What’s behind the obsession over whether Elizabeth Holmes intentionally lowered her voice?

There is a scene in Hulu’s new series, “The Dropout,” where Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, wearing a white blouse, stands in front of a mirror and practices saying, “This is an inspiring step forward.” With each iteration, her voice deepens.

As the world has learned about Theranos’ web of deception – whether through John Carreyrou’s bestselling book, “Bad Blood,” Apple’s podcast series “The Dropout” or Hulu’s streaming series of the same name – Holmes’ supposed attempt to alter her voice is a detail that captivates audiences. The behavior might strike some people as bizarre, even sociopathic.

But because of my training in vocology, the study of vocalization, and my interest in speech biases, I’m intrigued by why Holmes may have felt compelled to change her voice in the first place. I see the story of her voice as part of a broader cultural fixation on the way women speak and sound.

Reactions to Holmes’ voice

Whenever Holmes is in the news, some questions always come up:

What’s with that distinctively low voice? Is she faking it?

I have not been able to find definitive proof, in the form of video or audio recordings, to show that Holmes’ voice is noticeably different in its current form than at some previous time.

One video claims to capture Holmes shifting between two very different voice modes.

During this interview with Elizabeth Holmes, commenters highlight a vocal switch between the 1:28 and 2:08 marks.

However, it could have been easily edited. And dramatic, sustained pitch changes in speech can be associated with heightened emotional states without indicating a put-on voice. At the same time, people who know Holmes have claimed that she changed her voice in order to cultivate a persona as a Silicon Valley wunderkind.

Only a clinician like a laryngologist can make a voice-related medical diagnosis. But since I can’t definitively answer if Holmes’ voice changed intentionally, it is worth considering what natural or medical processes could cause a similar effect. Hormones directly impact the voice, including pitch and the perception of roughness or hoarseness. Women’s voices tend to decrease in pitch range during menopause.

Holmes’ young age at the time she became known for her voice may rule out an age-related hormonal voice change, but a similar effect could be found with certain hormone therapy. There are also several voice disorders that impact pitch range.

If she did it … how?

There are all sorts of reasons people seek voice therapy or coaching to address vocal insecurities. Whether they’re concerned about their voice range or simply seeking skills to become better communicators, the voice is resilient and can be developed with training. There are also wonderful resources available for gender-affirming voice support for transgender people.

So what is the physiological process at play when someone intentionally lowers their voice?

Engaging a tiny laryngeal muscle called the thyroarytenoid causes the vocal folds, which are housed inside the larynx (or “voice box”), to relax and become shorter and thicker. Imagine decreasing tension on a rubber band. These shorter, thicker folds vibrate at a lower frequency, resulting in a lower-pitched voice, just as a thicker or more lax guitar string has a lower pitch.

It is likely the singular nature of Holmes’ voice is related not only to its low pitch, but also its resonance, the unique tonal quality and placement of the voice. Holmes might adjust her resonance by consciously lowering the larynx. Doing so creates a longer space above the larynx, which boosts the deeper, darker tones in the voice.

Women’s voices subject to scrutiny

In my role as a theatrical voice coach, I’m sometimes asked to help women actors lower their voices. I’ve encountered directors and producers with significant distaste for higher-pitched women’s voices, especially when this pitch range is combined with nasal resonance.

In movies and on TV, characters with high-pitched voices are often portrayed as comical, dim-witted and generally undesirable. Think of Lina Lamont, the character from “Singin’ in the Rain” memorably played by Jean Hagen. Her high, piercing voice became a source of consistent laughs.

Might sexist attitudes about women’s voices cause women in leadership roles to feel pressured to adjust their pitch range down?

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, nicknamed the “Iron Lady,” famously down-shifted her voice to burnish her stature. Research on perceptions of pitch in women’s voices shows higher ones are associated with physical attractiveness, while lower voices are associated with dominance.

Meanwhile, many women radio and podcast hosts are barraged with negative listener feedback about “vocal fry,” the creaky mode of speaking made famous by Kim Kardashian.

Yet physiologically, to create this sound, the vocal folds must vibrate at a low frequency, associated with low pitch. This much-maligned vocal feature is at one end of the pitch spectrum. But there’s another equally hated speech feature that is achieved at the other end: the high-rising terminal intonation pattern, or “uptalk.” This feature is noted for the dramatic upward pitch at the end of each thought, which can make statements sound like questions.

The insistence that women in media change the pitch of their voices often comes with little concern for the anatomical and physiological factors that will limit how much pitch change is ultimately possible. My current research is investigating perceptions of women’s speaking voices in the performing arts and considering whether it’s time to part ways with some old aesthetic preferences.

Either way, the delicate dance of trying to strike a happy medium – the Goldilocks voice profile, where one can be taken seriously as a leader without being perceived as inauthentic, grating or patronizing – seems to be elusive. Women’s voices are the subject of endless scrutiny at both ends of the range – it seems they just can’t win.

If everything about this story were the same except the gender of Theranos’ CEO, I wonder whether his voice would even be remarked upon. If it were, might the same vocal qualities be perceived as positive traits befitting a capable, serious-minded leader?

Elizabeth Holmes undoubtedly lacks the practical skills and moral compass to be a great leader. But all the noise about her voice, and the potential that she changed it to get ahead, just may reveal a sexist double standard that women seemingly can’t escape.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“GOP finally found some voter fraud”: Mark Meadows registered to vote at an N.C. “dive trailer”

Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows claimed to live in a small mobile home in North Carolina on his voter registration form, potentially violating voting laws, according to The New Yorker.

