Michael Nigro/AP

President Biden’s cabinet is the most diverse in American history, according to the White House. But in Tulsi Gabbard’s view, the bragging right is anything but. In fact, the former Democrat believes it warrants comparison to Adolf Hitler.

“They’re are proud to be judging people, hiring people, selecting people based on race,” Gabbard said during a Friday appearance on Fox News. “Let’s be clear about how serious of a problem this is. It’s based on genetics, race, based on your blood, your genes, and where do we see that connection?” 

She continued: “Well, these are the very same geneticist core principles embodied by Nazism and Adolf Hitler. This should be something that is sickening and alarming to every single Democrat and every single American. We have seen where this philosophy can lead.” 

The assertion, which went on to liken inclusive hiring practices to the “core principles” of Nazism,” was so outlandish, even host Jesse Watters had to express some hesitation.

“I’m not sure about the German thing, but I think you are right on this point,” Watters said.

Gabbard’s complaints, which build upon her apparent habit of comparing Biden to Hitler, were a direct response to White House press secretary Karin Jean-Pierre’s remarks last week after a reporter asked whether diversity would be a factor in choosing a new vice chair for the Federal Reserve. 

Tulsi Gabbard on Fox just now: Biden efforts to hire women, minorities, LGBT+ etc for top administration roles makes him just like Hitler.

(she actually said this on live television not 10 minutes ago) pic.twitter.com/XSFGrz4GGU

— Andrew Feinberg (@AndrewFeinberg) February 25, 2023

“The cabinet is majority people of color for the first time in history,” Jean-Pierre said. “The cabinet is majority female for the first time in history. A majority of White House senior staff identify as female. Forty percent of White House senior staff identify as part of the racially diverse communities, and a record seven assistants to the president are openly LGBTQ+.”

Gabbard, who left the Democratic party in October, blamed identity politics as one of the top reasons for her departure. Well, good riddance. 

Press Association/AP

Preparations are underway for King Charles’ coronation, a lavish affair that’s expected to see the only G-7 economy likely headed for a recession this year dig deep into taxpayer funds to host an anachronistic pageant honoring hereditary rule.

If that doesn’t smack of a grand old time to you, well, you’re in good company. Some of the United Kingdom’s biggest stars, including Adele, Harry Styles, Elton John, the Spice Girls, and Ed Sheeran have all reportedly declined invitations to perform at Charles’ big day. The House of Windsor is now scrambling to find someone—anyone—to headline the royal gig.

What’s behind the apparent snubs? Well, that’s a bit of a Rorschach test. You could easily see why the likes of Adele and Harry Styles could be allergic to a wasteful event that’s bound to see atrocious blokes like Jeremy Clarkson among the high-profile guests. Seen from another angle, perhaps they’re Meghan Markle supporters. Or maybe they simply want to steer clear of that drama altogether. Either way, they’re Adele and Harry Styles; they certainly have better things to do. As for Elton, I’m not sure why the royals would think to reach out to the close friend of Princess Diana to play at a ceremony partly honoring the woman that made her life hell. 

“I wouldn’t quite panic yet,” Christopher Andersen, a royal biographer, told Fox News in a write-up teeming with various excuses for why people may be turning down Charles’ big day, including a random mention of Adele’s back pain. “There is also a long list of American pop stars chomping at the bit to perform,” Andersen insisted, pointing to Alicia Keys and Diana Ross as previous examples of Americans who performed for Charles’ mummy. 

Sure, I guess I could see a world where Taylor Swift ends up playing the gig; “London Boy” points to exactly that kind of torment. But here’s to hoping we Americans rise above any Anglophile affliction we might possess—and keep relishing a monarchy in shambles.

Mother Jones Illustration; Getty

Earlier this month, the New York Times published an article about the least pressing issue arising from the legalization of marijuana: Dogs are getting stoned.

That might strike you as strange, since humans do not get high from eating raw weed. The cannabinoid receptors in our brains respond to cannabis only after its THCA has been heated and converted to THC in a process called decarboxylation. Dogs, however, have more cannabinoid receptors and can get high from uncooked cannabis.

The article doesn’t mention that, but it does say that dogs are scrounging around for discarded roaches and breaking into their owners’ stashes, which is making them very sick. After a few anecdotes, the writer offers advice on how to detect and treat a stoned dog. (As with marijuana intoxication in humans, it’s unlikely to cause any long-term health problems. If your dog gets high, you can wait it out or, if needed, call the vet.)

I think the spread of legal marijuana has prompted too many questions about what it means for dogs. There was another example this month: Minnesota State Sen. John Jasinski (R) spoke at length about how weed should remain illegal so that we can keep expensive weed-sniffing police dogs out of retirement. Is it really worth imprisoning people over a substance that’s safer than alcohol just so police departments can save a few thousand bucks instead of purchasing dogs that don’t sniff for weed?

But the bigger problem I had with the piece—beyond the weird fixation on dogs’ health in relation to marijuana legalization—is the suggestion of causation: Because weed was legalized, dogs are getting high.

