Articles & Videos

“That photographers were in place as the letter was hand-delivered says it all—this was choreographed for the cameras," Brooklyn Beckham said of his parents’ alleged stunt.

The following is a lightly edited transcript of the June 17 episode of the Daily Blast podcast. Listen to it here.Greg Sargent: This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR Network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.JD Vance is having a moment. He’s selling his new book and he just appeared on The View, where the hosts worked him over pretty hard. In a telling exchange, Vance found himself defending Trump in the context of the Iran war in a way that will come back to bite him later. Indeed, there are several other signs that Trumpworld is setting up Vance to take the eventual fall on Iran in a number of different ways. New leaks from inside the administration are making Trump’s Iran deal look even worse, and they’re also shedding light on what this shivving of Vance really entails.We’re talking about it all with one of the best observers out there of the intersection between politics and culture, New Republic contributing editor Virginia Heffernan. Hey, Virginia, always nice to have you on.Virginia Heffernan: Hey, Greg, same here. I like being on the show.Sargent: Well, we like that. So let’s start with JD Vance’s appearance on The View. He took a hammering on a number of fronts. I want to highlight one exchange, though. They’re talking about inflation. JD says, We’re doing all we can. Then one of the hosts points out that Trump recently said, I love the inflation. Listen to this.JD Vance (voiceover): We’re doing a lot to make it better. It’s going to take a little bit of time. There’s a lot more work to do. But the president knows that a lot of Americans are struggling. In fact, he ran on that, he talked about it, and we’ve done some things and made some good progress on that point.Ana Navarro (voiceover): He just said he loves the inflation.Vance (voiceover): What he said, Ana, what he said is that he loves the fact that the inflation is going to come down when this war is over. That’s what he said.Joy Behar (voiceover): Are you his—wait, are you his interpreter or are you his vice president?Vance (voiceover): Well, look—what the president said—people were asking about the inflation, they were asking about the affordability problem, which, again, is very real. And what he said is, I love the inflation because it’s going to come down when the war is over.Sargent: Joy Behar got a good dig in there saying that Vance is just functioning basically as Trump’s propagandist and not leveling with people, although she said it in a way that kind of kept it light. Virginia, what did you make of the exchange?Heffernan: I don’t know, do people still say “mogged?” I do think that JD Vance got mogged by the women of The View. They were all on top of him. He had said on Fox News the day before, or maybe earlier this morning, that he was trying to prepare for a civil conversation, but he knew he was going into the lion’s den.The inflation question is going to be really interesting to View viewers. JD Vance has this book come out about his Christian faith, about his Catholic faith, and he really wants everyone to focus on his religious journey because he believes that he can bond with the suburban women who sometimes lean Republican, especially on issues like crime, and he might get to them by The View.So he wasn’t going into the lion’s den for no reason. He was going into it to promote a book. And they gave the QR code so you could buy the book at the end. They did their part. And they gave him a onesie for his forthcoming newborn that says The View on it. But—Sargent: I have to ask—do you think that JD Vance and Usha are going to put that onesie on their baby?Heffernan: I was wondering about that. Maybe that was just another mog moment; we’ll brand you with The View, brand your baby. We don’t want to get too symbolic about it, but there was a lot going on and it’s a lot to watch.And Whoopi and some of the other hosts of color were especially incensed and didn’t give any ground. And there was something satisfying about seeing that, because we’ve seen Trump attack so many women over and over again in interviews, walk out of interviews, call women “nasty,” call them “piggy,” call them whatever. And so just saying, We’re not really going to entertain the idea that there’s a kumbaya here with you, and making it very clear with their expressions that they weren’t going to entertain it.Sargent: JD was really on his best behavior, though. We should point that out. What do you think of the inflation exchange? Because I want to clarify for people that the inflation exchange is really about inflation from the war. That’s what Trump was talking about when he said, I love the inflation. It maneuvered Vance into a position where he was essentially forced to defend what Trump said there. What did you make of the exchange?Heffernan: So what Vance says is he didn’t mean he loves the inflation, he meant, I love that the inflation is going to go down after the war. For some reason, everything