Meadows, who played a key role in boosting former President Donald Trump’s debunked lies about widespread election fraud, possibly committed voter fraud himself by listing his primary residence as a 14-foot-by-62-foot mobile home in Scaly Mountain, North Carolina — where he may not have spent a single night — weeks before the state’s voter registration deadline, according to the report.

Meadows, who previously represented a North Carolina district in Congress, sold his 2,200-square-foot home in the town of Sapphire, when he became Trump’s top aide in March 2020. In September of that year, three weeks before the state’s voter registration deadline, he listed the mobile home on a line of the form that asked for the residential address “where you physically live.”

“GOP finally found some voter fraud,” quipped former Solicitor General Neal Katyal.

The home’s former owner told the New Yorker that she did rent the property to Meadows’ wife Debbie for about two months in the last several years but that Debbie had only “spent one or two nights” there. The couple’s children also visited the property at some point, she said.

But Mark Meadows “did not come,” she said. “He’s never spent a night in here.”

The former owner, who asked not to be named, ultimately sold the property to Ken Abele, who told the outlet that it was “really weird” that Meadows put the address on his voter registration.

“That’s weird that he would do that,” Abele said, noting that he had to make a lot of improvements on the property since purchasing it. “When I got it, it was not the kind of place you’d think the chief of staff of the President would be staying,” he said.

Meadows was one of Trump’s top lieutenants in his campaign to overturn his election loss based on repeatedly debunked allegations of voter fraud. Meadows after the election pressed the Justice Department to investigate Trump’s unfounded voter fraud claims, including those already rejected by the courts. He also repeated the discredited fraud lies in his recent memoir.

Listing false information on a voter registration form is a federal crime. The New Yorker report noted that the Trump White House website used to link to a Heritage Foundation document listing cases of voter fraud, many of which included people who listed false residential addresses.

Melanie Thibault, the director of the board of elections in North Carolina’s Macon County, told the New Yorker that she was “dumbfounded” that Meadows had listed the mobile home as his primary residence.

“I looked up this Mcconnell Road, which is in Scaly Mountain, and I found out that it was a dive trailer in the middle of nowhere, which I do not see him or his wife staying in,” she said.

But Thibault said that only a candidate or another voter can challenge a voter’s address. These challenges “can be tough to win and are not frequently brought.”

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

Gerry Cohen, a former lawyer for the state legislature who helped write the voter-challenge law and now sits on the Wake County Board of Elections, said voters must list a “place of abode” on their registration where they have spent at least one night.

“If Debra Meadows stayed there a single night, and Mark Meadows didn’t stay there, then he didn’t meet the abode test,” Cohen told the New Yorker.

Cohen said a voter could also show intent to live at the residence for an extended period of time with a driver’s license, tax form, or utility bill. “It’s a question of intent and evidence,” he said.

But the home’s previous owner said the home “didn’t even have a mailbox.” Abele, who has since installed one, said he has never received any mail for the Meadowses.

Cohen also noted that voters cannot list an address where they have not moved yet. Meadows listed his move-in date as the next day after the date on his voter registration form. Such violations are rarely caught or enforced.

“Meadows potentially committing voter fraud pretty much sums up the GOP’s ‘election integrity’ campaign in a nutshell,” tweeted Olivia Troye, who served as an adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence. “As always, hypocrisy at its finest.”

It’s unclear why Meadows registered at a North Carolina address where he did not live, rather than in Virginia, where he and his wife own a condo. There was speculation that Meadows would run for the seat of retiring Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., but he ultimately decided against it.

It would not be the first time that Meadows, a former real estate developer, may have misled the public about his property holdings. Meadows reportedly violated congressional ethics guidelines while serving as the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus by not listing his ownership of 134 acres in Dinosaur, Colorado, nor his sale of the property to notorious creationist Ken Ham’s Christian nonprofit, which sought to use fossils recovered there to prove that Earth was created in six days, The New Yorker reported in 2019.

“There appear to have been multiple reporting violations that occurred over a long period of time,” congressional ethics lawyer Brett Kappel told the magazine at the time, noting that Meadows had failed to list the property on any of his financial disclosures since running for Congress in 2012.

After leaving the White House, Meadows joined the Conservative Partnership Institute, a Washington nonprofit that aims to move the Republican Party even further to the right, several months before the House voted to form its committee to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Shortly after that, Trump’s Save America PAC donated $1 million to the group, a donation that NBC News reported stood out “both for its size and for its timing” as Meadows refused to cooperate with the panel and was held in contempt of Congress. Several months later, the Meadowses bought a $1.6 million lakefront estate in Sunset, South Carolina, according to the New Yorker, though Thibault told the outlet that their voter registration remains linked to the Scaly Mountain mobile home.

Many observers accused Meadows of hypocrisy for pushing Trump’s fraud lies while potentially violating voting laws himself.

“It appears Mark Meadows knows all about voter fraud in 2020 because he committed it himself,” tweeted former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, a key figure in the Watergate trial. “This is a remarkable story of apparent criminal behavior by Trump’s chief of staff. But I suspect voter fraud is the least of his offenses!”

Read more:

Even a mild COVID-19 infection can shrink your brain, study finds

Evidence is mounting that COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, does not merely affect the lungs, but also can have deleterious effects on the brain. Recently, a number of studies found that COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of neurological and psychiatric disorders, though the details around how the disease impacts the brain has remained unclear.