The article includes this baffling assurance:

There are no precise figures about the number of dogs picking it up on the street, but the data show they are getting sick from weed more often in places where recreational use is legal.

If there are no precise figures, how can the data show anything? 

Trend pieces in major newspapers swear by this faulty logic, collapsing correlation into causation. Each time, the paper notes the facts: We do not have data to show this thing we think is happening. Then, it continues: It seems like this thing is happening, so here’s an article.

Here is the “but” from an article on women allegedly not returning to the subway in New York City:

The M.T.A. doesn’t track ridership by gender, so it is unclear whether women have abandoned the transit system in greater numbers or have been slower to return than men. Many women have returned to the subway, either by preference or necessity; many never left.

But interviews with a dozen women, community leaders and transportation experts suggested that an uptick in subway crime during the pandemic has only deepened a longstanding wariness that is second nature for some women on public transit.

Here it is again, disguised as an “although,” regarding teen sadness and cellphone use:

Dr. Victor Fornari, the vice chair of child and adolescent psychiatry for Northwell Health, New York’s largest health system, noted that the drop in teen well-being coincided with the rise of smartphones. Although the technology’s full impact on adolescents’ mental health is still unknown, he said, there is “no question” of an association between the use of social media and the dramatic increase in suicidal behavior and depressive mood.

This might seem silly when the Times writes about Fido getting fried; no rational reader would conclude that we shouldn’t legalize pot. But in general, that trend piece tick—I don’t have the evidence, but…—is how you can keep the facts in place and still tell a lie.

I found the stoned dog piece especially annoying because there is a six-year-old article on the same topic in the Times that attempts to incorporate some data, albeit haphazardly. The writer called up the ASPCA (or A.S.P.C.A., in Times parlance), who said that pet marijuana overdose calls increased by 144 percent between 2010 and 2015. Without raw numbers, though, this doesn’t mean much. Perhaps there were 50 cases in 2010 and 122 in 2015—we have no idea. Furthermore, the cause of the jump is unclear. California had the second highest number of reports, after New York. Weed has been legal for medical use in California since 1996 and in New York since 2014. California is by far the most populous state; New York is the fourth. Whether any of this means anything is anyone’s guess.

I’m not saying that it’s not sad and uncomfortable when Buddy starts wobbling around with his tongue hanging out of his mouth. But might I suggest that we stop attempting to shoehorn a suggestion of an unproven policy-related causation into every trend piece? Consider teaching your dog to drop it—then drop it.

Christian Monterrosa/ Sipa USA

For a group that constantly complains that Democrats enjoy making “everything about race,” the right’s biggest names are suddenly eager to push the narrative that the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and the Biden administration’s response to the disaster are the result of racism against white people.

That’s the big takeaway from Tucker Carlson, who has been hellbent on accusing Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg of intentionally neglecting East Palestine, a majority-white town. According to Carlson, Buttigieg is instead occupied with efforts to increase job opportunities for minorities and improve roads in Philadelphia and Detroit—cities that, Carlson sneeringly mentions, “vote Democrat.”

“East Palestine is overwhelmingly white, and it’s politically conservative,” Carlson said during a February 14 broadcast. “That shouldn’t be relevant but as you’re about to hear, it very much is.” He added: “If this had happened to the rich or the ‘favored poor’, it would be the lead of every news channel in the world. But it happened to the poor town of East Palestine, Ohio, whose people are forgotten, and in the view of the people who lead this country, forgettable.”

In a separate Fox Business interview, Republican Sen. J.D. Vance echoed a similar narrative, blaming the Transportation Department’s racial equity initiatives for setting the stage for the train derailment. “I’ve got to say, the Secretary of Transportation…talking about how we have too many white male construction workers instead of the fact that our trains are crashing…This guy needs to do his job.” 

"I've got to say: the Secretary of Transportation not talking about this issue…talking about how we have too many white-male construction workers instead of the fact that our trains are crashing at alarming rates. The guy needs to do his job." – Senator @JDVance1 pic.twitter.com/WzTizjk0Hh

— William Martin (@wsmartin218) February 15, 2023

It’s true that a host of systemic issues contributed to the East Palestine train derailment. But as my colleague Abigail Weinberg wrote last week, much of those issues are tied to anti-labor practices and corporate greed—not some manufactured instance of the federal government hating white people. After all, it was Norfolk Southern, the rail company behind the crash, that chose not to update its “Civil War-era” brakes. It’s Norfolk Southern that refuses to give its workers paid sick leave, while simultaneously refusing to hire enough workers. Meanwhile, the company made $4.8 billion in operating profit last year.

It’s against this backdrop that Buttigieg on Tuesday urged rail companies to immediately improve safety measures, including providing paid sick leave to workers and alerting state emergency response teams in advance when trains are carrying hazardous gas tanks through states. 

