acknowledge the history of “American slavery or the destruction of Native American cultures.”

“The systematic destruction of lives has spanned areas and cultures from Armenia to Darfur, the Holodomor to the Holocaust,” Reeves tweeted. “Genocide has no place in society, and we must do everything we can to prevent it.”

“The View” partisan debate about gun control shows exactly why we still have a shooting problem

Following Tuesday’s mass shooting on the New York City subway, debates on the nation’s gun laws and policing practices have naturally resurfaced. The main question still remains whether stricter gun ownership legislation — and increased policing — are enough to decrease mass shootings. Of course, “The View” hosts also weigh in on the divisive discussion. 

During Wednesday’s segment, the hosts struggle to see eye-to-eye on gun control and agree on a cohesive solution. Tensions especially run high between co-host Sunny Hostin, whose views are more liberal leaning, and guest co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin, who proudly identifies as a conservative

The discussion predictably falls along party lines, and it’s no surprise that the women can’t find a consensus on the topic. Guess they can’t solve one of the biggest issues facing Americans today.

“When you take away guns, you take away gun violence,” says guest co-host Julia Haart, who previously served as the creative director of the Italian luxury company La Perla. Haart specifically cites the U.K., New Zealand and Australia as evidence of places that are significantly free of such everyday shootings because of cracking down on gun availability.

RELATED: “The View” reveals Ginni Thomas ID’d “deep state” staffers she wanted Trump to fire

Griffin, the former White House Director of Strategic Communications for Trump, disagrees and brings up the move to defund the police, even though that has little to do with the personal gun ownership question. 

“I think that the solve has been here for a long time,” says Hostin. “It’s common sense gun legislation. And it constantly fails because Republicans have blocked that legislation across the board.

“It’s not about defunding the police. Biden has made it clear that that is not the position of the Democratic party,” she continues, emphasizing that the New York City Police Department’s current budget is $11 billion. According to the Citizens Budget Commission — a non-profit organization based in New York City — more than $10 billion is planned in annual spending on the city’s police force for Fiscal Year 2022.

Hostin notes that it’s now legal in Georgia to carry a concealed firearm without a license, thanks to a recent bill signed into law on Tuesday by the state’s Gov. Brian Kemp. She also emphasizes that there’s higher gun violence in both Republican-led states and cities, a claim that Griffin isn’t too thrilled to hear.

“Across the board, the top 10 cities with the highest violent crimes are all led by Democrats,” Griffin counterattacks. She, however, acknowledges that gun crime is a different case.

When Joy Behar points out that people could be smuggling illegal guns into states with stricter gun measures, Griffin acknowledges it’s a possibility.


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


“Ok, so what does that got to do with Democrats then?” Behar questions.

Griffin points out that poverty is one of the biggest driving factors behind violent crime. She, however, is unable to explicitly state how the GOP has been combatting the issue and instead, resorts to blaming President Joe Biden for the economy’s current dire state.

“It suffered a lot under your boss,” Hostin argues back, referring to the terrible economic state — which was plagued by high unemployment rates — under the Trump administration.

“When you see growing violent crime in cities, people want to arm themselves,” Griffin says. “There’s a reason why we have a second amendment.” 

RELATED: Media blows New York subway shooting story

Later, Hostin asks Griffin is she agrees that not everyone needs to be in possession of assault style weapons, like an AR-15, even if they are avid hunters or use guns recreationally. Griffin partially agrees and adds that guns are oftentimes “misrepresented” because they simply “look scary.”

“It’s as clear as the nose on your face that Republicans have been pulling a con job for years on us saying that it’s Democrats when they are the ones who support the NRA,” Behar says.   

Watch the full discussion below, via YouTube:

More stories you might like:

The joy of “Abbott Elementary” is its lesson about fulfilling work

The “Abbott Elementary” season finale finds its endlessly optimistic second grade teacher Janine Teagues (Quinta Brunson) floating high in the sky during a class field trip to the zoo. This is not a metaphor – she loses track of a kid, finds him in the basket of the zoo’s hot air balloon and before she knows it, the severe acrophobe is floating far above the ground, as terrified as her student.

Then again, maybe it is kind a metaphor. The finale, titled “Zoo Balloon,” finds Janine touching down at a fork in the road. She could follow her useless boyfriend to New York, where she would have to continue supporting him. Or stay in Philadelphia and keep plugging away at a job she loves, continuing to teach second grade at the criminally underfunded Willard R. Abbott Elementary School.

By her own definition, she’s already making it.

Classically ambitious professionals might see this choice as a no-brainer. New York’s the place everyone wants to be. Like the song says, “If you can make it there . . .”  

Janine is exactly the kind of go-getter who could land a better-paying job in that city . . . but why? By her own definition, she’s already making it, improving life for her young pupils alongside veteran teachers like Melissa Schemmenti (Lisa Ann Walter) and Barbara Howard (Sheryl Lee Ralph). Janine’s can-do attitude and tragic wardrobe works their nerves. She also inspires them. And when Janine returns to Earth, she steps out of her fear and moves beyond the person she was, dumping her dumbbell of a childhood sweetheart and choosing to stick with teaching.

RELATED: “Abbott Elementary” finds laughter in the challenge of teaching in underfunded schools

If you were to compile a list of the last six years’ defining sentiments, you’d be obligated to include anxiety, anger and hopelessness. Each is an invisible psychological wedge driving people apart, but also toward TV comfort food, mainly comedies.

Brunson’s ABC comedy speaks to 2022 … in ways that “The Office” can’t quite touch.

But we’d been turning to sitcoms for solace years before the phrase COVID-19 was even thought of. Among the most popular is  “The Office,” Netflix’s most-watched show in 2018 according to a widely covered Wall Street Journal report, viewed in far greater numbers than it was when it aired on NBC. (The sitcom moved to Peacock in 2021.)

Overtly that show has little in common with “Abbott Elementary” beyond their shared status as workplace mockumentaries.

But Brunson’s ABC comedy speaks to 2022 in ways that classic, adored as it is by Gen Z and Billie Eilish, can’t quite touch. “The Office” is a fantasy about work and a best-case scenario workplace family, while “Abbott Elementary” uplifts the value of choosing meaning and satisfaction in a profession, even one as financially thankless as teaching. 

Aside from the ways that purpose and meaning can be exploited to increase product output and profit, meaning and satisfaction are worthless concepts to most corporations.

And as more people are rejecting the notion that this is the way work has to be, the career and life philosophy “Abbott Elementary” espouses feels comfortable and right. This isn’t to say that  these teachers somehow have it easier than the average TV cubicle drone – quite the opposite.  Office politics still play prominently, with many episodes revolving around Janine and her fellow junior educators Jacob Hill (Chris Perfetti) and Gregory Eddie (Tyler James Williams) navigating bureaucratic and interpersonal absurdity to get supplies for their classrooms or make sure their students receive the best education they can provide.

They have to scrounge for every tool and treat they can lay their hands on, all while putting up with their kids’ patience-dissolving antics. But their students also motivate them to spend their own money to buy books for them, or hoodwink privileged locals to get what their classrooms need. The young actors playing Abbott’s pupils aren’t catchphrase-generators, either. They play realistic kids with individual versions of intelligence, and they consistently remind the audience why their teachers refuse to give up on them or shuffle them through their days without ensuring that they’re actually learning.

Witnessing the school’s gradual improvement as the freshman season of “Abbott Elementary” progresses is one of the warmest joys the show offers. The other more central delights are found in the small victories teachers find by helping each other to overcome whatever obstacles are placed in the way of progress, usually by their massively unqualified boss Ava Coleman (Janelle James). But even she is only living up the low expectations of a local government that refuses to fund public education.

Abbott ElementaryAbbott Elementary (ABC/Scott Everett White)Against these odds, test scores improve along with the overall mood at Abbott because the teachers have each other’s backs. So does Ava, on occasion, although she most consistently behaves like a caricature of nightmare managers most office workers would recognize.

We may still fall back to Michael Scott as the prototypical management clown, in that he’s obsessed with being liked and fostering a family vibe at a workplace that looks like the hell where fun is sent to die. But Ava’s priority is keeping her job, not necessarily improving her performance, wringing as much as she can out of her position while she has it. And the wonderful James, a stand-up comedian gifted with crisp timing and flawless delivery, made Ava a breakout without overpowering her co-stars.

Despite all this, even Ava demonstrates her worth from time to time because, again, it’s about the kids. She may have misappropriated the school’s limited funding to buy ludicrous items like chrome rims for the wheels on their school buses, but her obsession with celebrities, TikTok and Instagram also makes her better at leading the school’s step team than Janine.

Ava eventually wins even Gregory’s respect, although he obviously still has his eye on her job, which was his main reason for coming to Abbott in the first place. But his was a career climber’s point of view – he, more than anyone else in the show, has wrestled with the meaning of work. Near the end of the season his father calls him to belittle his choice to pursue such a low-paying, low-reward career as teaching, hence his quest to win a principal’s position.