Now, according to the first study to compare brain scans of people before and after contracting COVID-19, researchers observed shrinkage and tissue damage in regions of the brain that are linked to mental capacities and smell after a person tested positive. The study was published in the journal Nature.

Researchers at the University of Oxford studied 785 people between the ages of 51 and 81 who received brain scans before and during the pandemic. More than half of the study’s participants tested positive for COVID-19 between the two scans. In the post-infection scans of those who tested positive, researchers found that patients had more gray matter shrinkage — particularly the parts of the brain that are linked to smell. They also observed significant brain shrinkage; specifically, 1.8 percent of the parahippocampal gyrus and 0.8% of the cerebellum compared to those who didn’t test positive. Brains shrink as we age, but people typically lose a very small fraction each year.

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

Those who tested positive for COVID-19 also scored lower on a mental skills test than those who didn’t get COVID-19. Notably, the effects were more significant in older people and those who were hospitalized by the COVID-19. However, the effects were still noticeable with those who had a mild or asymptomatic infection.

Professor Gwenaëlle Douaud, lead author on the study, said in a press statement that the researchers were in a unique position to observe both changes in the brain following a severe infection and a mild one.

“Despite the infection being mild for 96 per cent of our participants, we saw a greater loss of grey matter volume, and greater tissue damage in the infected participants, on average 4.5 months after infection,” Douaud said. “They also showed greater decline in their mental abilities to perform complex tasks, and this mental worsening was partly related to these brain abnormalities.”

Douaud added that the “key question” for future brain scan studies will be to see if this brain damage resolves over a long-period of time. Neuroplasticity allows the brain to change and adapt after experiencing an injury from a disease.

“The brain is plastic, which means that it can re-organize and heal itself to some extent, even in older people,” Douaud said, via The Guardian.

Experts who weren’t involved in the study have publicly commented that this study is convincing evidence that COVID-19 affects the brain. However, Dr. Serena Spudich, chief of neurological infections and global neurology at the Yale School of Medicine, cautioned follow-up research is needed to better understand the long-term impact.

“To make a conclusion that this has some long-term clinical implications for the patients I think is a stretch,” Spudich told The New York Times. “We don’t want to scare the public and have them think, ‘Oh, this is proof that everyone’s going to have brain damage and not be able to function.'”

As Salon has previously reported, more researchers have come around to the idea that COVID-19 isn’t merely a respiratory disease, or a cardiovascular disease, but instead a systemic one that affects multiple systems in the body.

“It’s a systemic virus that can actually result in long-term manifestations on multiple organ systems,” including the heart and kidneys, said Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, Chief of Research and Development at the VA St. Louis healthcare system.

Read more on COVID-19:

The “People’s Convoy,” like Trump’s new social media platform, is another right-wing grift gone bust

Fox News willed the “People’s Convoy” into being. For weeks, the network hyped the “trucker” protest in the Canadian capital of Ottawa, spinning it as a grassroots uprising of ordinary Canadians angry about vaccine mandates and other Covid-19 mitigation policies. In reality, however, it was organized by far-right activists — almost none of whom are actually truckers — whose goal was to exploit pandemic anxieties to recruit more people towards a fascist cause. And that is, of course, why Fox News loved it. And that’s why the network spent weeks not only glamorizing the occupation that made life hell in the city for weeks but openly begging their viewers to throw together their own version in the U.S. —except with more violence.

It’s a testament to the network’s power over its audience that soon there was a “People’s Convoy” in the U.S., even though there aren’t many vaccine or mask mandates for right-wingers to protest. A growing group of angry right-wingers, led by some big rig trucks, took road trips across the country, in theory to converge on D.C. to send this anti-mandate message. Without actual mandates to protest, however, it swiftly became clear that the real purpose of the convoy was to troll liberals and get attention. Quite literally, organizers declared their intention to be a “huge pain” to the residents of D.C., who have long been demonized in barely coded racist terms in the right-wing press.

Ultimately, however, the “People’s Convoy” didn’t have the courage of their flimsy convictions.

Despite massive amounts of self-aggrandizing hype and a fairly large, nearly all-white rally in Hagerstown, Maryland on Friday, the trolling truckers chickened out at the last minute when it came to actually entering Washington D.C. Instead, they’re staying inside their trucks and circling around the Beltway before hiding out again in Hagerstown. The whole thing couldn’t be a funnier symbol of the modern right, which likes to talk a big game about how tough they are, but in the end, are such scaredy cats that even being out of their cars in a bona fide city frightens them.

This debacle isn’t even the only example from over the weekend of how much right-wing politics is built on fakery and empty promises, all of which exploit the prime directive of the modern American conservative: irritate liberals.

On Saturday, Ruby Cramer of Politico published a devastating look at TRUTH Social, Donald Trump’s new Twitter knock-off. The app’s supposed appeal is that Trump’s team won’t be as hostile to spreading Covid disinformation and inciting right-wing violence. This, in turn, means Trump can tweet on it — or “truth” on it, to use their parlance, showing that the actual investment into this app is so meager that they didn’t even bother to find a verb of their own. But, as I argued last summer, that’s exactly why these right-wing social media silos are doomed to irrelevance — precisely because they don’t have liberals on them.