That Fox News and the right are twisting an environmental disaster into bait for the white grievance crowd may not be surprising. After all, these are the same folks who pushed outlandish election lies despite privately mocking those very lies. But it comes as especially grim today, as desperate residents look for relief and accountability, only to find some of the country’s most powerful talking heads are all too eager to seize on their tragedy for more hate.

Presidential candidate Nikki HaleyJohn Locher/AP

Today, I think we’ve seen the entire 2024 Republican presidential primary writ small. Let’s start with specifics and then go broad.

This morning, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley announced she is running for president. She did so at a relatively normal rally with a pre-Trumpian tone, a reminder that once a “BYAH” could sink a campaign. And it was so startlingly normal, the commentariat must have looked at it and wondered: Is this a moment to take this rather odd contender seriously? (Most said “no”—except Bret Stephens, who said someone told him car dealership owners like her.)

Other pundits noted that much as she presented herself as the sweet voice of moderation, Haley still is far from a centrist herself, not the least in her appeasement of Trump. What’s even harder to stomach, as my colleague Inae Oh noted, was Haley’s admiring shoutout to the radical pastor John Hagee, who former GOP presidential nominee John McCain once described as “crazy and unacceptable.” (When the rally ended, the new Republican presidential hopeful walked off to “American Girl” by Tom Petty. A fitting choice: Petty, too, had his period of believing the Confederate flag is not racist.)

Trump responded by launching an email attack about the “real” Haley. He noted a specious connection between his former UN ambassador and Hillary Clinton. He harkened back to Haley’s support for reforming Social Security and Medicaid. He questioned her desire to find a “peaceful” solution in Ukraine because she has publicly discussed funding fighter jets that (he says) “fuel the war.”

Got it? And so we have the pattern that is going to be repeated over and over and over again:

• A presidential candidate will announce a run against Donald Trump.
• The candidate will (cautiously) attack Trump.
• And, some will ask, is there an opportunity for this Republican—just maybe? Look at how their attacks clearly signal their independence from Trump!
• Then, wait, is that candidate really so different from Trump? She or he is connected to fringe ideas too. And is a Republican. And, probably to varying degrees, has a history of having sold out to Trump.
• And so, with all of that, why in the world are people even imagining that the challenger has a chance?
• Finally, Trump attacks.
• In his attacks, he will highlight the reasons why he won in 2016 (and, of course, again in 2020). He will respond by being in some way bigoted (specious Clinton connection) but also strong on issues that alienated the mainstream Republican party from a potential base of voters (“entitlement reform” and foreign wars).

And this is how most of the Republican primary will play out.

Imagine these stages as if they were an old standard song. A series of notes that can be doggedly followed or wildly adapted. Think of the difference between Julie Andrews‘ and John Coltrane’s “My Favorite Things.” How Republican challengers move through them in this primary will either be direct (like Haley) or evasive (like DeSantis) but the essential structure will be the same.

It’s clear why this loop seems inevitable: If you were actually capable of making an honest case against Trump that is sufficiently strong to run against him, then you are not likely to remain enough of a Republican to run as the party’s nominee in 2024. There is no way to imagine carrying forward his ideas without him.

Let us call this Haley’s Paradox: Any 2024 campaign against Trump in the primary must explain both why Trump would be a bad enough choice for them to need to run (vote for me, not him), and why it is also not a criticism of Trump (vote Republican!). The candidate must be a synthesis of pre- and post-Trump Republicanism, and yet that means this person will obviously carry the flaws of both. Haley can be criticized for her fealty to Trump (her role in his administration on foreign policy) and also as indicative of what he stood against (her actual foreign policy positions). This contradiction will be at the heart of this endless cycle in the primary.

Still, paradoxes are just bouts of the illogical; politics has never really made rational sense. There is no reason to believe this means Donald Trump will inevitably be the nominee. It just means that on most days, as we wait and ponder what will finally happen in the 2024 presidential election, we also will see if any candidate can solve Haley’s Paradox. I doubt the theory’s inspiration has a chance.

Michael Brochstein/Zuma

President Biden is still riding the high from his State of the Union zinger on protecting Medicare and Social Security. He even gave a whole speech about it yesterday in Tampa.

Sensing that Americans don’t like the notion of being denied the retirement benefits they’ve paid into their entire lives, Republicans are trying to argue that they never threatened the programs in the first place. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who looked enraged when Biden mentioned Republicans’ plans to cut Medicare and Social Security at the State of the Union, issued a statement on Twitter: “I am aware of NO REPUBLICAN—in either House of Congress—who has suggested any modification of Social Security as a condition for raising the debt ceiling.” The White House sent Politico a convenient list of news articles in which Republicans do just that. (Never mind that Lee himself once said, “It will be my objective to phase out Social Security—to pull it up by the roots and get rid of it.”)

And we’re finally hearing a mealymouthed rebuttal from Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), architect of an apparently unpopular plan to sunset federal legislation—including Medicare and Social Security—every five years. On CNN, Scott said, “I’ve been clear. I’m not gonna do it,” before launching into a debate with the reporter over whether reducing prescription drug spending qualifies as a cut to Medicare. (It doesn’t.)