But he chooses to join Abbott as a full-time staffer, largely after realizing how much satisfaction he gets from teaching children something new and the small victories born out of understanding who they are and how they learn. He’s still as uptight as he was at the beginning of the season, but he’s also more open to being more childlike.


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


In TV-related social media conversations, “Severance” has dominated most longform discussion about what TV has to say about the modern American workplace. This isn’t unwarranted, mind you – the Apple TV+ show is a multilayered dive into the empty promise of the work-life balance and the industrial disregard for a worker’s well-being, along with being one of the most aesthetically impeccable shows of the year.

But “Abbott Elementary” earned its place in conversations about shows people need to be watching, or simply need, mainly due to its consistently hilarious writing and plausible, lovable characters. It is truly one of the best sitcoms TV has offered in 2022, and without a doubt one of the year’s best shows. Much more than this, it validates what many millions of people have figured out during this society-wide shifting view of how we work and what we value about it, especially as it relates to the rest of our lives. When working parents also became part-time teachers, it dawned on many people how challenging our teachers’ day-to-day jobs are. This show celebrates our educators’ dedication to shaping the future not with earnestness, but joy, cleverness and humor that often leaves the viewer breathless.

For the rest of us, it validates the view that some of the toughest careers are worth undertaking as long as the higher reward is a greater purpose shared by likeminded, caring people. A larger paycheck would be nice, of course, and Abbott Elementary’s teachers deserve that, too. Until that happens, they made the most of what they do have, including their satisfaction at doing the best by their kids. There’s a lesson that for everybody, regardless of one’s professional ambitions.

The first season of “Abbott Elementary” is available to stream on Hulu.

More stories like this:

The most massive comet ever discovered yields clues as to how the solar system evolved

Throughout human history, comets have been seen as intensely meaningful, and as such have been the subject of intense study from ancient philosophers, priests, astrologers and scientists. Though often comparable in size to asteroids, comets have a tail made of gas and dust, emitted by an icy-cold nucleus of comparable material that forms the bulk of their mass. 

Now, thanks to observations from the Hubble Space Telescope, scientists have discovered a unique specimen: the most massive comet ever found, with the largest icy nucleus even seen.

According to a new study released by NASA in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, the nucleus of a comet known as C/2014 UN271 (or Comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein) is approximately 80 miles in diameter. That is larger than the American state of Rhode Island, and far larger than the six-mile-wide asteroid or comet that killed the dinosaurs some 66 million years ago.

In the case of Comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein, its size is partly why it was discovered, despite being so distant.

“The main reason we can see UN271 is because it is unusually large,” Dr. David Jewitt, a professor of planetary science and astronomy at the University of California, Los Angeles, told Salon by email. “There are no doubt tens of thousands of smaller comets at similar distances that we cannot see because they are too faint for existing telescopes. That is a reminder of how little we know about the outer solar system.”

He added, “It’s our home, it’s basically next-door compared to the separation between the stars or the diameter of the galaxy, but we are only just beginning to detect objects in the domain of the ice giants and beyond.”


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


In its official statement announcing the discovery, NASA explained that it was challenging to measure the comet because the solid parts of the nuclear were difficult to distinguish from the huge dusty cloud (or coma) that surrounds it.

“There are no doubt tens of thousands of smaller comets at similar distances that we cannot see because they are too faint for existing telescopes. That is a reminder of how little we know about the outer solar system.”

“The comet is currently too far away for its nucleus to be visually resolved by Hubble,” NASA explained. “Instead, the Hubble data show a bright spike of light at the nucleus’ location. [Lead author Man-To Hui of the Macau University] and his team next made a computer model of the surrounding coma and adjusted it to fit the Hubble images. Then, the glow of the coma was subtracted to leave behind the starlike nucleus.” The new data officially put this comet over the top and supplanted its predecessor, Comet C/2002 VQ94, which was approximately 60 miles across.

According to NASA, the comet will never get any closer to our planet than 1 billion miles away from the Sun, and even that moment will not occur until 2031. It does not pose a threat to Earth, although it is careening in our general direction at a breakneck speed of over 22,000 miles per hour. In their statement, NASA estimated that the comet has a mass of 500 trillion tons, which would make it “a hundred thousand times greater than the mass of a typical comet found much closer to the Sun.”

RELATED: Why some scientists think a comet, not an asteroid, caused the dinosaurs to go extinct

In their study, the scientists also noted that the comet in question, like most long-period comets, had spent most of its existence “stored in the low-temperature environment of the Oort Cloud, at the edge of the solar system.” The Oort Cloud is a distant belt at the outer reaches of the solar system where ice and gas occasionally accumulate into comets. 

Indeed, the Oort Cloud has a peculiar relationship with the inner planets, and with life on Earth. Last year astrophysicists at Harvard University speculated that a comet from the Oort Cloud may have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, rather than an asteroid. Avi Loeb, who is the former chair of astronomy at Harvard University, and Amir Siraj, lead researcher and undergraduate in astrophysics at Harvard University, both argue that a comet may have been pulled off its orbit around Jupiter by strong tidal forces and been fractured as it came too close to the Sun. The subsequent “cometary shrapnel” may have then caused the extinction-level event that led to the most recent major extinction event.

The sheer of size of Comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein also provides clues as to the overall mass of the Oort Cloud, and how it accumulates. “Comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein provides an invaluable clue to the size distribution of comets in the Oort Cloud and hence its total mass,” NASA explained in its statement regarding their latest discovery. They noted that estimates for the total mass of the Oort Cloud “vary widely,” and one estimate puts it as high as 20 times Earth’s mass. Yet that material is very diffuse, and will never coalesce into a distant planet. 

For more Salon articles on astronomy:

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

Amber Heard and Johnny Depp’s legal battles are now in the spotlight as the estranged pair face off in a $100 million defamation trial. 

The current case at hand concerns Heard’s 2018 op-ed for The Washington Post, in which the “Aquaman” actor self-identifies as a survivor of domestic abuse and sexual violence. Just two years prior, Heard filed for divorce from Depp, alleging that he had physically abused her throughout their relationship. In her piece, Heard did not explicitly mention Depp, but it didn’t take long for the public to put the pieces together and trace the accusations. 

What came afterwards was chaos. Depp was dropped from his leading roles in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” and “Fantastic Beasts” franchises, after which he sued Heard for $50 million, accusing her of defamation. Heard then countersued for $100 million, claiming Depp had attempted to slander her name and smear her career.

RELATED: Amber Heard vs. Johnny Depp: Divorce, domestic violence, and the shifting economy of marriage

But how did a Hollywood romance become so ugly, and what’s happened since? Here’s everything you need to know about their tumultuous relationship, its breakdown and the latest updates on the trial, which formally began April 11 at Virginia’s Fairfax County Circuit Court.

The early days of a rocky relationship

In 2009, Heard and Depp met on the set of “The Rum Diary,” Bruce Robinson’s comedy-drama film based on the 1998 novel of the same name. The pair were cast as each other’s love interest — Depp as the struggling author-turned-journalist Paul Kemp and Heard as Chenault, the fiancée of a shady businessman. At the time, Depp was dating French singer Vanessa Paradis, his long-time partner of 14 years, while Heard was in a relationship with photographer Tasya van Ree. Heard and Depp officially started dating in 2012 and three years later, they tied the knot in a private ceremony in L.A.  

Life was seemingly great for Hollywood’s “it couple” for a while. But in 2016, only a year later, Heard filed for divorce from Depp and later obtained a temporary restraining order against him. According to a report from The Guardian, Heard alleged Depp had physically assaulted her, usually while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The court filing cited photographs of Heard’s bruised face and pictures of smashed bottles in the couple’s apartment as evidence.

A statement from Heard to the Los Angeles Superior Court also recounted an incident in May 2016, when Depp “began obsessing over something that wasn’t true,” “became extremely angry” and threw a phone at Heard, hitting her cheek and eye “with extreme force.”

Depp’s lawyers vehemently denied the allegations, stating that Heard was attempting to “secure a premature financial resolution by alleging abuse.” Further backlash also came from Depp’s ardent fanbase, supporters and celebrity acquaintances, including actor Paul Bettany of “WandaVision.”

“Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love.”

On August 16, 2016, a $7 million settlement was reached out of court. Per The Independent, Heard and Depp released a joint statement, saying: “Our relationship was intensely passionate and at times volatile, but always bound by love. Neither party has made false accusations for financial gain. There was never any intent of physical or emotional harm.”

Depp and Heard’s divorce was finalized in 2017. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the settlement included a non-disparagement agreement, which prohibited the pair from saying anything negative about their relationship and its fallout.

Heard published her op-ed a year later

On December 18, 2018, Heard’s op-ed, titled “I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture’s wrath. That has to change,” was published in The Washington Post. The piece detailed her own experience with sexual violence and spoke on behalf of her fellow survivors.