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

When the main motive is triggering the liberals, you need some liberals around to trigger. If Trump supporters want to experience a bunch of racists saying racist stuff to each other, happy hour with their friends is more fun and also has booze. And sure enough, Cramer reports that “inside the app, digital tumbleweeds blew through my feed.”

Part of it is due to incompetence, deliberate or otherwise. The app is slow and buggy and people who try to sign up find that there’s a massive backlog in account verifications. (Google Trends show the top searches regarding the app are “when will truth social work” and “truth social waitlist number not changing.”) But even if someone manages to get on, all they find is the usual Republican trolls in Congress — like Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia — simply copy-pasting their messages from Twitter. Otherwise, Cramer reports, “there isn’t much happening on the site.”

So I ask: If a troll is trolling no one, can it really be considered trolling?

To be certain, it’s not entirely clear that TRUTH Social is actually meant to be successful. Reports over the fall showed that the company, which is run by Trump lackey and former California congressman Devin Nunes, barely had a business plan. It looked very much like so many of Trump’s other ventures, which involve a lot of hype to attract investment money and then not a lot of delivery, leaving Trump richer and his investors feeling defrauded. The company needs to produce something app-shaped, to protect itself from lawsuits and criminal charges of deliberately defrauding investors. But it doesn’t actually need to work.

Similar questions linger over the People’s Convoy, which reportedly raised over a million dollars and is still fundraising now, even as attendees are starting the process of slinking away and pretending none of this ever happened. Sure enough, the Washington Post reported on Saturday that the organization that is taking in the money, American Foundation for Civil Liberties and Freedom, is run by a woman who pled guilty to felony fraud and exploitation in 2020. Currently, her arrest is sought “by authorities who allege she violated the terms of her community supervision.”

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

Right-wing politics in America has always been half ideological commitment and half about separating fools — almost always fellow conservatives — from their money. But in the Trump era, this ugly grifter streak on the right has become more pronounced. Part of it is because their leader, Trump, has built his entire career as a con man and a criminal, making it easier for his followers to be more blatant about their own fraudulent intentions. Part of it is because the right is increasingly devoid of any values or beliefs outside of simply hating liberals and whining. The result is empty and fake protests like the “People’s Convoy” or Trump’s empty and fake social media network.

The problem, unfortunately, is that the desire to trigger liberals is seemingly endless and getting harder for the right to satisfy.

This seemingly insatiable appetite on the right is a big part of the reason why figures like Tucker Carlson of Fox News or congressional newcomer Marjorie Taylor Greene are finding so much success by upping the ante with overt white nationalism and buddying up to Holocaust denialists. No doubt their racism is sincere, but their popularity on the right is deeply rooted in the perception that they are willing to do or say anything to offend the left. The failure of the “People’s Convoy” suggests that anti-vaccine rhetoric is running out of gas as a way to troll the left. What they will move on to get that same high is, unfortunately, likely to be even more repugnant.

What’s the deal with Jerry Seinfeld’s $70 million Pop-Tarts movie?

If the 2017 cinematic classic “The Emoji Movie” wasn’t proof enough that Hollywood might be running low on ideas, Jerry Seinfeld is here to carry the torch onwards. The comedian, actor and TV-show host is directing, starring and co-writing “Unfrosted,” a film that focuses on the origins of Pop-Tarts, the iconic American snack.

In a recurring stand-up bit, Seinfeld jokes about the brilliance of the frosted pastry, and his first encounter with it as a child. It seems that this one experience was enough to expand this sugary love affair into a feature-length picture.

Here’s Seinfeld talking about writing his Pop Tart joke:

When confirming the project to Deadline, Seinfeld said, “Stuck at home watching endless sad faces on TV, I thought this would be a good time to make something based on pure silliness.”

He added: “So we took my Pop-Tart stand-up bit from my last Netflix special and exploded it into a giant, crazy comedy movie.” He is joined in writing by Seinfeld alum Spike Feresten as well as comedian Barry Marder.

The endeavor however, is not particularly silly when it comes to the numbers involved. Deadline also reported that Netflix won distribution rights to the project following a bidding war, an unsurprising result when you see the amount of recent successful collaborations Seinfeld has undergone with the streaming giant. This includes “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee”, stand up special “23 Hours to Kill” and the exclusive streaming rights to his eponymous, classic sitcom.

Netflix was also recently granted a $60 million tax credit from the state of California to produce films within the Golden state. “Unfrosted” will take a cool $14.2 million from that, much to the creator’s delight.

“We are so happy to get the California tax credit which enables us to make our whole movie there,” said Seinfeld, as quoted in Variety.

As we carry on into 2022, creating art and media that represents the American people and shares untold stories is more important than ever. We can only hope that this important work does the Kellogg’s toaster pastry justice in sharing its truth.

More stories about what we watch and eat:

Trump pens note to NBC’s Lester Holt complaining about Bill Barr

Donald Trump lashed out at his former attorney general, Bill Barr, in a recently released three-page letter to NBC News host Lester Holt, complaining that Barr had “crumbled under the pressure, and bowed to the Radical Left.”

“Despite massive amounts of evidence, with far more produced after his leaving, [Barr] refused to go after the fraud and irregularities that had so openly taken place during the 2020 Presidential Election,” Trump raged. “It was sad to watch!”

“Barr was petrified of the Radical Left and what they would do to him,” the former president added. “The Election was totally corrupt, and we had no one fighting this corruption because Bill Barr did not have the courage to do so.”