Still, it’s unclear whether the comments from Scott, who served as governor of Florida before Ron DeSantis, will sway voters in the Sunshine State.

The governor offers an interesting case himself. In the early 2010s, DeSantis was elected to Congress as part of the Tea Party push. A central tenet of the movement was austerity. As CNN reported, DeSantis “repeatedly said he supported plans to replace Medicare with a system in which the government paid for partial costs of private plans.” He reportedly called for the doing “the same thing” with Social Security.

Many of the hopefuls for the 2024 nomination have similar track records. The problem for the GOP is that a large wing of its party rose to power on the idea of vastly cutting entitlements under the Tea Party—and now, within a decade, is expecting Americans to forget.

New angles on austerity? Sure. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) is proposing budget cuts as part of a new Cold War on China in the Wall Street Journal. Today, George Will once again gleefully championed cuts to the safety net. But the past is not dead when it comes to Republicans wanting to shrink entitlements; it’s not even past.

AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

The parents of Tyre Nichols, the Black man who was fatally beaten by Memphis police officers, have accepted an invitation from the Congressional Black Caucus to attend President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address on February 7.

The invitation came days after the Memphis Police Department released bodycam footage that, as warned, showed an abuse of power that was “heinous, reckless, and inhumane,” reigniting calls for police reform nationwide. Biden, who spoke with Nichols’ mother and stepfather, RowVaughn Wells and Rodney Wells, on the phone, has called the footage “horrific.”

“It is yet another painful reminder of the profound fear and trauma, the pain, and the exhaustion that Black and Brown Americans experience every single day,” Biden said in a statement. On Sunday, an attorney for the Nichols family demanded Congress pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act in the wake of Nichols’ death. As my colleague Noah Lanard wrote: 

The bill would ban chokeholds, no-knock warrants in federal drug cases, create a national registry of police misconduct, and force police departments to collect more data, NPR has reported. The bill would also push more money toward community-based policing. It would mostly impact federal law enforcement. 

Crump argued that there hasn’t been federal police form legislation since Lyndon Johnson was president. “It didn’t happen with Rodney King, it didn’t happen with Michael Brown in Ferguson and it didn’t happen with George Floyd,” he continued. “How many of these tragedies do we have to see on video before we say we have a problem, America?”

Patrick Lantrip/AP

Tyre Nichols was a “good boy” who spent Sundays doing laundry and preparing for the week, his mother told CNN.

“Does that sound like somebody that the police said did all these bad things?” RowVaugh Wells asked. “Nobody’s perfect, okay, but he was damn near.”

Among the most gut-wrenching details to emerge from the murder of Tyre Nichols, this quote from his mother is staying with me as we await the release of bodycam footage that will show how Nichols was killed during a traffic stop in Memphis, Tennessee earlier this month. For now, we know that all five police officers involved in Nichols’ beating have been fired and charged with second-degree murder. “Absolutely appalling,” is how David Rausch, director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, described the fatal police encounter.  On Thursday, President Biden issued a statement offering his condolences, while calling for peaceful protests ahead of the video’s release. “Violence is destructive and against the law,” the president said, a familiar refrain. Nichols loved his mother and was an adoring father to a 4-year-old boy.

His death came just days after Keenan Anderson died from cardiac arrest after repeatedly being tased by LAPD officers in another traffic stop. “They’re trying to George Floyd me,” Anderson can be heard saying in body camera footage,  heartbreaking last words recalling a movement that’s slowly receded into memory. These deadly police encounters involving Black men come amid a string of school shootings, another distinctly American plague, one of which involves a 6-year-old boy. In California, back-to-back shootings have left Asian Americans stuck in trauma. 

Desensitized, outraged, and self-defeated. Watching these tragedies unfold with a relentlessness that only an American in 2023 can uniquely identify with, it’s hard not to feel a mix of these emotions colliding with one another. Tonight’s video release will surely extend our collapse of hope for a less deadly future.

Andrew Harnik/AP

In a rare public statement, Elaine Chao, the former transportation secretary and wife of Mitch McConnell, hit back at Donald Trump’s anti-Asian attacks on Wednesday, claiming that the overtly racist insult “Coco Chow” revealed more about her one-time boss than it did about Asian Americans.

AP Photo/John C. Clark, File

In the wake of three school shootings in less than two years, the latest involving a 6-year-old boy, the Newport News School Board on Wednesday voted to fire superintendent George Parker III, citing a loss of trust among the city’s staff and parents.

Effective February 1, Parker will no longer lead the district’s public school system, which has been reeling after a 6-year-old boy shot his first-grade teacher at Richneck Elementary School earlier this month. 

“This decision is based on the future trajectory and needs of our school division,” said School Board Chairwoman Lisa Surles-Law said after the 5-1 vote. “In addition, I must relate, we do appreciate the progress of the division under Dr. Parker’s leadership in developing a long-range facility improvement plan and expanded student programs through a focus on mentorship and student leadership. The Newport News School Board thanks him for his service and wishes him nothing but the best moving forward.” 