“I was exposed to abuse at a very young age. I knew certain things early on, without ever having to be told. I knew that men have the power — physically, socially and financially — and that a lot of institutions support that arrangement,” Heard wrote. “I knew this long before I had the words to articulate it, and I bet you learned it young, too.”

“Like many women, I had been harassed and sexually assaulted by the time I was of college age. But I kept quiet — I did not expect filing complaints to bring justice,” she continued. “And I didn’t see myself as a victim.”

Heard did not name Depp in her piece.

Depp sued The Sun for libel and lost

The actor filed his libel claim against News Group Newspapers Limited after the media company’s British tabloid newspaper, The Sun, referred to Depp as a “wife-beater” in an April 2018 column. According to CNN, the trial was heard in July at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. The trial also highlighted 14 alleged incidents of abuse that Heard said took place between 2013 and 2016.

Depp once again denied the claims and countered with his own allegations. He claimed Heard, or one of her friends, defecated on his bed while he was away. He accused Heard of constructing a kind of hoax “‘insurance policy’ – presumably in the event that the marriage broke down.” And he even characterized Heard as a “gold-digger,” a “narcissist” and a sociopath.

On November 3, 2020, Depp lost the high-stakes case after a judge ruled in favor of The Sun and its executive editor Dan Wootton.

“The claimant [Depp] has not succeeded in his action for libel . . . The defendants [the Sun and News Group Newspapers] have shown that what they published in the meaning which I have held the words to bear was substantially true,” said the judge, Justice Andrew Nicol. “I have found that the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard.


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


“I have reached these conclusions having examined in detail the 14 incidents on which the defendants rely as well as the overarching considerations which the claimant submitted I should take into account,” he added. “In those circumstances, parliament has said that a defendant has a complete defence.”

“I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her.”

The judge also cited a 2016 email sent by Depp, which illustrated the actor’s unfiltered sentiments towards Heard. A snippet of the message reads as follows:  

“I have no mercy, no fear and not an ounce of emotion or what I once thought was love for this gold digging, low level, dime a dozen, mushy, pointless dangling overused flappy fish market . . .  I can only hope that karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her . . .  Sorry man . . . But NOW I will stop at nothing!!!”

Depp then sued Heard for defamation

The Post op-ed became a topic of concern in 2019 when Depp sued Heard for $50 million for defamation. Depp denied the abuse allegations, shutting them down as “demonstrably false,” and claimed Heard’s piece “brought new damage to Mr. Depp’s reputation and career.” He also argued that Heard “is not a victim of domestic abuse” but rather, “a perpetrator.” The suit also asserted that Heard’s allegations were part of an “elaborate hoax to generate positive publicity.”

Heard and her lawyers attempted to dismiss the suit but were ultimately unsuccessful. Heard then countersued for $100 million in August 2020, which brings us to . . .

Present day: The trial

April 11: Heard and Depp’s trial commenced Monday the Fairfax County Courthouse. And as expected, things got heated pretty quickly. In their opening statements, Depp’s legal team echoed the actor’s past claims and asserted that Heard made up her accusations in order to advance her own career.

“She presented herself as the face of the #MeToo movement — the virtuous representative of innocent women across the country and the world who have truly suffered abuse,” said Depp’s attorney Camille Vasquez, per Variety. “The evidence will show that was a lie.”

Heard’s legal team, in response, argued that her allegations were all true.

“For years, all Mr. Depp has wanted to do is humiliate Amber, to haunt her, to wreck her career,” said Heard’s attorney Ben Rottenborn, who also called Depp “an obsessed ex-husband hellbent on revenge.”

April 12: On Tuesday, Depp’s sister Christi Dembrowski, 61, testified about their abusive mother betty Sue Palmer as they were growing up and how their father would not interfere.

“We would run and hide . . . She would hit us. She would throw things,” said Dembrowski, according to People. She added that not only did Depp never hit back, but this treatment made him determined to stop the cycle of abuse. 

“Both Johnny and I actually, we decided that once we left, once we had our own home, we were never going to repeat, ever, anything similar in any way to our childhood. We were gonna do it different.”

“I want her to take her responsibility, to heal and move on.”

April 13: USA Today reports that Depp’s second witness, his longtime pal Isaac “Ike” Baruch, testified Tuesday that although he liked Heard, believes that she’s telling “malicious lies.”

“I want her to take her responsibility, to heal and move on,” Baruch said. “There are so many people affected by this stuff, it’s not fair and it’s not right, what she did and what happened, for so many people to be affected. It’s insane.”

He also claims that he saw Heard days after she said Depp beat her in 2016 and that she did not display any physical evidence of abuse on her face: “no marks on her face, no swelling, no bruising, no redness, no cuts, no nothing.”

In cross-examination, however, Barusch admitted he had received a text message from Depp in October 2016 that said he hoped Heard’s “rotting corpse is decomposing in the f**king trunk of a Honda Civic,” according to People.

More stories you might like:

Martin Shkreli hasn’t been paying his lawyers

Martin Shkreli, the former hedge fund manager convicted of securities fraud in 2017, is nearing the tail end of his seven-year sentence at the federal correctional institution in Allenwood, Pennsylvania but the defense team that aided in his trial has not yet been paid in full.

According to Reuters, Duane Morris LLP filed a request to a U.S. judge asking to withdraw as Shkreli’s counsel stating that as of March 31 they had yet to be paid the $2.04 million balance owed to them for their services. 

Related: Pharma exec says he was morally obligated to raise antibiotic price by 400%

Shkreli’s former law firm states that Phoenixus AG, Shkreli’s employer prior to incarceration, had at one time agreed to pay for legal fees, but the “limits of an insurance policy” used for such costs has been “exhausted,” according to Reuters.

In the filing made Tuesday in a Manhattan federal court Duane Morris revealed that Shkreli “has no assets” and would not be affected negatively by the removal of his current counsel as his trial has already been concluded.


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


Just under a month ago Shkreli requested extra time to repay the $25 million in restitution owed as part of a civil case in which he was found guilty of engaging in anticompetitive conduct. Shkreli’s request, the first in recent months pointing towards an issue with funds, was denied. 

According to CNBC US District Judge Denise Cote, the judge that denied Shkreli’s request for more time to pay his civil case debts, is the same who banned him from the pharmaceuticals industry for life and also ordered he pay $64.6 million for profits earned as the result of gouging the price of the HIV drug Daraprim to $750 per pill. 

“The rich and powerful don’t get to play by their own set of rules, so it seems that cash doesn’t rule everything around Mr. Shkreli,” New York Attorney General Letita James said in a statement following Cote’s ruling. “New Yorkers can trust that my office will do everything possible to hold the powerful accountable, in addition to fighting to protect their health and their wallets.”

Read more:

Long days, papier-mâché and 50 soufflés: How the food stylist for “Julia” recreated Child’s recipes

There are so many things that are iconic about Julia Child. Her gregarious mannerisms, her penchant for butter, her singular kitchen. But nothing is perhaps more inherent to Child’s persona than the recipes she shared week after week on her beloved show, “The French Chef.”

So, how do you take those well-known dishes and bring them to life for a brand-new TV audience? That’s what the producers behind HBO Max’s “Julia” had to figure out when it came time to shoot the limited series. To ground the real-life story being told in authenticity, they enlisted the expertise of veteran food stylist Christine Tobin

Tobin recently spoke with Salon Food about how she got into food styling, how “Julia” differed from past projects on which she’s worked and the day she whipped 750 eggs on set. 

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

How did you become a food stylist?

Well, I became a food stylist while working at a restaurant early on in Cambridge. I confided in a friend that I wanted to get into food styling, and it so happened to coincide with Ana Sortun, the chef, being asked to write a cookbook that was then nominated for a James Beard Award. Being her assistant, that was my first styling job. From there, I concentrated more on still work — so advertising and editorial — mostly assisting the grande dames of the craft between Boston and New York. For film, it didn’t start until I was approaching 40. 

Related: Exclusive: How the creators of HBO Max’s “Julia” painstakingly recreated The French Chef’s kitchen

I had been referred to a prop master from Los Angeles for this movie, “Labor Day.” That’s how I got into motion work. That job was as Susan Spungen’s assistant. I’ve been working on film here in New England since then, so it’s been about 10 years. 

You’ve done work on films like “American Hustle,” “Little Women” and “Olive Kitteridge.” How was the work on “Julia” both similar and distinct from those projects? 

That’s a good question. Well, they’re similar in that I’m working with the set dressing team and the property team. But what really set “Julia” apart is the way that I was hired. I sort of fell into being the head of a department; I had my own department — the culinary team. That’s been very different. 

I’ve been lucky to work with prop masters in the past who allowed me to add breadth through food to what is already scripted because that’s typically just the metaphorical meat and potatoes. It’s my job to flesh out or design a menu from there. 

“With ‘Julia,’ the food was central. Working with Sarah and her cooking was almost like choreographing a dance.”