Trump’s sharp missive, first obtained by Axios, came just days before the airing of Holt’s interview with Barr, who claimed that Trump should be held morally — not criminally — “responsible” for the Capitol riot on January 6.

“I do think he was responsible in the broad sense of that word, in that it appears that part of the plan was to send this group up to the Hill,” Barr told the NBC News host. “I think the whole idea was to intimidate Congress. And I think that that was wrong.”

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

Barr added, however, that he hasn’t “seen anything to say [Trump] was legally responsible for it in terms of incitement.”

Asked about Trump’s inflammatory letter, Barr said it was “par for the course.”

“The president is a man who, when he is told something he doesn’t want to hear, he immediately throws a tantrum,” Barr claimed.

Following his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, Trump repeatedly pressured Barr to have the Justice Department investigate the former president’s baseless claims of election fraud.

But Barr ultimately refused, citing a lack of evidence.

“I told [Trump] that all this stuff was bulls**t about election fraud,” the former attorney general recalled with Holt. “And, you know, it was wrong to be shoveling it out the way his team was.”

On December 1, 2020, just weeks after the election had been called, Barr was reportedly summoned to Trump’s office, where the ex-attorney general was offered to resign over his unwillingness to go along with Trump’s election conspiracy theories.

“He was asking about different theories, and I had the answers. I was able to tell him, ‘This was wrong because of this,'” Barr recounted.

Barr reportedly told Trump: “I understand you’re upset with me. And I’m perfectly happy to tender my resignation.”

“Accepted, accepted,” Trump allegedly responded. “Go home. Don’t go back to your office. Go home. You’re done.”

With bizarre rant, Trump offers a sneak peek into his second term

At a time when the world is watching a horrific war unfold before our very eyes in Europe, one might expect that a formal speech given by a former president of the United States would be a serious discussion of world events. And if it was a former president who was clearly intent upon running again it would seem to be imperative. To be sure, he might want to give a critique of the current president’s politics under those circumstances but they would be carefully considered and heavily couched in rhetoric of national unity, patriotism and support for America’s allies. For instance we can look back to a speech given by former vice president Al Gore after 9/11. The election results the previous year were very dubious and there was widespread anticipation that Gore might run again in a rematch in 2004. But beyond expressing support for President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath, Gore waited for three months before giving any extended remarks. He opened that speech with this:

A lot of people have let me know they wished I had been speaking out on public affairs long before now. But in the aftermath of a very divisive election, I thought it would be graceless to do so and possibly damaging to the nation. And then came September 11th.

Imagine that.

Gore went on to praise Bush’s handling of the Afghanistan operation and declared his loyalty to the country in the War on Terror, which seemed to be required in those first months. And there was plenty of jingoism too. But he also went on to give a thoughtful speech about the underlying causes of the problem and made the case for a holistic approach to dealing with the problem of terrorism:

“Draining the swamp” of terrorism must of course in the first instance mean destroying the ability of terrorist networks to function. But drying it up at its source must also mean draining the aquifer of anger that underlies terrorism: anger that enflames the hearts of so many young men, and makes them willing, dedicated recruits for terror. Anger at perceived historical injustices involving a mass-memory throughout the Islamic world of past glory and more recent centuries of decline and oppression at the hands of the West.

Like it or hate it, it was a sober, intelligent speech by the man a majority of Americans had voted to be president at that moment. There were no jokes, no whining about the lost election, no insults. It was the speech of a statesman, which anyone would expect from a former vice president and presidential candidate at such a serious time.

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

I know that for Americans the Ukraine war is not the equivalent of 9/11, although it certainly is for Ukrainians. But it’s a dangerous moment for the planet with a nuclear power testing the limits of the post-war international order and nuclear war being openly threatened. It’s already had an effect on the institutions and agreements we’ve depended upon for more than 75 years. European nations like Finland and Sweden are considering joining the NATO alliance for the first time, Switzerland has given up the neutrality and banking secrecy that defined it for many decades and both Germany and Japan are rapidly arming up.

The world order we’ve known has been under strain for some time. Trump’s turn as the leader of the United States accelerated the meltdown. This war in Ukraine may have finally forced world leaders to grapple with the consequences. This is not fun and games about “NATO dues” or ostentatious flattery and pageantry. This is serious business.

Unfortunately, the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, the front runner for the presidential nomination in 2024, the man who spent four years in the White House and should be expected to understand the stakes for the nation and the world at this juncture, simply cannot rise to the occasion.

Over the weekend (when he wasn’t dashing off angry letters to NBC’s Lester Holt complaining about former Attorney General Bill Barr) Donald Trump gave a major keynote speech to a group of deep pocketed GOP donors. Rather than take the opportunity to make a serious speech about foreign policy and national security, he gave a typical Donald Trump speech, which is to say (paraphrasing Joe Biden) a noun, a verb and rigged election. He did mention foreign policy but it was typically shallow and self-serving. The Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey wrote it up:

Former president Donald Trump mused Saturday to the GOP’s top donors that the United States should label its F-22 planes with the Chinese flag and “bomb the s–t out of Russia.”

He also praised North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “seriously tough,” claimed he was harder on Vladimir Putin than any other president, reiterated his false claims that he won the 2020 election, urged his party to be “tougher” on supposed election fraud, disparaged a range of prominent party opponents and called global warming “a great hoax” that could actually bring a welcome development: more waterfront property.