Only one board member, Hampton University professor Gary Hunter, supported Parker against calls for his ouster. In a separate 5-1 vote, the school board elected Michele Mitchell, the current executive director of special education for the district, to replace Parker as Newport’s interim superintendent. 

“For me, it wasn’t about Dr. Parker’s leadership,” Douglas C. Brown, a board member who voted to replace Parker, said at the meeting. “It was a question about whether or not the staff would support his leadership in carrying us through the new challenges we face.” 

The remarks on Wednesday echoed concerns following two other school shootings in the district, the first at Heritage High School in September 2021, and another that took place two months after at Menchville High School. But scrutiny of Parker’s leadership came into sharp focus following this month’s shocking school shooting at Richneck Elementary School and mounting allegations that school officials had received multiple warnings that a 6-year-old had been in possession of a gun on the day of the shooting. As my colleague Mark Follman wrote:

The tragedy at Richneck Elementary remains fraught with questions of systemic failure regarding both the family and the school. How did the boy actually get his hands on the gun and know how to use it? Who indicated to school officials in advance that he might have a weapon? What safety protocols did the school system have in place, and why didn’t school officials find the gun with their search? What if any action did they take after that result?

An attorney for Abby Zwerner, the first-grade teacher who was shot at Richneck Elementary School, said she plans to file a lawsuit against the school board.

Former President Donald Trump speaks about filing a class-action lawsuits targeting Facebook, Google and Twitter and their CEOs on Wednesday, July 07, 2021 in Bedminster, NJ. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty

Donald Trump will regain control of his Facebook and Instagram accounts with tens of millions of followers after his suspension following the January 6, 2021, attack, Facebook parent company Meta announced Wednesday. Trump had been banned from these social media accounts after he helped to incite the violent attack on the US Capitol. Meta said a series of “guardrails” would be in place for the former president.

Trump announced his candidacy for president in November and his campaign petitioned Facebook to allow him to return to the platforms. The former president is also reportedly planning his return to Twitter after Elon Musk lifted the company’s ban on him in November.

The restoration of his social media accounts will give Trump a loud and widespread voice that has been quieted by the bans over the last two years. Facebook says that it will penalize Trump, including another suspension from its platforms, if he violates its rules.

Time will tell. Before his suspension, Facebook had a history of looking the other way when the ex-president violated its rules. Whatever the case, Trump could be tanking his own social media company, Truth Social, if he starts posting on other platforms. And it could, as my colleague Mark Follman has reported, further political violence.

Tom Williams/ZUMA

“Marjorie Taylor Greene is having a moment,” a recent headline declared, one of a host of news reports wondering why the Georgia congresswoman—whose endorsement of the execution of prominent Democrats got her kicked off two congressional committees—is suddenly, sort of, cleaning up her act.

But as with everything in politics, it seems that unadulterated, DC-brain ambition is at the core of Greene’s curious pivot—and she’s hoping to manifest “Madam Vice President” into reality.

“She sees herself on the shortlist for Trump’s VP,” Steve Bannon told NBC News, later praising Greene as both “strategic and disciplined.” Another source told NBC that Greene has a “whole vision” to get on Trump’s ticket, and it involves fashioning herself into something of a liaison between the GOP’s worst creatures and what passes for the party’s mainstream these days.

There’s no word from Mar-a-Lago on whether Trump is seriously considering the far-right congresswoman to be his running mate. For now, he seems mostly occupied with lawsuits and drafting his first tweet for his inevitable return to Elon Musk’s platform. But it’s a strange thing witnessing the ongoing elevation of Greene, with everyone from new BFF Kevin McCarthy to Steve Bannon padding her ascent. Now, will it take her all the way to the Naval Observatory? In a universe where Greene is getting tapped to investigate the government’s Covid response, well, anything’s possible; tomorrow will surely be worse.

AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

On January 10, Tyre Nichols, 29, died. Three days before, Nichols was stopped by Memphis police and beaten for three minutes, according to lawyers for his family. Investigations are underway.

Today, nearly two weeks after his death, Tyre Nichols’ family met with law enforcement and were shown footage of his death. The video has not been released to the public. But lawyers for Nichols’ family describe gut-wrenching bodycam footage of his violent arrest at the hands of five former Memphis police officers. 

“What he was in [that video] was defenseless the entire time,” Attorney Antonio Romanucci said. “He was a human piñata for those police officers. It was unadulterated, unabashed, nonstop beating of this young boy for three minutes.”  

In the video, the family said they saw the officers kick, pepper spray, and use a stun gun while Nichols repeatedly asked, “What did I do?” The family’s attorney said he yelled for his mother three times near the end of the footage.