Whereas with “Julia,” the food was central. Working with Sarah (Lancashire, who plays Child) and her cooking was almost like choreographing a dance. There were days like that, which were very heavy in meetings and planning, but on past projects, I’ve never really been brought into that bubble, or as I like to call it, “the stew.” I really got to understand all the moving parts to making a series like this from beginning to end.

Regarding what you just said about the “meat and potatoes” in the script, I read an interview you gave to Backstage in which you said one of the skills needed to become a food stylist was “the ability to understand food as a tool to evoke emotions.” Would you expand upon what that means? 

I have memories based on foods. I have very happy memories, and I have really tragic, sad memories. Like some of the best meals I’ve ever had have been when someone had just passed away. I think food can be used not just as a tool for storytelling but also to bring out the narrative of a character a bit. 

It helps identify what someone’s comforts are, what someone’s background is, what someone’s cravings might be. With Julia, she just loved food so much. The approach here was really showing her celebration for it — her love for it. 

In the third episode, when she’s patting these burgers down and forming these burgers, [I wanted viewers to think] you’ll never have a more delicious burger in your life. I mean, it was always a feast. It wasn’t a singular thing — it was always plentiful and joyful. 

Women, in particular, have a complicated relationship with food. I think that’s one of the reasons why people have always loved Julia Child. She gives herself to the food in a way that is unusual because the joy you’re talking about is sometimes stripped from food in our culture. 

She was just so genuine in her approach to culinary education. Her purpose of being there was to educate, but her approach to it was just so sincere. I think we’ve gotten away from that a little bit with the competitions and whatnot, instead of people looking at food as a celebration. I think that’s what Julia Child brought with “The French Chef,” and Sarah delivers that so beautifully. 

I read you have a background in fine art and sculpting. Was it ever a consideration to make faux versions of the food shown in “Julia”? 

Everything is real food. I’ve never really known anything different. The only time I did fake food was a stand-in for a large cake for one of those action movies, “The Equalizer 2.”

I’m definitely intrigued by it. I just think it takes more time to do moldmaking, and here in Boston, we don’t have the prop houses like they do in Los Angeles and New York. As far as my background in fine arts, I used to make paper mâché hot dogs and stuff when I was a kid [laughter]. I always found a way to get food into something without realizing it at the time. 

That’s rad. 

But, yes, I don’t even know where to start with that aside from now having a really nice relationship with one of our local special effects crew members. He actually whipped up a foam soufflé so we could practice those shots — and you know what? Everyone got one as a wrap gift. 

Where do you keep yours? 

Oh, I wish I’d taken it home! Daniel [Goldfarb, the series creator] told me he’s keeping one on his mantle. 

Speaking of the soufflé scene — and I’m probably discrediting myself as a food writer here — but were you nervous about making those? I’ve only made soufflés twice. One attempt was an unmitigated disaster. The second was only slightly less so. 

Such nerves! It’s all about timing. We had the understanding and patience from our director, because in this case, we needed them to work with us. We knew we could deliver something perfect each and every time we had to shoot it. It was just going to be a bit slower, so we could get this thing from point A to point B without it falling. It was honestly more stressful of an idea when it was presented, but then the day of — we had practiced it so many times that it was foolproof and it was fine. 

RELATED: Soufflés aren’t scary — at least, not With Sohla by your side

In total, how many soufflés do you think you all had to make? 

I would definitely say more than 50 from beginning to end — and that’s just with testing recipes and things like that. When people ask this question, I feel bad because we never really tally anything. But I do know, for instance, that for the raspberry mousse — that day was 750 eggs. It was the hottest day of summer. The air-conditioning unit malfunctioned that day in the warehouse. Everything was just very intense.  

“I do know, for instance, that for the raspberry mousse — that day was 750 eggs. It was the hottest day of summer. The air-conditioning unit malfunctioned that day in the warehouse. Everything was just very intense.”

It was almost just too humid for things to sit pretty. They would literally start sweating and separating. Then the script supervisor came over and said, “You can always stand with me at a monitor so you can flag things that don’t look right,” and I was like, “I can do that?” 

I didn’t know that I could do that until this job. Sometimes, someone in my craft gets kind of shooed aside, but in this project, it was taken very, very seriously, which was a great feeling. 


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


More stories about the beloved Julia Child: 

Could the Zika virus cause another pandemic? Yes — but it wouldn’t be anything like COVID

Several years before the COVID-19 pandemic, another outbreak that never reached pandemic status resulted in comparable public health fears around the globe. Specifically, the Zika virus, an RNA virus named after the Ugandan forest where it was first identified, which is related to other infamous viruses like the West Nile virus and yellow fever.

Although initially limited to a narrow belt near the equator, Zika began to spread worldwide in 2007, culminating in an epidemic from 2015 to 2016. Many victims of that epidemic — especially children whose mothers became infected while pregnant with them — still live with the effects.

Yet the threat of Zika may not be over. Indeed, a new study reveals that the Zika virus has a mutation so troubling that scientists are worried that humanity could be on the verge of an outbreak.

Could that mean a new pandemic on par with COVID-19, yet with Zika instead? Public health experts explain that matters are a bit more complicated than that.

RELATED: Earth’s oceans are teeming with mysterious viruses, new study finds

First, a bit more about the Zika virus. Most people who contract it suffer either no symptoms or only mild ones like fever, rash, headache, joint pain and red eyes; no one has ever been reported to have died after being initially infected. Still, some infected patients have displayed symptoms of a neurological condition known as Guillain–Barré syndrome, and pregnant women who get infected with the Zika virus may deliver babies with birth defects such as microcephaly (a short head). Although it can be spread through sexual contact, the most common form of Zika virus transmission is through nature’s most hated buzzing bloodsuckers — mosquitoes.

The bad news is that, according to a recent study in Cell, scientists have observed that the Zika virus can mutate very readily and quickly under the kinds of conditions that it might see in the real world — and in ways that would make it more virulent and more resistant to immunity conferred by similar infections. 

Scientists performed the study by observing how a Zika virus mutated as it moved between different cell lines and animals — specifically, cultured human cells, mosquitoes, and mice. This mimics how the virus might move around different hosts in the real world.

Researchers found that the Zika virus was able to easily make small mutations as it passes from mosquito cells to mice cells and adapt, even when certain cell lines had a previous immunity to a similar disease known as dengue.

As lead investigator Prof Sujan Shresta told the BBC, “the Zika variant that we identified had evolved to the point where the cross-protective immunity afforded by prior dengue infection was no longer effective in mice. Unfortunately for us, if this variant becomes prevalent, we may have the same issues in real life.”


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


“This virus has the potential to be more dangerous to humans, but it has limited potential to be a COVID-level threat, because it’s primarily transmitted from insects to humans, not human to human.”

While this may seem ominous, experts point out that Zika is less threatening than COVID in terms of being a pandemic-level threat, because it is harder to transmit and not nearly as contagious. Simply put, humans can more easily contain a disease spread by mosquitos than one spread through the air.

“This virus has the potential to be more dangerous to humans, but it has limited potential to be a COVID-level threat, because it’s primarily transmitted from insects to humans, not human to human,” Dr. William Haseltine — a biologist renowned for his work in confronting the HIV/AIDS epidemic, for fighting anthrax and for advancing our knowledge of the human genome — told Salon.

His views were echoed by Dr. Alfred Sommer, dean emeritus and professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. As Sommer wrote to Salon, “for Zika you need mosquitos to transmit it by biting you; in the U.S. and most other wealthy countries one can easily suppress the mosquito population.” As a result, if there are “no mosquitos to bite an infected person, get infected, and then bite an uninfected person so they are infected,” there will be “no transmission of disease.”

“If we let our guard down and are only concerned about COVID-19, we will miss the next big outbreak.”

By contrast, “COVID spreads from person to person through infected particles in the air. Hard to get rid of air,” Sommer mused.

Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, told Salon by text message that he regards the study as “new and well done.” (Haseltine also praised the scientists.)

This does not mean, however, that there is no cause for concern.

“It is difficult to predict what the future of this disease threat will be, but it is concerning and representative of the many emerging infectious threats out there,” Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, wrote to Salon. “If we let our guard down and are only concerned about COVID-19 we will miss the next big outbreak.”

Benjamin was not alone in expressing alarm.

“This study is important to demonstrate that Zika mutates like any other RNA virus, that current isolates should be monitored for this mutation, and that Zika is likely to cause more outbreaks in the future,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon by email.

As Medford also put it, “these mutations argue for real-world genomic screening as part of global Zika monitoring and prevention,” and as such the study should be taken seriously.

For more Salon articles on viruses:

It’s not a bad trip: Mushrooms may be “talking” to each other, new study finds

Animals, not plants, are typically known for their ability to communicate directly. But what about fungi? Though they are plant-like, fungi are actually more closely related to animals. And, it turns out, like animals, they may actually communicate — at least according to the studies of one scientists whose research suggests the possibility of “fungal languages.”