I guess they all had a great time yukking it up about war and dictators. The crowd laughed at his sophomoric “joke” about bombing the shit out of Moscow thought it was hilarious when he said how much he admired North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s hold on his people who “sat at attention” saying he wanted his people to do the same. (That’s not the first time he’s said that.)

In the span of a week, Trump has gone from praising Putin as "smart" for moving ahead with a land invasion because the penalty was relatively small in Trump's view, to saying let's create a more extensive war in which we blame someone else. https://t.co/603F7QbymH

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) March 6, 2022

He also reiterated his tiresome trope that Putin would never have invaded Ukraine when he was in office while also saying that the U.S. should do much more to stop the carnage without offering what that might be. In other words, he could have been any average guy calling in to a right-wing talk radio show.

Again, this man was president of the United States just a little over a year ago and this is the best he can do in a moment of crisis? Of course, we watched his ridiculous antics during the pandemic but at that point we didn’t know for sure that he would attempt a coup, incite an insurrection and then spend the next few years plotting his revenge. Observing him after all that in this particular crisis, with the threat of WWIII hanging in the balance, is downright terrifying.

I would just offer up this little clue as to what we should expect in a second term. Trump won’t be hiring any swamp creatures, he will be hiring people like this man, whom he previously nominated to be the Ambassador to Germany and installed in a senior position in the Pentagon right after the election.

Imagine that fellow as the National Security Adviser. Actually, you don’t have to. Trump’s first choice for that job was Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is even nuttier than he is.

If we thought that Trump might have gained some wisdom from his four years as president, maybe the thought of him gaining the White House once more wouldn’t send chills down my spine. But he’s made it crystal clear, over and over again, that he is incapable of learning anything. Sadly, that seems to be what his followers love and admire about him.

Dr. Justin Frank: Trump sees Putin as a superhero, loves “the power of his paranoid thinking”

Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to be exactly the kind of man that Donald Trump and his followers wish they could be. Putin is an authoritarian and a demagogue, who rules largely uncontested in a nation with an increasingly thin veneer of fake democracy. He imprisons, and sometimes kills, political foes and others deemed troublesome.

Putin treats his critics in the media and across civil society who do not support him as de facto enemies of the state, and suppresses free speech and human rights without apology. He is a kleptocrat and political gangster and an enemy of women’s rights and freedoms, who also oppresses LGBTQ people, racial and ethnic minorities, and other groups seen as opposed to his project of restoring a Russian empire.

Beyond Putin’s most obvious supporters, who include Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson and other right-wing leaders, public opinion research shows that rank-and-file Republicans (and especially Trump supporters) are also attracted to Putin’s authoritarian values and behavior.

White right-wing evangelical Christians, for example, are among the most influential members of the Republican base and Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters. They are especially enamored with Vladimir Putin, as Anthea Butler, one of America’s leading scholars of religion and race, explains in a new essay at MSNBC. She observes that evangelical leaders “have embraced Russia — and, more specifically, Putin,” but now find themselves caught in a bind after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has turned public opinion around the world strongly against the Russian leader:

But whether or not American evangelicals try to distance themselves from Putin in this current news cycle, they have long gravitated toward the Russian president for his hard-line stance against Muslims and, most importantly, his anti-LGBTQ agenda. Putin’s rhetoric about the nation, the family and the church (in this instance, the Russian Orthodox Church), has captivated many and spurred them to embrace similar kinds of political action here in America. Consider all of the anti-gay and anti-transgender laws that are cropping up in states like Texas and Florida. These laws are part of a constellation of family-focused conservative religious ideals also embraced by Putin and other Eastern European leaders who have clung to a hard line against any so-called “anti-family” ideology.

For members of the religious right, alliances with these leaders present a new frontier in their hope to achieve a theocracy in America. According to journalist Sarah Posner, those on the religious right see Eastern European countries that embrace the Orthodox Church and its family values as the way forward. Because of these interactions between Eastern Europe authoritarian leadership and religious and political leadership of the GOP in America, clampdowns in the U.S. on abortion rights, trans children’s rights and gay rights are therefore all coming back full force on the state level. We can’t of course forget that Trump’s consistent and solid support of Putin is also a significant factor.

Putin’s war in Ukraine has forced many Republicans and other right-wing leaders and spokespeople to try to remove the stink left by their years of support for the Russian regime. That is no easy task, considering that some former members of the Trump administration are saying the quiet part out loud: Trump was doing Putin’s work by weakening America’s ties to NATO alliance, thus, in effect, creating a zone of permission for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

As John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, explained in a recent interview with the Washington Post, if Trump had followed through on his threats to remove the U.S. from NATO — an outcome Putin longed for — Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would have almost certainly occurred even sooner than it did.

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

To discuss these matters and others, I recently had a conversation with Dr. Justin Frank, whom I have interviewed on several previous occasions. Dr. Frank is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center and a physician with more than 40 years of experience in psychoanalysis. He is the author of the bestselling books “Bush on the Couch,” “Obama on the Couch” and, in 2018, “Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.”

In our most recent conversation, Frank explores how Vladimir Putin functions for Donald Trump: as a type of big brother and role model, perhaps even a father figure. Putin is a projection of Trump’s deepest fantasies and wish fulfillment, Frank argues, a killer, warrior and political strongman who has the power to act with impunity against his personal and political foes. Frank also offers the opinion that fundamentally Donald Trump is a weak and cowardly person who is attracted to violence and mayhem, but relies on others to act on those antisocial and evil desires on his behalf.