Nichols’ death sparked protests across the city. Demonstrators, in part, demanded the release of footage showing his death. The Shelby County District Attorney’s office said in a statement that they’d release the footage either this week or next week. “Transparency is a priority for the DA’s Office, and we understand the public’s desire for immediate release. However, it’s important that the release does not compromise the investigation,” the statement said. 

On Friday, the Memphis Police Department announced in a statement that they fired all five officers involved in the beating after an internal investigation concluded that they’d violated several department policies, including excessive force and failure to render aid. 

Please see the attached statement. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/5ParaWvR52

— Memphis Police Dept (@MEM_PoliceDept) January 21, 2023

According to ABC News, the District Attorney has stated that they will be looking into criminal charges for the officers. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Justice Department will also be conducting their own criminal investigations into Nichols’ death, while the family’s legal team tackles a civil one. 

“We’re going to get justice for my son Tyre if that’s the last breath I take,” said Rodney Wells, Nichols’ stepfather, through tears at the press conference. 

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Earlier this month, in his first on-the-record statement rejecting calls to resign after he admitted to lying about huge swaths of his resume, a defiant Rep. George Santos insisted that he would step down only if voters turned against him. “We’ll find out in two years,” Santos said.

But Santos may not have to wait until reelection to find out. A new Siena poll, the first to directly ask registered voters in New York about their scandal-plagued congressman, revealed that 59 percent of those surveyed want Santos to step down. Seventeen percent said he should not resign, and 23 percent didn’t have an opinion. 

The poll, of course, is just one snapshot of Santos’ tanking support across the Empire State. But if Santos’ tenure in Congress, as he claims, truly relies on the will of his constituents, the survey is not good news, particularly as multiple investigations into his financial background pick up steam. Let’s review just some of the lies and falsehoods surrounding Santos’ brief but tumultuous time in Congress so far:

• That 9/11 “claimed” his mother’s life 
• That he’s Jewish or “Jew-ish“
• Where he went to college and high school
• That he worked on Wall Street
• Founded an animal charity
• Landed a role on Hannah Montana

My colleagues David Corn, Dan Friedman, and Noah Lanard also recently looked into allegations that Santos conned a prominent GOP donor, Andrew Intrater, who also happens to be a cousin of a sanctioned Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg. Santos’ scandals are not limited to the United States, either. As my colleague Isabela Dias has reported from Brazil: 

A popular Brazilian late-night TV show called Fantástico aired a segment with new findings about Santos. The congressman reportedly used different names and nationalities—like Russian—on dating app profiles. He used variations of his name, too, including George Devolder, Anthony Devolder, and Anthony Zabrovski.

The Brazilian TV show reported that Santos splurged while living in Niterói in 2008 with his mother, who passed away in 2016, and his sister. In an interview, a woman called Adriana Damasceno claimed to have met Santos at a Bingo parlor. Damasceno said they became friends and that during a trip to the United States in 2011, he went “shopping under her name, withdrew all the money she had in the bank, and even pawned jewelry.” When asked about whether she had reported anything to authorities, Damasceno said Santos bragged about having dual citizenship—American and Brazilian—and that she felt powerless to come forward.

Where will the Santos mystery take us next? I have no clue. But New Yorkers are making it clear they’re not amused.

Adolphe Pierre-Louis/Albuquerque Journal/Zuma

Three Amazon warehouses exposed workers to safety issues that put them at risk for “lower back injuries and other musculoskeletal disorders,” the Occupational Safety and Health Administration announced today. Amazon faces a proposed penalty of $60,260—or roughly 0.000013 percent of its reported $469,822,000,000 2021 revenue.

Safety inspections at warehouses in Deltona, Florida; Waukegan, Illinois; and New Windsor, New York found that workers were required to work long hours lifting heavy items, which predisposed them to developing musculoskeletal disorders.

“Each of these inspections found work processes that were designed for speed but not safety, and they resulted in serious worker injuries,” Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Doug Parker said in a statement. “While Amazon has developed impressive systems to make sure its customers’ orders are shipped efficiently and quickly, the company has failed to show the same level of commitment to protecting the safety and well-being of its workers.”

It seems unlikely that a roughly $60,000 fine will spur Amazon to rethink its operating procedures. The working conditions at the factories cited by OSHA are part of a larger pattern of Amazon ignoring worker safety.

Over the span of a month this summer, four Amazon workers died in separate incidents, some of which critics suspect were caused by excess heat. (As my colleague Emily Hofstaedter has reported, climate change has made heat a rising cause of on-the-job deaths, but OSHA has not updated its regulations accordingly.) Last month, after a worker died of a heart attack at a Colorado Springs warehouse, managers reportedly hid the body with cardboard bins while workers continued their shifts, unaware of the death.

Remarkably, Amazon faced no fines after six people died at one of its warehouses during a Category 3 hurricane, as we reported last year. One worker reportedly sent a text prior to his death that said, “Amazon won’t let us leave.”

Bill Clark/Zuma

Two years after Sen. Kyrsten Sinema voted against raising the minimum wage with an exaggerated thumbs-down, the Arizona Independent once again reduced political debate to an infuriatingly twee hand gesture.