Computer scientist Andrew Adamatzky, of the Unconventional Computing Laboratory at the University of the West of England, Bristol, used sub-dermal needle electrodes to record electrical impulses from ghost, enoki, split gill, and caterpillar fungi. In darkness and humidity, fungi sat in the laboratory for days, all the while electrical charges fired along thin, thread-like structures smaller than 30 micrometers in diameter called hyphae.

The Royal Society published his findings reconstructing a potential language syntax in the form of electrical signals between fungi. The idea that a seemingly inanimate fungi could communicate through electricity is sending shocks through human communicative channels as well. 

RELATED: Orangutans have their own “dialects,” just like us

“We do not know if there is a direct relationship between spiking patterns in fungi and human speech. Possibly not,” Adamatzky told the Guardian. “On the other hand, there are many similarities in information processing in living substrates of different classes, families and species. I was just curious to compare.”

Rather than suggest that these signals constitute language, the study analyzed the complexity of their structure as compared to European languages and looked for differences similar to “dialects” between species. What Adamatzky found was a striking structural similarity between these languages and fungal electrical signals.

Mushrooms, which feed on decomposing living matter, often pique a certain morbid curiosity in humans. Providing anything from sustenance and natural remedies to hallucinations, death, or both, the fleshy structures we consume are merely the surface protrusions of vastly more expansive organisms that live, web-like, underground. Mushrooms themselves are simply a fruiting body intended to eject spores.

Adamatzky’s observations revealed complex patterns of electrical spikes that could constitute a “fungal lexicon” of “up to 50 words.” Spikes appear in groupings Adamatzky classified as words and sentences for the purpose of comparison to human language, but insights into their significance remain unknown.

“Human exceptionalism with regard to language was already countered by bees and ants and plants,” Adamatzky told Salon. “I bet all creatures have their own language. Following Chomsky’s universal grammar, we could probably discover in future that all living creatures have similar underlying grammars.”

Previous research indicated branching networks of hyphae, of which multicellular fungi called mycelia are composed, conduct electrical signals comparable to the neurons.

Some mycologists were hesitant to use the word “language” when referring to the signals moving between fungi.

“Though interesting, the interpretation as language seems somewhat overenthusiastic, and would require far more research and testing of critical hypotheses before we see ‘Fungus’ on Google Translate,” University of Exeter mycologist Dan Bebber told the New York Post.

The phenomenon could just as well stem from activation via external stimuli such as food sources, according to Bebber, who has previously co-authored reports regarding such electrical impulses. These have never been shown to meet the technical definition of language in the sense of human language, nor did Adamatzky suggest they did.


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


What constitutes language is unfortunately mired in anthropocentrism.

“Human exceptionalism with regard to language was already countered by bees and ants and plants,” Adamatzky told Salon. “I bet all creatures have their own language. Following Chomsky’s universal grammar, we could probably discover in future that all living creatures have similar underlying grammars.”

Almost all organisms produce electrical impulses, even those lacking a nervous system, and those that do not generally produce other types of signals. The parameters with which psychologists categorize language generally emphasize adaptability and an ability to go beyond impulses. This distinguishes simple communication from natural language.

Having founded the Unconventional Computing Lab in 2001 at the University of West England, Bristol, Adamatzky uses a definition of artificial language, which the American Psychological Association differentiates from natural language.

“From a computer science point of view all living creatures are automata (finite state machines),” Adamatzky said. “They take a finite number of states, and their next state depends on its current state. The automaton behavior can be characterized by a formal language. One of my goals was to discover a formal language of fungal automata by analyzing electrical activity of living fungi.”

Read more on non-human communication: 

18 best Passover desserts to sweeten your seder

Passover desserts might get a bad rap, but here are 18 sweet recipes that you’ll actually want to bake and serve at seder. Some of these recipes call for packaged ingredients, such as almond flour, cocoa, or canned fruit that are not always kosher-for-Passover products. So if you are keeping kosher for Passover, be sure to check the certification on the package first before buying and baking. All of these recipes are free from chametz (“wheat, barley, rye, oats or spelt that has come into contact with water and been allowed to ferment,” according to Chabad.org) and kitniyot (corn, rice, sesame, or legumes), so you can feel good about offering them to your family and friends celebrating the holiday.

Best Passover desserts

1. Chocolate Meringue Cookies

Meringue cookies always feel like a treat and these extra chocolatey ones are a dream Passover dessert. They’re made with just five ingredients—egg whites, vanilla extract, cream of tartar, superfine sugar, and cocoa powder.

2. Honeycomb Ice Cream

The beauty of Passover is that it falls in the heart of spring, when it’s just starting to warm up outside. Caramelized honeycomb candy is folded into homemade vanilla ice cream for this buttery, rich dessert.

3. Tricolor Chocolate Mousse

When you really want to wow guests at your Passover seder, introduce this multi-layered mousse, which was named “Dessert of the Year” by San Francisco Focus magazine in 1987.

4. Meyer Lemon Macarons

The sweet, aromatic nature of Meyer lemons tastes like the way spring makes us feel—light and happy.

5. Chocolate-Covered Matzo

“Matzo is, in my opinion, best when used as a vehicle for consuming amounts of chocolate, and this recipe allows for just that,” writes recipe developer Sarah Jampel. “This Passover-friendly treat is too good to enjoy for only eight days: I recommend keeping a batch in your freezer all-year round.”

6. Richard Sax’s Chocolate Cloud Cake

We’re dubbing this the ultimate flourless chocolate cake, made with just good-quality chocolate, eggs, sugar, and unsalted butter.

7. Passover Lemon Sponge Cake

This fluffy, spongy cake is made with potato starch. The sweet, lemony bite is the perfect end to your Passover meal.

8. Flourless Pecan Cake

Setting a beautiful Passover table and cooking a feast is enough work, so make an easy dessert. This cake can (and should!) be made in advance, which saves you prep time before seder.

9. Torta Caprese (Chocolate and Almond Flourless Cake)

This cake is a work of art. It calls for very few ingredients (mainly just almond flour, dark chocolate, unsalted butter, sugar, and eggs), but the result is a dark, not-too-sweet chocolate cake with subtle hints of almond flavor.

10. Passover Ice Cream (“Roca of Affliction”)

“Inspired by the Ben & Jerry’s charoset-flavored ice cream—available only in Israel—I decided to design a Passover ice cream of my own. I use my mother’s recipe for Roca (the chocolate-covered toffee), and pour it over matzo. This gets mixed with chopped nuts and incorporated into the ice cream, which is enjoyable well past Passover,” writes recipe developer Amy Ettinger.

11. Passover Rocky Road

We love these bulky chocolate clusters (I say that lovingly), which get their crunch from broken-up matzo sheets and chewiness from marshmallows. Just be sure that the marshmallows you use are kosher for Passover.

12. Neapolitan Macaron Towers

Instead of serving individual macaron cookies that disappear in just a bite or two, make these gorgeous stacks of meringues, which are layered with a duo of strawberry and vanilla buttercream.

13. Dorie Greenspan’s Top Secret Chocolate Mousse (Mousse au Chocolat)

This chocolate mousse is melted chocolate thickened with egg yolks, then lightened with whipped egg whites. We love an easy dessert that just so happens to be kosher for Passover too.

14. Buko Salad (Filipino Fruit Salad)

A traditional Filipino dessert makes its way onto the Passover seder table with bright flavors like coconut and canned pineapple, plus a rich, creamy base of cream cheese and sweetened condensed milk.

15. Black Forest Marshmallows

If you can find kosher gelatin (there are great options from brands like Lieber’s), then whipping up homemade marshmallows are a totally doable Passover dessert.

16. Poached Pears in Red Wine

Poached pears always seem like such an elegant, delicious dessert but how often does anyone actually make them? Now’s your chance! Celebrate Passover with this sweet, aromatic ending.

17. Flourless Chocolate-Walnut Cookies from François Payard

These extra chocolatey cookies, studded with walnuts, are gluten-free and perfect for Passover.

18. Berries and Cream Pavlova

Dreamy, airy pavlova shines a spotlight on the bounty of spring produce like rhubarb and strawberries.

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

At the beginning of this year, the extremely contagious BA.1 variant (also known as the omicron variant) set an astonishing record: scientists believed it was likely the most contagious virus ever, surpassing even measles. 

That is, until BA.2 — or “stealth” omicron, as it has been called — came along. Studies suggest that BA.2 is between 30 and 50 percent even more contagious than its predecessor, which was already more contagious than measles. 

But while contagiousness is certainly an alarming trait for a viral mutation, scientists warn that the worst possible mutation would be the emergence of a new variant that was both contagious and more inclined to cause severe disease. Luckily, BA.1 and BA.2 don’t fit that bill. Indeed, while BA.2, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), caused 86 percent of new COVID-19 cases in the U.S. last week, hospitalizations remain quite low.

RELATED: What will COVID-19 look like in 2100? 

But just as public health experts seemed to get a grip on the situation with BA.1 and BA.2, a newer, odder variant has emerged. It’s called XE, it’s a hybrid between BA.1 and BA.2, and it’s extremely transmissible. Could this pose a renewed threat to global public health? 