these days is reminding me of this moment in The Simpsons. I can’t remember what season it is, but Krusty the Clown or someone who’s trying to kill Bart has “Die Bart Die” tattooed on his chest. And when it’s revealed—“Die Bart Die”—he says, No, this is just German. “Die Bart Die.”And I love that because no, he didn’t say I love the inflation. He said I love that the inflation is going down. “Die Bart Die.” There’s no way that that’s what he was saying. Everybody knows that’s not what he was saying. For JD Vance to introduce doublespeak, to introduce propaganda, really shows how he’s on his back foot.Sargent: I want to add something about that exchange as well. As you say, it’s a stretch, as Vance said, that Trump was claiming that he loves the fact that inflation will come down after the war. I think Trump was more saying, I don’t give a shit about the inflation because the problem’s going to magically go away because I say it is, and that’s it, and you should make it go away in your head. That’s what he actually meant.But seriously, there’s another vulnerability here, which is that Vance is tying himself to the idea that costs will come down significantly after the war. In other words, he’s endorsing that idea and aligning himself with it. That’s going to take a while. Whatever actually happens with costs, I’m not sure the public’s going to feel good about costs anytime soon. So Vance has been maneuvered into a position where he’s tied to defending that big, big, big thing about the Trump term, which is a very, very tough thing to defend.Heffernan: It’s asking people to pay more for groceries in exchange for some foreign policy goal that keeps shifting, that we don’t understand. And that, frankly, the administration did nothing to gin up support for. We don’t even have a narrative about why we’re in Iran. They weren’t building nukes—or were they? Nobody is following this enriched uranium conversation or whatever JD Vance is saying this new Iran deal is, which sounds like the last, or good, Iran deal, except worse.Nobody understands what we’re doing there, just as they didn’t understand Venezuela and they didn’t understand the first attack on Iran. This has not been sold to the American people, and yet we’re asked to make a sacrifice for it. We’re asked to pay more for groceries while he keeps telling us affordability is a hoax and that he loves inflation. This is the signature piece of foreign policy, clearly.It reads to the American people as, We’ve gone to war for Israel and we don’t know why. Nobody has a stake in figuring out this nuclearized Iran because we keep not understanding it. The only thing we understand is we’re paying more, something about the Strait of Hormuz, and this is all Trump’s fault. We have then no faith in him. There’s not even a strong base that’s trying to spin up support for it. What they just say back is, It’s a hoax, or, You’re nasty for asking questions about it.Sargent: A hundred percent. There are clear signs that Vance is getting set up now to take the fall for the Iran deal if it goes south. Axios reports that CIA Director John Ratcliffe told Trump and other top officials that the intel agencies seriously doubt that Iran will ultimately make the concessions that Trump will demand in terms of constraints on its nuclear enrichment program.This is a really key thing. I want to read it: “In internal discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth both expressed concerns and raised questions about the memorandum of understanding announced Sunday, while Vance and U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner advocated for it, according to two of the sources.”Virginia, that’s strongly suggestive. People around Trump who expect—rightly—that he’s going to have serious trouble pinning Iran down when the talks on nukes get going, want it very clear that Vance internally rooted for this deal. We’re talking here about people who are sympathetic to Hegseth and Rubio. What do you make of that?Heffernan: As you said before, I think he’s being shivved. The person who is least confident in Trump’s decisions around foreign policy—as we’ve seen from his past disputes with Trump and Hegseth, and pretty aggressive, meaningful isolationism—is having to defend those things and then babble about how bad Obama was, about whatever comes into his head, because the details of the deal have never been fully exposed. We don’t know what they are.But we don’t even know what our objective is. The objective of the first deal was to prevent supposedly breakout capacity from Iran so that they couldn’t turn what they had into nukes. That was a deal that the UN was invested in with its nonproliferation treaty. It was a deal that Iran was ultimately invested in because it got a lot of goodies, and that it complied with.But now, are we trying to prevent breakout capacity? What’s the time horizon? What are the things that an ordinary diplomat would ask about with this deal? No, it’s just Trump trying to humiliate people or be humiliated himself. Iran has gone to psychologists to say, what is it like to deal with—remember with Nixon, he was exercising the