This time, she initiated a high-five with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) over their shared refusal to reform Senate rules. At a World Economic Forum event in Davos, Switzerland, Sinema denounced partisanship as “not healthy for democracy” before celebrating a process that stifles political action by requiring 60 senators’ approval before a bill can be brought to a vote.

“While some would say that there were reluctant folks working in Congress in the last two years,” she said, gesturing to herself a Manchin, “I would actually say that that was the basis for the productivity for some incredible achievements that made a difference for the American people in the last two years.”

“We still don’t agree on getting rid of the filibuster,” Manchin said.

“That’s correct,” Sinema said, tossing her hand in the air.

Watch the exchange here:

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) high-five over their opposition to eliminating the filibuster. pic.twitter.com/T9C4Ezd5OR

— The Recount (@therecount) January 17, 2023

For the full story of Sinema’s transformation from radical activist to Senate obstructionist, check out my colleague Tim Murphy’s profile here.

Eva Marie Uzcategui/AFP/Getty

First, they were incandescent lightbulbs. Then, low-flow showerheads. Now, in their seemingly never-ending quest to remove “wokeness” from their appliances, Republicans have set their sights on waging a war on behalf of gas stoves. The brewing battle comes amid reports that the US Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering a ban on the beloved kitchen appliance, citing research linking emissions from gas stoves to a litany of respiratory health conditions, including children’s asthma. But the Republican outrage, which has already launched another culture war, appears to once again distort what’s actually happening. 

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Apparently they don’t even cook. Idiots. https://t.co/hefHQjZbcx

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) January 10, 2023

There was Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who on Tuesday tweeted, “Democrats are coming for your kitchen appliances. Their desire to control every aspect of your life knows no bounds—including how you make breakfast. They just can’t help themselves.” Podcaster and professional transphobe Matt Walsh insisted that President Biden would have to pry his gas stove from his “cold, dead hands.” Then we had this strangely ominous tweet from the Oklahoma Libertarian Party:

On today’s episode of “what is the Biden Administration trying to ban” we have gas stove ranges. You can’t make this stuff up. pic.twitter.com/lBd2ult8dW

— Oklahoma Libertarian Party (@OklahomaLP) January 10, 2023

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis dove into the storm this morning, borrowing from a phrase with pro-slavery sentiments.

Don’t tread on Florida, and don’t mess with gas stoves! pic.twitter.com/FNETzpuANe

— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) January 12, 2023

Despite the right’s angry insistence, no such plan for the government to seize gas stoves exists. As I wrote earlier this week as news of a potential ban circulated, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission is considering a ban on new gas stoves and setting emissions standards for them. That’s a far cry from the Republican fiction going around, depicting Biden agents storming peaceful kitchens and leaving giant, gas-stove holes while all you wanted to do was enjoy some pancakes. Any potential ban is an extension of the Biden administration’s efforts to encourage more Americans to go electric after including a rebate of up to $840 in the Inflation Reduction Act for those who wanted to purchase new electric cooking appliances.

Responding to the predictable GOP ire, the CPSC emphasized that there is no plan to ever confiscate people’s kitchenware. Potential regulations would apply to new products, and going electric would be entirely voluntary.

Thanks for your interest!

To be clear, CPSC isn't coming for anyone's gas stoves. Regulations apply to new products.

For Americans who CHOOSE to switch from gas to electric, there is support available – Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act which includes a $840 rebate. https://t.co/fcmWMSSfE5

— Commissioner Rich Trumka Jr. (@TrumkaCPSC) January 9, 2023

I want to set the record straight.

Contrary to recent media reports, I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the @USCPSC has no proceeding to do so. Read my full statement: pic.twitter.com/bYS1GLEpXP

— Alex Hoehn-Saric (@HoehnSaricCPSC) January 11, 2023

Of course, that hasn’t stopped conservatives from crying about governmental overreach. But their faux handwringing has conveniently omitted mention of the increasing evidence pointing to serious health concerns from gas stove emissions. As we’ve reported,  research has shown that gas stoves are hazardous, even when they’re turned off. A new study released earlier this month found about one in eight cases of childhood asthma stem from pollution from gas stoves. But it doesn’t seem like you’ll hear anything about that from Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Lynne Sladky/AP

Until today, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.) had kept the story of her traumatic, pre-Roe pregnancy private. But during a congressional debate on abortion policy, she opened up about being forced to carry a dead baby to term—and warned lawmakers of the deadly consequences of a federal abortion ban.

Wilson said that she became pregnant, intentionally, shortly after getting married in 1968. At seven months, the fetus stopped moving, but her doctor was prohibited by law from inducing labor. Wilson said she was “forced to carry my dead baby” until she went into labor at eight and a half months.

“After three days, I left the maternity ward in a wheelchair, empty-handed, no baby,” she said. “We had a small graveside burial for baby boy Wilson, and the doctors were so afraid that I would also have had to have a graveside burial. Do not take us back to the days before Roe v. Wade.”