Salon spoke to experts about what we know so far about this new variant and the threat that it poses. Crucially, XE seems to have one key deficiency that will prevent it from attaining that secret sauce that makes variants more dangerous.

XE is on the rise in the United Kingdom

According to recent data from the U.K. Health Security Agency, 1,125 cases of XE have been identified in the country as of April. That number is about 50 percent more than what public health officials identified a week prior on March 25. The variant was first identified on January 19, 2022 in the United Kingdom. XE has since been detected in Thailand, India, Israel and most recently, Japan; the U.S. has not yet reported any XE cases yet.

Sriram Subramaniam, a biochemist at the University of British Columbia, told Salon that despite the rise, XE is still relatively low in prevalence in the United Kingdom.

“Given the current high level of transmission worldwide, it is likely that further variants, including recombinants, will continue to emerge.”

“It doesn’t look like it’s taken off in a big way yet,” Subramaniam said. “There are some cases in various parts of the world — and it’s not just XE, there’s XD and XF,” he noted, referring to initialisms for subsequently mutated sub-variants.

XE may be more transmissible than BA.2

As Subramaniam mentioned, XE is one of three recombinant variants being monitored by the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA). A recombinant variant occurs when a new SARS-CoV-2 variant develops by picking up traits from previous variants — recombining into something completely novel, a hybrid of sorts, with traits from multiple forebears. As previously mentioned, XE is essentially a hybrid between BA.1 and BA.2; the other two recombinant variants — XD and XF — are recombinants of delta and omicron BA.1.

According to the UKHSA, 38 cases of XF have been identified in the U.K., but none have been seen since mid-February. XD hasn’t been identified in the U.K. at all, and only 49 cases have been reported globally, most of which are in France. This is why, among the three, XE is hogging the headlines.

Yet the U.K. hasn’t yet collected enough data to say definitively how contagious XE is. Specifically, UKHSA says “there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about growth advantage or other properties of this variant.”


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


“This particular recombinant, XE, has shown a variable growth rate and we cannot yet confirm whether it has a true growth advantage,” said Professor Susan Hopkins, Chief Medical Advisor of UKHSA in a statement. “So far there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions about transmissibility, severity or vaccine effectiveness.”

Previous mutations to the spike protein made it easier for the virus to evade immunity; likewise, because mRNA vaccines specifically targeted the virus’ spike protein, any mutations in the spike protein make vaccines less effective. 

Yet the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that XE could be 10 percent more transmissible than BA.2, meaning it will be easier to catch. Still, the WHO states that early estimates require further confirmation.

Subramaniam told Salon that those who are worried may find solace in one particular detail about XE: that the spike protein is “essentially the same” as it is in BA.2. The spike proteins are the tiny, needle-like protrusions that stick out of the SARS-CoV-2 viruses like spines on a sea urchin, frequently caricatured in artists’ depictions of coronaviruses. These proteins are key to the virus’ ability to invade human cells.

Previous mutations to the spike protein of BA.1 made it easier for the virus to evade immunity; likewise, because mRNA vaccines specifically targeted the virus’ spike protein, any mutations in the spike protein make vaccines less effective. 

“What it means is that antibodies that bind BA.2 should also be expected to bind XE,” Subramaniam said. In other words, spike hasn’t mutated any further than it has already, which suggests that mRNA vaccines shouldn’t be any less effective against this variant than they were to its relatives.

XE isn’t the only recombinant variant we’ll see

Recombinant variants are common, and public health experts expect that if XE doesn’t take off another one might.

“Given the current high level of transmission worldwide, it is likely that further variants, including recombinants, will continue to emerge,” the WHO states. “Recombination is common among coronaviruses and is regarded as an expected mutational event.”

“Recombinant variants are not an unusual occurrence, particularly when there are several variants in circulation, and several have been identified over the course of the pandemic to date,” Hopkins said. “As with other kinds of variant, most will die off relatively quickly.”

Subramaniam said every time there’s an infection, there’s a chance for a mutation. 

“Each time a single virus infects a single cell, there are billions of these experiments going on,”  Subramaniam said. “And if you happen to be infected with more than one variant at any given time, there’s a chance that this mixture can happen.”

Where do we go from here?

Infectious disease expert Dr. Peter Chin-Hong at the University of California–San Francisco told the Los Angeles Times in an interview that, should XE take off, those who are vaccinated and boosted will have a lower risk than unvaccinated people to be hospitalized. However, this fact should motivate those who are not boosted to get their boosters.

“If XE becomes more prominent in this country, it does add a little bit of fire for people to get boosted overall,” Chin-Hong said. “And it adds a little fire, maybe for the oldest people in our population to maybe get their second booster,” he continued.

More on COVID-19:

How much brisket do I need per person?

If you want to know how much brisket you need to serve per person, you first need to watch “Mean Girls” (or, if you’re a woman between the ages of 25 and 35, re-watch for the 100th time). The answer lies with the protagonist character Cady Heron, played by Lindsey Lohan, who will tell you “the limit does not exist.” I understand this doesn’t help you determine how many pounds of raw brisket to purchase from the butcher before Passover or Rosh Hashanah. But it’s true. If your brisket is fork-tender and flavorful beyond belief, people will keep going back for more. And even when they retire from the dinner table to the couch and change from fancy clothes to sweatpants, a few people will obviously be craving leftover brisket within (checks watch) 90 minutes. But yes, we do have a handy way of estimating how much you should allot per person if your budget is not infinite.

Types of beef brisket

When shopping for brisket, you’ll find that there are two common cuts of meat: brisket flat (aka first-cut) and brisket point. Many brisket recipes won’t specify which cut of meat to use, so here’s what to know: brisket point has a jagged, pointy end that is ideal for pulled brisket (like these braised brisket sandwiches or chopped brisket. Flat cut brisket is what you want to use if you’re planning to braise or smoke brisket and then slice it into neat servings. Flat cut, or first-cut brisket, is a leaner cut, which means it’s at its best when cooked for several hours until it becomes juicy and tender.

How much brisket to buy

This year, Passover 2022 will begin on the evening of Friday, April 15, 2022, but you should purchase your brisket a few days in advance. If you really want to know how much brisket to serve per person, **account for one pound of raw brisket (or half a pound of cooked brisket) per adult and half a pound of uncooked brisket (or a quarter pound of cooked brisket) for your little ones. For example, if you’re hosting six guests total for Passover seder, purchase a six-pound brisket flat.

Not only does brisket shrink as it cooks, but flat-cut brisket also bears a thick fat cap that should be trimmed before cooking (unlike other cuts of meat, the fat on brisket won’t really break down and will just stay chewy).

How much does brisket cost?

Depending on where you live and shop, expect that beef brisket will cost between $9.99 and $16.99 per pound (though more premium cuts, such as grass-fed beef or organic beef, will certainly cost more).

We watched CNN+. Here’s a guide to its shows, from a parental Anderson Cooper to reader Jake Tapper

CNN, the cable news giant, jumped on the “plus” bandwagon recently, launching a new streaming service. CNN+  costs $5.99 per month and features a mixture of news and news-adjacent content including documentaries, daily news programs and shows from CNN hosts

It’s the latter where things get interesting. On your bingo card, did you have Anderson Cooper on parenting? 

With stylistic formats ranging from Jimmy Fallon in the early days of the pandemic filming “The Tonight Show” in his backyard to the cozy vibes of “Selena + Chef,” many of the new shows of CNN+ are bite-sized. As Indiewire wrote about the new service, “CNN+ will cover major breaking news as it happens, but it won’t (and can’t, contractually) simulcast what you see on TV,” asking in the same piece, “So what, exactly, is the point of CNN+?”

And what is its future? Already, mere weeks after its launch, the service has not been performing as well as hoped. “Investment and projections for CNN+ are expected to be cut dramatically” to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Axios, scaling back from the original investment into the service of $1 billion spread over four years.

That’s a lot of money for a channel where shows are filmed in hosts’ living rooms. 

Related: Scott Galloway on big tech, doctor’s offices and why “free college is a dumb idea”

“The book is beautiful, and that person on Instagram is an idiot,” Tapper says.

The ultimate fate of CNN+ has yet to be decided. In the meantime, is the streaming service worth it for the viewer? We checked out various offerings on CNN+ so you don’t have to (if you don’t want to).

1. “Jake Tapper’s Book Club”

Jake Tapper's Book ClubJake Tapper’s Book Club (Photo courtesy of Warner Media/CNN+)Do you want a mini Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown” but with known books? Jake Tapper gets serious and has smart conversations with writers in coffeeshops, interviewing them and having them read aloud. So far, his subjects include novelist Jean Chen Ho (“The book is beautiful, and that person on Instagram is an idiot,” Tapper says of an internet critic) and, leaping quickly over genre and platform, James Patterson and Dolly Parton. Always lovable Parton has the great quip: “We were just poor people who work hard.” His subject after Patterson and Parton? Judd Apatow

This feels like a typical Cooper show except it’s laser-focused on raising kids and includes graphics that look like a 1980s YA novel.