madman option? Well, Trump’s madman-ness is nonoptional. He is a madman. He’s not choosing, Am I going to act like a madman? He just is.This isn’t a question of Democrats saying, He’s crazy. This is a question of, if you are negotiating with this person, how do you talk to an actually insane person? How do you flatter his ego, do XYZ? Iran is very likely to get away with some pretty hideous things with JD Vance scrambling to defend him, being shivved by the president, and the president himself insane. And Hegseth pretty insane.Sargent: To pick up on this idea of JD Vance getting shivved and this idea that you mentioned of Vance being somewhat of a skeptic of this stuff—he’s getting screwed in two ways. Not only was he initially skeptical of this thing, but now he’s got to be the one to defend the deal in a more frontal way than anyone else. Everybody knows that vice presidents are on the hook for that as a general matter. They’re supposed to go out and take a lot of shit for the president. That’s just part of the role. Everyone knows that. And now he’s got to go out there and defend this deal when everyone knows it’s a complete joke and nobody else has to be as frontal as him.Heffernan: It really would be Marco Rubio who should be talking about it. But Trump is way more threatened by JD Vance’s future career than he is by Little Marco’s. And so he wants Vance out there and he wants Vance to have to do the doublespeak that he’s getting him to do. Also speak for something that he doesn’t know about, because nobody has seen this deal. This deal is like Pam Bondi’s, I have the list of Epstein’s people on my desk. There may be a piece of yellow paper with some Sharpie scribbles on it, but we don’t know what this piece of supposed diplomacy is.He’s just going to end up making no sense. It’s like hang Mike Pence. The version of hang Mike Pence for now is hang JD Vance out to dry.Sargent: Very well put. There are more signs of Vance getting set up here. Joe Perticone of The Bulwark highlighted a number of statements from Trump-friendly people. For instance, Senator Lindsey Graham, who’s a staunch Trump ally, described Vance as “the architect of the deal.” Very, very clear. This is Vance’s deal, says Senator Lindsey Graham, who probably hates the deal and thinks it’s going to fall apart later. That’s a key point. Senator Lindsey Graham, who’s a real Iran hawk—I hate that phrase, but whatever—he’s an Iran hawk who expects this deal to not produce any real results later. And he’s saying that JD Vance is the architect of this deal which will fall apart later. That really screws him.Trump himself recently said that JD Vance will probably be at the signing ceremony instead of him. We’ll see how that pans out, but it’s really obvious where all the arrows are pointing.Heffernan: I don’t think Lindsey Graham cares about getting out of Iran. He probably would be happy with forever war. It seems to be his sweet spot, and certainly Pete Hegseth’s. But Trump does have trouble on his hands if this—every day this war continues, it’s expensive. It’s very, very, very unpopular. He wants a way to back out of it, but he doesn’t want to make something called “the Iran deal,” because an Iran deal is supposedly what made Obama seem effete, seem like a globalist, seem like he didn’t understand hard power. So here he is making an Iran deal in order to back out of the optional war of choice that he started for no reason to get attention.Sargent: Trump wants it to be Iran’s surrender. That’s what he wants.Heffernan: He wants an Iran surrender and they are not—there is no white flag from Iran. The other thing is: We haven’t had this open collision with Iran ever. We’re starting to see their cards. And they have played the propaganda war very well. The Lego videos have mostly been taken down, but those were really influential. And “Your Government Is Run by Pedophiles,” their hit song of the summer—you can still find that. It was on Spotify and rising up the ranks.Americans have paradoxically acquired at least some understanding, if not sympathy, for Iran. For Iran being a closed rogue state, defined as the most hated nation on earth for all this time, and suddenly people have started to think, There’s schoolgirls there. There’s schoolgirls that were killed by a bomb. The consequences of this for geopolitics are going to be felt forever. And it’s just on somebody’s whim. What a nightmare.Sargent: You raise a really interesting point there. There’s the global economy as well, which is going to continue to be in a really ailing state because of all this.Let’s spool this forward and see what it looks like. So down the line, maybe Trump reaches this stupendous deal with Iran in two to three months before the midterms. I don’t think that’s likely. I think it’s more likely to drag out and the Iranians have every incentive to drag it right up to the midterms to hurt Trump as much as possible.We start to get into next year, and then that’s when the presidential race starts. At that point, Trump is really checked out. He’s passing from the scene. And so next year you’ve got JD Vance as the frontman to defend all of the