Wilson urged lawmakers to consider her story when considering abortion restrictions, now that the right to choose is no longer protected by law.

“Abortion does not only apply to women who have decided for themselves they’re not ready to have a child,” she said. “Abortion affects women who are at risk of facing medical emergencies, life-altering emergencies and death.”

Watch Wilson’s testimony here:

For years @RepWilson kept the story of her traumatic, pre-Roe pregnancy private. Today, she opened up about being forced to carry her “dead baby” to term and urged her colleagues not to bring the era of forced pregnancy back nationwide. pic.twitter.com/6EcMEL6KSt

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) January 11, 2023

This October marked five years since the #MeToo movement began. At the time, we reflected on the ways we’d been treated at school, at the office, at home. We named abusers. And upon this most recent anniversary, I’ve been thinking specifically about what the movement has meant for those who “grew up” during this period.

When #MeToo first took off, many reflected on the past. But a younger generation faced a future in which formative milestones would likely be altered by a movement still unraveling before the culture. Their first jobs, college years, early dating ventures all shaped by this cultural phenomenon. They came of age in an era where so many of the past ideas about sex, relationships, and power were changing rapidly.

That’s how we started a project to report on what it was like to come of age during #MeToo. And we’d love for you, our readers, to help.

If you are under 30, we want to hear about how the #MeToo movement has impacted your life. Did it affect any of the big decisions you made in the last five years? Have you shifted the language you use to discuss consent, or around what media you consume? Did it change the way you navigated dating or dating apps? Have you reconsidered any personal or professional relationships?

Let us know by filling out this form.

Bill Clark/AP

The internet is in rare agreement: C-SPAN, the famously staid public affairs network, had a banger week.

Measured in television ratings, that’s indisputable; Americans were apparently riveted by Kevin McCarthy’s marathon humiliation, and who could blame them? But the attendant praise for a C-SPAN gone wild—the direct result of the chaos the network’s cameras were there to film—has convinced some that we should give C-SPAN producers full control over what they’re able to film, allowing the network to create a cinematic event out of turgid committee meetings. The logic appears rooted in several ideas but the main one seems to be that increased transparency is a good thing. Maybe the country wouldn’t be such a divisive shithole if we could see more Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Paul Gossar in conversation, forgetting that the guy once tweeted an anime depicting him killing her. Oh, and the memes. Little vape hits so satisfying, why not make room for more? 

But there’s a real danger in believing that the C-SPAN we saw last week, while surely more entertaining, offered an authentic glimpse into the inner workings of Congress.

As my colleague Tim Murphy wrote for the magazine, we live in a post-Trumpian era teeming with shitposters, lawmakers clamoring for virality with a shamelessness that can only be judged as repulsive. C-SPAN was created to undo such media distortion. But, in the blog era, that’s harder to imagine: Everything is fodder for a post. Adults who run our country now obsess over ways to appear in headlines claiming they’ve DESTROYED political foes, whose long game doesn’t extend much further than to create endless content. This sickness consumes many of the stars of the current Republican Party, but Democrats are far from immune. In fact, Democrat Katie Porter emerged last week with what might be the best possible argument against a free-roaming C-SPAN:

You win Katie Porter. You win. pic.twitter.com/Cb2OTYYQs9

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) January 7, 2023

Politics is inherently performative; we all know this. Yet whipping out “The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck” in 2023, as if we’re still stuck in the Obama years, exceeds tolerable levels of cringe. Such moments, themselves little prayers hoping to excite a certain corner of the internet, feel intensely out of step with the overwhelming desensitization of being subsumed by nearly a decade of political corniness and mendacity. One easily imagines Porter, days into McCarthy’s struggle and realizing that much of the country is watching, convening with aides to brainstorm tortured content they’d eventually fundraise off of. That’s normal DC brain for you, sure. But why let them commit such corny atrocities under the guise of faux transparency?

The chance of getting zoomed in on by a C-SPAN camera would also play to some of the worst instincts that animated the very grandstanders responsible for last week’s Republican paralysis. While political observers pondered over what this rowdy group could possibly want by holding the whole thing hostage, consideration of just three of the biggest McCarthy holdouts—Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Andy Biggs—suddenly rendered all that political guesswork silly. You could pore over the list of concessions and realize that nothing quite matched their singular impulse to chase clout. Be vile because why the hell not? Remain permanently drunk on pursuing endless fights. I’m all for C-SPAN producers enjoying themselves. But a zoomed-in version of Gaetz’s rot is a price too big.

Of course, not everything we witnessed via C-SPAN last week was contrived. George Santos seemed genuinely lonely, that guy really did almost hit the other guy, and Americans did get a view into political wheeling and dealing. But none of that is enough to warrant the belief that permanent, free-roaming access to floor discussions is true transparency.

I reject a future marred by a C-SPAN gaze. At least when it’s clout chasing on CNN it’s clear what game is being played.