2. “Parental Guidance With Anderson Cooper”

“I try to shoot this while my kids are napping,” Anderson Cooper says in his modern living room with colorful toys in the background. Cooper speaks over Zoom to a university parenting expert and conducts an interview on the street while sitting at a café table. This feels like a typical Cooper show except it’s laser-focused on raising kids and includes graphics that look like a 1980s YA novel along with popup texts with advice. The pop-ups feel distracting but if you’re a new parent without a lot of resources or family nearby, this could be a good show to help you feel less alone. 

3. “No Mercy, No Malice with Scott Galloway

No Mercy No Malice with Scott GallowayNo Mercy No Malice with Scott Galloway (Photo courtesy of Warner Media/CNN+)Do you wish you had majored in business? Galloway’s show is like the college course that filled up before you could enroll: a business class where a dog is rolling in the grass in the background. He gives approachable and friendly lessons, calls the viewers “kids” and briefly interviews folks in the know. Graphics highlight key points and numbers, and Galloway gives “assignments” (in one episode: what to do if you feel imposter syndrome, especially as a woman) that are practical takeaways that make the show feel worth checking out. 

4. “The Source with Kasie Hunt”The Source with Kasie HuntThe Source with Kasie Hunt (Photo courtesy of Warner Media/CNN+)

If it’s your thing, it’s your thing.

Kasie Hunt’s CNN show has the feel of a typical news program — shot in a studio, for example (or at least in front of a green screen) and not a toy-strewn living room. “The Source” covers the headlines more in detail and interviews experts. Its brevity is a strong point as is the likable Hunt who clearly breaks down current events into digestive bytes. 

5. “5 Things with Kate Bolduan”

5 Things with Kate Bolduan5 Things with Kate Bolduan (Photo courtesy of Warner Media/CNN+)This is being pitched as a daily news show, the tidbits — five of them, in fact — you need to know to start your day and I don’t know, be able to banter with co-workers on Zoom, I guess.  A lot of moving graphics make this show feel a bit like a sports countdown. Though it’s only five stories, it seems rather long, but this show could be a welcome distraction for anyone commuting, with limited time for news or wanting to seem smart before coffee.  

6. “Who’s Talking with Chris Wallace?”

Who's Talking to Chris Wallace?Who’s Talking to Chris Wallace? (Photo courtesy of Warner Media/CNN+)This show is exactly what it sounds like. Ex-Fox News anchor Wallace now commands a desk at Fox’s arch rival, CNN (well, CNN+) where he conducts interviews, “Inside the Actors Studio”-style. In early episodes, he tackles subjects such as critical race theory, vaccines and Disney. This is an in-depth, traditional interview show, and Wallace is given a lot of space to have conversations with experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Ken Burns. If it’s your thing, it’s your thing.

7. “Extraordinary with Fareed Zakaria”

In the first and only episode so far, Zakaria investigates creativity by talking to artists and creators. Bold move to start with Billy Joel. Another in-depth interview show, this has the feel of a layered documentary, and could be a much-watch for artists and those who love art. Joel, for example, breaks down the writing of some of his songs chord by chord in a way that is fascinating and instructive, talking not only about autobiography but musicality and music history. Yes, I did haul out my “River of Dreams” CD after this.


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


If you have limited time and love news and newsmakers, CNN+ could be an option for you, while it lasts. For most of us, though, it’s difficult to justify adding and paying for yet another streaming service. 

The CNN+ shows that appear the most homespun — Galloway’s, for example — feel the most different so far, the most unlike something you could simply find on TV. But with many shows yet to launch — from Don Lemon, Audie Cornish, Alison Roman and more are all allegedly forthcoming — it remains to be seen whether this streaming gamble will pay off for CNN and earn its + grade. 

More stories like this:

Jimmy Kimmel compares Tucker Carlson to “prostitutes,” accuses him of lying about vaccine status

Late night host Jimmy Kimmel accused Fox News host Tucker Carlson of lying about his vaccination status after the conservative firebrand claimed he hasn’t yet received the jab. 

“I have to say, I don’t believe he isn’t vaccinated,” Kimmel said of Carlson. “I don’t believe it for a second.”

“I think he is vaccinated. Tucker Carlson is the vaccine equivalent of the guy on the Titanic who dressed as a woman to get on the lifeboat first,” the ABC host went on.

But Carlon’s claim it wasn’t the thing that rankled Kimmel, who noted that the Fox News host could be a danger to his own audience.

RELATED: Tucker Carlson brags that he “skipped” getting the COVID vaccine

“The sickest part is his audience is mostly scared and impressionable senior citizens who happen to be the most vulnerable group when it comes to COVID,” Kimmel said. “This is like selling Girl Scout cookies outside a diabetes clinic.” 

“But I’m glad to see the church welcoming prostitutes, as Jesus taught us to do. Especially during this Holy Week,” Kimmel joked.


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


Last week, the Voice of San Diego reported that Carlson told a crowd of San Diego churchgoers that he’d “skipped” getting the COVID-19 shot.

“I’ve had like a million of them,” Carlson said of vaccines in general. But when it comes to the coronavirus jab, the host added, “I skipped the first three.” 

Prior to then, Carlson had repeatedly rebuffed questions about his vaccination status, calling it a “supervulgar” subject akin to asking someone what their favorite sex position is

It remains unclear whether Carlson’s apparent vaccination status runs counter his network’s company policies. Last December, Fox News officially scrapped its routine testing option for employees in its New York-based headquarters, requiring that all staffers get at least one jab by Dec. 27.

Watch below, via ABC:

“He’s f**king crazy”: GOP pollsters say Trump’s falling influence reveals a “very shrinking base”

A veteran Republican pundit is revealing how he believes Republicans really feel about former President Donald Trump and, apparently, they aren’t as fond of him as they once were.

During a discussion with The Daily Beast, pollster Frank Luntz referenced a recent joke New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) made about Trump while at the Gridiron Club dinner in Washington.

“He’s fucking crazy,” Sununu said of the former president. “I don’t think he’s so crazy that you could put him in a mental institution. But I think if he were in one, he ain’t getting out.”

Although it’s common for roasting to take place at the event, Luntz believes the remarks are indicative of a bigger problem as he noted how Republicans may feel about Sununu’s remarks.

“I don’t know a single Republican who was surprised by what Sununu said. He said what they were thinking,” Luntz told The Daily Beast. “They won’t say it [in public], but behind his back, they think he’s a child. They’re laughing at him. That’s what made it significant.”

Luntz also noted the sharp decline in Trump’s influence over Republican voters. While the former president has had a relatively tight grip on the party to the point of his endorsement being a determining factor in elections, that does not appear to be the case anymore.

“Trump isn’t the same man he was a year ago,” Luntz added. “Even many Republicans are tired of going back and rehashing the 2020 election. Everybody else has moved on and in Washington, everyone believes he lost the election.”

The Republican pundit’s remarks follow a series of lackluster Trump rallies. Unlike the Trump rallies of the past, the former president is reportedly drawing much smaller crowds now. Speaking to MSNBC’s Cori Coffin, Republican strategist Susan Del Percio weighed in on the low rally attendance in Selma, N.C., saying, “That’s what you saw there: a very shrinking base.”

Fired over CRT: Missouri high school teacher accused of teaching “critical race theory” loses job

A Missouri high school teacher has been fired for allegedly using “critical race theory” (CRT) in the classroom, according to The Springfield News-Leader.

The decision came last week after Kim Morrison, an English teacher at Greenfield High School, read the book “Dear Martin,” a young adult novel by Nic Stone. The book features a Black high school student attending predominantly white preparatory high school who falls victim to police violence.

According to the News-Leader, Morrison used a supplemental 15-question worksheet called “How Racially Privileged Are You?” as part of the book’s lesson plan.

RELATED: Assistant principal fired for reading students a children’s book called “I Need a New Butt!”

Morrison was reportedly called into the principal’s office back in February after a rash of complaints from parents over her curriculum. 

“That first meeting, when [the principal] showed me that she had a copy of the handout and she wanted to know the context, she said the people she’s hearing from said that this is CRT,” Morrison told the News-Leader. “I said ‘Well, it’s not CRT. I don’t know what CRT is because I didn’t go to law school and we didn’t cover it in grad school. This isn’t it.'”

Morrison was reportedly called into the principal’s office for a second time in mid-March, a few days ahead of a school board meeting. 

“[The principal] was still fielding complaints,” Morrison told the News-Leader “That’s when I got concerned that my conversation with her two weeks prior hadn’t resolved anything.”


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


After meeting with the school’s superintendent, Chris Kell, Morrison was told that her contract would not be renewed for the following year.

“Your decision to incorporate the worksheet associated with the novel ‘Dear Martin,’ due to the content and subject matter,” read a letter from the superintendent. 