legacy of the Iran war. We’re talking about the global economy. We’re talking about potential trouble that they run into with getting Iran to constrain its nuke program. We’re talking about the money that’s going to start flowing to Iran—which, when Obama did that, was this huge betrayal of America according to Trump. How does Vance manage all this in, I don’t know, March or April of next year?Heffernan: As you point out, there are Republicans who hate the Iran deal and want to see it fail, like Lindsey Graham, because they’re hawks, because they are really invested in this idea of Iran as a rogue state in opposition to Israel as a democracy and an ally in the region—which has also shifted in popular imagination, yet that’s something that a Lindsey Graham is going to hold on to. So you have old-school Republican hawks who are going to hate that there’s a deal at all.Then you have people for whom the deal is bound to fail. At very least, even when you talk about this perfect deal idea—the first Iran deal was close, it was a B-plus as a deal at least—it takes a while to bear fruit. You can call it a failure at any given time because you could say, Well, they’ll have this breakout capacity in 10 years, 15 years, we should have gotten it in perpetuity. They can always be flexing. We can suddenly be like, The uranium is enriched to 68 percent, so it’s a failure.There’s absolutely no way that an Iran deal of any kind is going to play as a success with the American people. The only way that this could come to a soft landing for them is if prices go steeply down, if affordability goes up, if the strait is completely open and free, and if we have a complete surrender by Iran. And none of that is possible either.So they’re not going to get there. Jamelle Bouie says that they reiterate the logic of domination in these wars. What they want to see is Iran crying in pain. That seems like a fool’s errand. It’s not a very Iranian position. They have shown that they’re refusing to do that.This is an impossible position. JD Vance is so in a corner. It’s impossible for him to make a friend. Tucker Carlson is just going to hold him responsible. Tucker Carlson, who hates this war, who broke with Trump over this war, who begged Trump not to go to war, and now opposes Trump and is sort of the leader of this particular—maybe running for office himself, right? We shouldn’t rule that out. If JD Vance had been able to stay with Tucker Carlson and have that group of people on his side, he might have had a chance in 2028. But you know what it is? He’s tarred with the brush of the war and he’s tarred with the brush of the deal. That’s as bad as it gets. Both things are going to cling to him and both things are huge failures.Sargent: Just to really boil this down, basically every major element of the MAGA coalition will dislike whatever emerges here, so they’ll dislike Vance for it. And all the constituencies that Republicans, especially Trumpy Republicans like JD Vance, need to win majorities—young people, working-class nonwhites—they’ll also hate it. So that’s where Vance is.Heffernan: That’s where Vance is. I’m not going to say I feel sorry for him, but just strategically, he is in a very, very bad spot. I don’t see a way out of it for him. I don’t see where his reputation is at the end of this.Sargent: I don’t either. Virginia Heffernan, awesome to talk to you. Thank you so much.Heffernan: Thank you.

Adryan Corcione Prism In April 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chris Smalls worked at an Amazon warehouse in the Staten Island borough of New York City. With no social distancing required and no personal protective equipment provided, Smalls’ co-workers began getting sick with COVID. In response, he organized a workplace walkout, protesting […]

The company was recently valued at $3.3 billion, and despite public interest in an IPO the CEO said a listing is not imminent.

A version of the below article first appeared in David Corn’s newsletter, Our Land. The newsletter comes out twice a week (most of the time) and provides behind-the-scenes stories and articles about politics, media, and culture. Subscribing costs just $5 a month—but you can sign up for a free 30-day trial. Hooray, Elon Musk is a trillionaire. You catch […]

By Shireen Akram-Boshar This article was originally published by Truthout “Maersk facilitated the transport of bullets Israel used to snipe Palestinian children in the head,” said one activist. On June 8, the Palestinian Youth Movement’s Mask off Maersk Campaign published a report with Oxfam Denmark demonstrating that Maersk has continued to ship weapons to Israel […]

When Bryan Stevenson moved to Montgomery, Alabama, in the 1980s, the city—one of America’s most prominent slave trading spaces before the Civil War—had dozens of Confederate monuments and memorials, but nothing commemorating slavery. Today, thanks to Stevenson’s efforts, the city looks much different. Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast […]

The post More Than 770,000 Children Are No Longer Receiving SNAP Benefits After Trump Changes Federal Food Program appeared first on ProPublica.