Trump’s repeated threats of murderous violence against Hillary Clinton and other leading Democrats, Frank argues, as well as Trump’s impulse to call for a “race war” are very serious, and not the idle threats that many among the American news media and political class would like to believe. Toward the end of this conversation, Dr. Frank suggests that Vladimir Putin is ultimately a superhero figure for Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, other Republican fascists and members of the larger white right who yearn to replace democracy with authoritarianism. For them, Putin is a type of protector figure and idol, acting out his worst impulses with near-total impunity — at least prior to his setbacks in Ukraine, which have made him appear vulnerable in the face of world opinion.

During one of our previous conversations, you warned that Donald Trump would only become more like his true self as he got older. It would appear you were correct. Trump continued to praise Vladimir Putin, right up to the moment of the Ukraine invasion, and Trump’s rhetoric continues to suggest that he is trying to incite a “race war” and continuing to scheme about how to regain power.

What we are seeing now is Trump’s true self. He is a paranoid, frightened man, driven by a lust for revenge. One of the things that he shares with Putin is that they both want to get revenge for the slights and hurts they believe they have suffered. And it’s one of the things that the two of them have in common that is quite striking and startling to me. I believe that Vladimir Putin was humiliated by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He wants revenge against NATO and the United States. But Putin did not have to act while Donald Trump was still in office. As long as Trump was in office, Trump could damage the United States without Putin’s direct help. Trump was already destroying many American political and societal institutions. Putin was able to sit back and enjoy it.

What about Vladimir Putin does Trump admire the most? For Trump, what is that relationship like?

When Trump looks at Vladimir Putin, he sees an older brother. Trump also sees in Putin a man who has the courage of his paranoid thinking. Trump would never lead an army into war; he dodged the draft with fake bone spurs. Putin is not like that. Putin is a former KGB agent who has likely killed people personally. Trump admires that. Trump looks up to Putin and sees him as a type of ideal. Trump likes the fact that Putin is a killer who has the courage to act on the things that Trump just talks and fantasizes about doing.

Trump is obsessed with violence. When he threatens violence and mayhem he is not kidding. None of it is hyperbole or some type of joke. So few public voices are willing to state that basic fact consistently and with clarity.

He is very sick and dangerous. He is the type of person who instigates the violence and then hides out in a bunker and watches it happen. Many of the Republican Party’s leaders are cowards. But they do have people who act on their behalf, like those right-wing street thugs and the other people who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6. Those people are not cowards. They are dangerous and destructive people who are capable of killing and other violence.

Those street thugs and other people who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection represent the deepest wishes of who Trump wants to be. Trump wishes he could have that strength and that courage, or that capacity to be directly violent. He does not. Instead, Trump sues people and cheats them.

Why are so many Americans still in denial about Trump and the imminent danger he represents? I have received many emails from readers of my essays and people who listen to my podcasts who almost plead with me to stop warning people about Trump and his movement. They appear to believe that ignoring the problem will somehow save them.

They want to stop thinking about it. Those people who email you because they don’t want you to talk about Donald Trump are afraid of confronting their inner self. They do not want to face who they are deep inside. Such people also don’t want to think about the other real nature of America — that we also have fantasies of violence and revenge

Given what is now publicly known about Trump and his cabal’s coup plot, what has been most surprising or disturbing for you?

Everybody has a part of their personality that hates reality. Hopefully, that is a small part of their personality. By comparison, Donald Trump hates reality. He attacks reality. Trump also hates critical thinking. He has this ability to tap into a part of the human mind that wants to live in a fantasy world. That is why so many of his followers truly believe in the Big Lie and Trump’s other lies about the 2020 election. They see him the way they see themselves — as victims.

At one of his recent rallies Donald Trump used language that suggested he was trying to incite a “race war” and other acts of violence. He has also continued to publicly threaten the life of Hillary Clinton. I am one of the few people who have written about that. Why is there so much denial among the mainstream news media and others who are supposed to keep the American people informed?

It is a very scary thing to be forced to confront our own violent and destructive impulses. That is especially true in this country, because many Americans don’t want to confront the fact that it is their fellow Americans who are making such threats. It is a deep type of denial and fantasy. That also explains why so many people in the American news media won’t talk about Trump’s threats of violence and killing and destruction. It scares them too, so they normalize or even dismiss the deadly seriousness of his threats.

What is Trump’s emotional relationship with Putin and these other strongman-type leaders?

It’s an unconscious love of somebody who can be more violent than you are. It is the love of a person who can do the things you are afraid to do. Political strongmen also provide a type of illusory protection for feelings of hatred and violence. That’s why Trump’s rallies were so powerful. He told his followers to act on their hatred and violence and that he would pay their legal fees if they got in trouble.

How would Trump respond if his violent threats and fantasies were to come true?

Donald Trump does not feel guilt. He would say, “I didn’t really say such a thing.” Trump would deny his murderous threats, both to the public and to himself. Trump wants to overthrow the United States’ system of government, but he also would deny those thoughts and behavior the same way.

Would Trump feign guilt? Would he be remorseful?

Again, Trump would deny that he ever wished such a thing. You could play a video recording of Trump saying such things and he would deny it. Trump would say it was all fake and not real.

If you were conducting some type of group therapy with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, how would you direct the conversation?