RELATED: The critics were right: “Critical race theory” panic is just a cover for silencing educators

Kell told the News-Leader that the school board is unlikely to change its decision on the matter.

“I would think at this point it is a done deal. It was a board vote,” Kell said. “They are the ones that do the hiring, the non-renewals. It was their vote.”

Kell also noted that Morrison’s firing was the first time that accusations of critical race theory had been pinned on a teacher in the district. 

“We have the best interests of our students, our community, our staff,” he said. “That’s why we are here. We are trying to provide that school district that everybody can be proud of. In a situation like this, it comes down to a school board vote at this point. I don’t feel like we teach critical race theory in our district.”

RELATED: “Critical race theory” is a fairytale – but America’s monsters are real

Morrison, for her part, said she was “deeply saddened” by the development, noting that “if this is how they terminate teachers – without asking questions, without speaking to the teacher – then no one is secure.”

“And if they are opposed to broadening, to examining, their viewpoints,” she added, “they are not doing students any good.”

Morrison isn’t the only teacher that’s been fired in recent months over “critical race theory.” 

Back in December, The Washington Post reported that Matthew Hawn, a former high school teacher from Sullivan County, Tennessee, was fired for discussing white privilege with students. And just a month earlier, a Texas principal was similarly forced to resign after parents complained that he was pushing CRT.

Despite the conservative furor around CRT, surveys and interviews have consistently shown that teachers do not believe CRT is being taught in classrooms across the country.

RELATED: The guy who brought us CRT panic offers a new far-right agenda: Destroy public education

White House calls out Greg Abbott for disrupting US food supply with “unnecessary” new border policy

A long trail of delivery trucks are backed up at the U.S.-Mexico border because the Texas governor is refusing to allow them to come into the United States without additional inspections by the Texas state troopers. Typically it’s the federal government that inspects trucks. The decision is creating a massive backup at the border.

The Texas Tribune reported this week that the busiest trade crossing, the bridge connecting Pharr and Reynosa is the choke point. On the border Monday, the trucks were backed up for miles. It was the fifth day in a row they were dealing with the blockage. As a result, producer importers canceled orders.

Avocados, broccoli, peppers, strawberries and tomatoes are among the things being brought into the United States. Berries like strawberries are the largest import into the US, with bananas not far behind.

“One of our customers canceled the order because we didn’t deliver on time,” said Sterling Fresh Inc. sales manager Modesto Guerra. “It’s something beyond our control.”

At a time when Americans are frustrated over inflation and additional costs, Abbott’s backup is significantly slashing supply and access in the United States, the White House said in a statement Wednesday.

“Governor Abbott’s unnecessary and redundant inspections of trucks transiting ports of entry between Texas and Mexico are causing significant disruptions to the food and automobile supply chains, delaying manufacturing, impacting jobs, and raising prices for families in Texas and across the country,” said press secretary Jen Psaki. “Local businesses and trade associations are calling on Governor Abbott to reverse the decision because trucks are facing lengthy delays exceeding 5 hours at some border crossings and commercial traffic has dropped by as much as 60 percent. The continuous flow of legitimate trade and travel and CBP’s ability to do its job should not be obstructed. Governor Abbott’s actions are impacting people’s jobs and the livelihoods of hardworking American families.”

Media blows New York subway shooting story

As most New York City residents could tell you, despite what conservative suburbanites would like to believe, riding the subway is much safer than driving. That’s why Tuesday’s mass shooting, in which 10 people were injured by gunfire, was so shocking. The crime, as terrible as it is, is the epitome of the word “anomaly.” Indeed, it’s nearly a miracle how rare mass shootings on subways are in a country awash with guns.  As of this morning, there have been 131 mass shootings this year alone. They happen in schools, workplaces, homes, nightclubs, and on public streets, but with surprising infrequency on public transportation. As a New York Times headline tacitly admitted, a mass shooting on the subway is something “the city had long avoided.”

Unfortunately, that a headline admits such events are rare is itself an anomaly. By and large, the mainstream media — especially the New York Times — fell right into the trap of using this shooting to feed a misleading right-wing narrative that paints cities as dangerous hellholes. Heaven help every urban-dwelling child of a Fox News addict who had to endure pressure to live out their parent’s Hallmark movie fantasy. In truth, this crime says very little about cities being uniquely dangerous. Instead, it’s a story about how America’s failure to enact sensible gun control leads inevitably to senseless gun violence. But, to read the mainstream media coverage, one would think that this one bizarre crime was somehow indicative of a general trend of cities going to pot.

The Washington Post headline read, “In New York, subway attack adds to fears that city has grown dangerous.”

RELATED: Republicans blame Democrats for crime — but new data shows higher murder rates in red states

Why Brooklyn subway shooting and growing transit crimes threaten N.Y.C. ‘return to normal,'” read the NBC News’ headline. A Twitter account detailing the way the New York Times changes its headlines documented a particularly egregious example, in which a factual “Several People Shot In Brooklyn Subway Station” almost immediately got a right-wing spin to become: “Shooting in subway station heightens simmering fears about public safety.” 


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


The internal headlines at the New York Times also misleadingly linked this story to an overall narrative about crime. As civil rights activist Alec Karakatsanis noted, however, this is “a unique mass shooting event by a lone gunman,” and has little relationship to “the kinds of daily crime stories” that paper usually covers. Progressive journalist Nick Wing criticized the New York times for calling the shooting “reminiscent of a string of other incidents in recent years,” by pointing out that it’s “the abnormal characteristics are what makes it most concerning.”

To read the mainstream media coverage, one would think that this one bizarre crime was somehow indicative of a general trend of cities going to pot.

To make it even worse, perpetuating a “cities are dangerous” narrative is exactly what the alleged gunman appears to have desired. 

The suspect in the shooting, a Philadelphia resident named Frank James, posted online videos griping that New York City Mayor Eric Adams “can’t stop no crime in no subways” and echoing complaints about the city’s unhoused population often heard in right-wing media. Using this shooting to tell a generalize about cities and crime is giving the alleged gunman exactly what he wants.

To be certain, there is a rise in crime, especially violent crime, going on in the U.S. But the spike appears to be a national one, and not just about the coastal blue cities that the right-wing media loves to demonize. As Igor Derysh wrote in Salon last month, “Republican states are reporting much higher homicide rates and some of the highest murder rates are in cities led by Republican mayors.” In fact, murder “rates were an average of 40% higher in 2020 in the 25 states that Trump carried in the last election, compared to states carried by Biden.” Some of the biggest murder rate spikes, which began while Donald Trump was president, have been in states like Montana and South Dakota. New York City remains one of the safest cities in the country, while smaller cities like Jackson, Mississippi and Cleveland, Ohio are among those with the most violent crime. 

RELATED: The NRA way of life is ruining our nation 

One look at the ongoing list of mass shootings in America also demonstrates the “everywhere” nature of the problem.

In just the past month, there were mass shootings in Cedar Rapids, Iowa (pop: 132,301), Covington, Kentucky (pop: 40,548), Shelby, North Carolina (pop: 20,007), and Colorado Springs, Colorado (pop: 464,871). There are mass shootings everywhere because there are guns everywhere. 


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


As crime analyst Jeff Asher and data scientist Rob Arthur recently wrote in the Atlantic, “More guns are behind America’s murder spike.” While there is inevitable quibbling over the data, the trend is pretty clear-cut: There was a surge of gun-buying at the beginning of the pandemic, and as night follows day, there was then a surge of people using their new guns for what guns were designed to do, which is to shoot people. Indeed, federal data shows a clear-cut trend of newly purchased guns turning up at crime scenes. 

There are too many guns out there and it’s way too easy for unstable people to arm themselves.

As German Lopez of the New York Times writes, there are likely many contributing factors to the rise in violent crime, including the pandemic’s disruptions and the conflict between police and communities in the wake of protests against police violence. But there can be no doubt that guns are a major factor, if not the major factor:

Americans bought many more guns in 2020 and 2021 than they did in previous years. The guns purchased in 2020 also seemed to be used in crime more quickly than firearms bought in previous years. And Americans seemed more likely to carry guns illegally in 2020. In short: Americans had more guns, and were possibly more likely to carry and use them.

Research generally shows that where there are more guns, there is more gun violence.

If there is one thing that links this rare subway mass shooting to the rise in overall violent crime, it’s this: There are too many guns out there and it’s way too easy for unstable people to arm themselves.

It’s not irrelevant that James seems to have loaded up in Philadelphia before traveling to New York City. The Giffords Law Center gives Pennsylvania a B- for its gun laws, compared to New York’s A- rating. If you’re an unhinged person looking to kill a bunch of people, you’ll have better luck getting armed for it in Philadelphia than in New York City.

But this also underscores how much this is a national problem. Even when states do their level best to make it hard to get guns, there’s little they can do about criminals bringing guns over state lines. We have a national gun problem that requires national solutions. Blaming cities for this may suit the needs of right-wing propagandists, but it does little to actually solve the problem.