Why have kids, anyway? It’s a question that’s been on my mind as I get ready for yet another bout of fertility treatment. I’ve managed to log an impressive if doomed record of “trying”: two artificial inseminations, three rounds of IVF, 11 embryos, one pregnancy, one miscarriage, zero children. It’s strange that after all that, I still find myself gearing up for another round. I don’t think I’ll ever fully understand what is making me act in such an irrational way—squandering my energy and resources and seeking out physical and emotional risks for something that will likely never happen. But lately a couple books have helped me think about the pursuit of parenthood in new ways. It’s probably not an accident that they are written by queer or gay men whose path to parenthood has been similarly mediated by reproductive technology and defined by deferral. Spawning Season: An Experiment in Queer Parenthood is an utterly unique contribution to the often predictable genre of infertility and parenting lit. Written by Joseph Osmundson, a professor of microbiology, it begins with an immersive account of reproduction from the perspective of a female salmon. A salmon mother swims thousands of miles against the current to spawn, and then guards her nest until she dies. After her death, she nourishes her children with her decomposing body. Of her thousands of fertilized eggs, perhaps one or two, perhaps none, will survive to become adult fish capable of spawning the next generation. The whole system is bizarre enough to make IVF injections and egg donor ads seem normal. In Osmundson’s telling, it’s also beautiful—a fluid vision of “translucent tails and pink yolk sacs,” and a moving metaphor for maternal endurance and sustenance against the odds. “A mother doesn’t let her children go hungry,” he writes. “This is one way I’d like to be a mother.” Salmon reproduction provides a structure for Osmundson’s own “experiment in queer parenthood,” from his lifelong yearnings for pregnancy to his life-changing journey through sperm donation, embryo creation, and family reimagining with two lesbian friends. His story is told in four parts—“Fry,” “Salt Water,” “Humpy,” and “Hatch”—that map his life onto stages of a salmon life cycle. (A fry is a young salmon that has just emerged from its nest—hence the phrase small fry. Humpy is a nickname for a male pink salmon; they develop a small hump during their spawning migration.)This whole-life-cycle framing allows Osmundson to take a capacious perspective on the conception and care of progeny, seeing it not simply as an adult rite of passage but as a life-defining desire that begins in childhood and continues far beyond the limits of legal or literal parenthood. The awe-inspiring reproductive drive of the salmon also allows him to express an unapologetic urgency about procreation that cuts through common clichés and ambivalences about when, whether, or how to have kids. “We are human animals,” he writes. “The purpose of an animal is to mate and make more animals. If biology has desire, this is its root.… We human animals render things so complicated; we hide desires even from ourselves.”This is not to say that the desire to be a parent is universal—it clearly is not—or that the human complications aren’t real. Osmundson writes about them with palpable poignancy. In addition to dealing with the particular challenges facing queer people who want to procreate, Osmundson faces some systemic struggles common to millions of potential parents, regardless of their sexuality. His list of difficulties includes “money, my lack of a uterus, the ethics of surrogacy, the adoption-industrial complex.… I don’t own a home … my car is a two-door … climate change and American politics have only gotten worse; did you know adoptions can cost $100,000 out of pocket?” Osmundson and his friends make a plan in which he will provide sperm, one woman will provide an egg, her partner will carry the baby, and they will all share the parenting. It’s not a simple scenario, and they face the further complexities of figuring out the role of genes and culture in an interracial family (Osmundson is white, while one of his potential co-parents is Indonesian), as well as the uncertainties of building a family in which two parents are romantic partners and one is not. The stakes of working it all out are high. Osmundson feels like it might be his only chance at parenthood; he can’t afford to have a child on his own. Spawning Season is, among other things, a deeply personal exploration of “situational infertility,” the voluntary or involuntary lack of children due to external factors. Whatever the various causes of our plummeting birth rate, the crushing costs of parenthood are clearly not helping. Neither is the bleakness of the political landscape, as the U.S. government makes reproductive health care more dangerous and queer families more precarious, defunds education and childcare at home, and bombs children abroad. In some ways, the situationally infertile are not so different from endangered salmon whose reproductive efforts are thwarted by dammed rivers or warming oceans. Osmundson takes a wild narrative risk that allows him to express lyrical tenderness, protectiveness, laughter, hope, and loss—a full range of parental feeling.It’s rare to read a well-researched nonfiction narrative that blends fascinating specialized knowledge with sharp political critique and a moving, gripping personal story. It’s even more rare to read one that is unafraid to move beyond nonfiction into the realm of fantasy. “Critical fabulation” is a technique used by scholars like Saidiya Hartman to flesh out historical narratives where the surviving records fail us, imagining the experience or interiority of people whose lives have been lost to time. Osmundson experiments instead with a kind of “uncritical fabulation,” giving himself permission to conjure up an imaginary fish-child friend called Fry—a dream child hovering somewhere between potential and real, salmon and human, who expands the narrative into what-might-have-been or what-might-be, alongside what is and was.Fry first appears a few pages into the book and recurs throughout, a daughter figure whom Osmundson longs for, cares for, talks with, carries in a Ziploc bag full of water, introduces to some of his trusted friends, and goes to the beach with. Sharing Fry with us is a wild narrative risk that pays off, allowing him to express lyrical tenderness, protectiveness, laughter, hope, and loss—a full range of parental feeling—even and especially when suspense is submerged in heartbreak and it looks like his real-world child will never actually come to be. If Spawning Season dramatizes the near-impossibility of parenthood in a world of material limitations, the biographer Brad Gooch’s Good Morning Moon conjures an enchanted world seemingly free of constraints. It is a memoir of gay fatherhood infused with children’s literature that sometimes reads like a “happily ever after” fairy tale, with any shadow of suspense dispelled at the beginning. Unlike Osmundson’s book, which keeps us wondering where his journey toward parenthood will end, Gooch informs us at the outset that he and his husband have two sons and are happy. The book is thus less a quest narrative than an ode to joy: “I’ve never believed all happy families were alike. I’ve been wanting … to voice our happiness.” The apt first epigraph, self-deprecating yet proud, is courtesy of Frank O’Hara: “Happiness, the least and best of human attainments.”Gooch and his husband, Paul, had children late, in their fifties and sixties. (I’m obviously delighted for them, but as a woman who is approaching my fertility clinic’s age cutoff, I couldn’t help remembering the time I saw a headline about a septuagenarian celebrity father and wailed to a friend, “I just want to have my first child before Mick Jagger has his ninth!”) Gooch was an only child from the midcentury suburbs, emotionally distant from his parents. For him, as for many in his generation, being gay meant leaving traditional family decisively behind to live a nontraditional life in the city. Marriage and children were not legally options for most of his adult life, and would not have been appealing to him even if they were. Paul, 12 years younger and a Baptist minister, was close to his large and lively family of origin and interested in building a family of his own.Eventually, after over a decade together, the couple decided to have children via a Stanford-educated egg donor and two decidedly non-Stanford-educated surrogates. Osmundson wrestles with the ethical complexities involved in assisted reproductive technology, and surrogacy can be especially fraught, as relatively wealthy parents pay poorer women to provide an immense, intimate, and dangerous service. But Gooch and his husband were able to move beyond what Gooch calls the “moral awkwardness” of surrogacy by focusing on the undeniable rightness of the children who result from it, encouraged by the experience of friends who had already been through the process: “Paul excised those doubts decisively on the afternoon we left the playground where my friend’s son was playing. ‘If you look at him, you could never think that this was anything but right,’ he said, truly articulating the nub.”In a way, the entire book is devoted to articulating the doubt-defying truth of the rightness of children, especially his own. Gooch’s sons, Walter and Glenn, are lovingly evoked, a study in contrasts as siblings inevitably are, Walter suffused with the meditative spirituality of Rumi (about whom Brad was writing when he arrived) and Glenn with the lively spirit of Keith Haring (Gooch dedicated his biography of Haring to him). Gooch revels in the gentle gifts of being the quieter, older, “indoor” parent—the father mostly likely to read with his sons or console them in the wake of bad dreams. Meanwhile Paul is the comparatively youthfully exuberant “outdoor” parent, swinging his sons up on his shoulders or challenging them to a game of paddle tennis. Both fathers are doting and devoted. When Walter asks Gooch, “What is the biggest thing that happened to you in your life?” the answer is obvious: “Having you kids.”Osmundson brings soup to a friend who has just given birth, and reflects, “Everyone belonged to everyone.… There are many ways to have a child together.” At times, some of the privileged parenting problems in the book are hard to empathize with—for example when Gooch writes about the stresses that come with having two full-time nannies—and I wish that the women who carried and helped to raise the boys were depicted more fully. But overall I was enthralled by the literary snapshot of “Papa Paul, Walter, Glenn, Dad Brad.” Gooch’s ode to his family is irresistibly bright.Happiness is satisfying but can be narratively flat. Good Morning Moon avoids this problem with an unexpected swerve: Like countless twenty-first-century Americans, Gooch takes a DNA test and discovers that his family of origin is not what he thought it was. His discovery has implications beyond the personal, reminding us that even the most hyper-conventional, heteronormative families are far from straightforward. As Stephanie Coontz argued in The Way We Never Were, the much-revered and reviled 1950s-style “traditional family” barely if ever existed. Perhaps every family is nontraditional in its own way.At the end of Spawning Season, Osmundson calls us to think about having children beyond the narrow bounds of the nuclear family. He brings soup to a friend who has just given birth, then sits with her and her partner and their baby and reflects, “Everyone belonged to everyone.… There are many ways to have a child together.” His vision reminded me of the ubiquitous James Baldwin quote that “the children are always ours, every single one of them, all over the globe.” Baldwin, the eldest child of nine, who carried his baby siblings on his hip, wrote a book for his nephew, and advocated for millions of children he never met, lived out this principle. I’m not sure what my future holds, but especially in this celebratory season of Father’s Day and Pride, this is the version of family I’m holding close.