With Trump, I would say, “How does it feel to be a con artist? What’s it like? Who actually loves you? Who do you love? What’s it like to just fool people all the time?” I would ask Vladimir Putin, “How does it feel to kill people?”

What would you focus on in terms of their relationship with each other?

I would say, “Not only are you a coward, Donald, you love to make Putin strong so that you can vicariously feel like you’re a killer. You embolden Putin to be more of a killer because you are too afraid to do it yourself. And you push your murderousness onto him, psychologically. Donald, that is why you idealize these killers and totalitarian dictators.”

What about the Republican politicians and Tucker Carlson and other prominent right-wing figures who are enabling that relationship? They have been all in on supporting Putin, at least until now.

They love his violence and power. It is all an example of what is known as “identification with the aggressor.” Tucker Carlson idealizes people who he can’t be like in real life, but Tucker wants to be on the same side they are. The Republican Party’s leaders are the same way. You can identify with them so you can hide your own aggression behind them and feel safe. It is the same reason why people ally with bullies: They don’t want the bully to turn on them. In their minds, as long as you idealize Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump, they are never going to turn on you. Trump has the same dynamic with Putin. Trump feels stronger when he loves Putin. He feels stronger around dictators. It makes him feel like more of a man.

Vladimir Putin is a type of superhero for Donald Trump and the Republicans and the Tucker Carlson types. The psychological dynamic is: “He will make me feel safe from some authority figure or stronger person who might want to kill me. He will make me safe and powerful I don’t have to worry about risking my life.” That is why Trump and the Republicans and so many on the right idolize Putin.

Fighting back against CRT panic: Educators organize around the threat to academic freedom

Last week, the nonprofit College Board, which oversees things like SAT exams and Advanced Placement courses, tentatively waded into the school wars. The board published a new set of principles opposing censorship, supporting academic freedom and, most potently, noting that school bans that affect required subjects for AP courses could result in those classes losing their AP credits. As bans on teaching anything from systemic racism to LGBTQ issues to basic history proliferate around the country, the College Board’s statement represents just one way that institutions of higher education are beginning to take a stand.

In mid-February, the Faculty Council of the University of Texas in Austin voted to approve a resolution proactively “affirming the fundamental rights of faculty to academic freedom in its broadest sense, inclusive of research and teaching of race and gender theory.” The resolution rejected any efforts to restrict curricula at UT, and called on the school’s president to fight any attempts to dictate what professors can teach that might arise down the line.

Most of the time, resolutions like this — which carry no actual force — are destined to be archived and quickly forgotten. But this one was different, as Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a far-right Republican and a hero to conservatives across the nation, responded vehemently on Twitter, writing, “I will not stand by and let looney Marxist UT professors poison the minds of young students with Critical Race Theory. We banned it in publicly funded K-12 and we will ban it in publicly funded higher ed.” At a press conference several days later, Patrick added a new threat to end tenure in Texas for all future faculty hires and to revoke tenure for any faculty members who teach CRT, in order to fire them.

“To these professors who voted 41 to five telling the taxpayers, and the parents and the Legislature and your own Board of Regents to get out of their business, that we have no say in what you do in the classroom, you’ve opened the door for this issue because you went too far,” Patrick said. “We’re going to take this on.”

But the UT resolution was just one among a number of forceful statements that have emerged in recent weeks, many of them shaped by the advocacy of the African American Policy Forum (AAPF), a progressive think tank cofounded by law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, a foundational scholar of critical race theory and intersectionality, and political scientist Luke Harris.

After conservatives began to attack the supposed spread of CRT in late 2020, says AAPF’s director of strategic initiatives Sumi Cho, the organization sounded an early alarm about how school politics might be weaponized against civil rights. The group launched a new campaign, the Truth Be Told initiative, to defend accurate race and gender education in schools. In partnership with the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center at Howard University, the initiative also runs a hotline for educators facing harassment or threats of termination for what they teach, in addition to campaigning for colleges and universities to release faculty resolutions in support of academic freedom. It also created a model resolution that faculty at higher ed institutions could use to formalize their response. To date, AAPF says some 20 colleges and universities, in at least 16 states, have introduced a version of their model resolution, or one with similar intentions, with others likely to join soon.

Cho spoke with Salon in late February.

How was the Truth Be Told initiative started?

As soon as President Trump announced Executive Order 13950 in September 2020, primarily targeting diversity training by federal agencies, AAPF recognized the danger this would have to a range of things. We joined other civil rights organizations to support litigation against the order. When President Biden was inaugurated, he promptly rescinded the order and replaced it with one pursuing equity in federal agencies. But that didn’t eliminate the problem of the issue spreading to the states, in part because of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the coordination of conservative legislation measures at their December 2020 summit, which specifically targeted critical race theory (CRT) for state action. We saw a proliferation of legislation throughout the states, funded by dark money and promoted through Fox News and other sources.

From the spring of 2021 through the end of the year, we saw over a dozen states pass legislation seeking to restrict the discussion of race and gender justice. But by the beginning of 2022 it became an even meaner and more extreme campaign, in both quantity and severity. There were 66 bills introduced in 2021, while in January 2022 alone there were more than 70. A lot of the original “white discomfort” bills in 2021 drew from ALEC’s December 2020 workshop and focused on things like “divisive concepts,” “discomfort” or race and sex stereotyping. That was the template for those bills, and as a result, a lot of them were very vague in terms of what they would prohibit, but they definitely had a severe chilling effect.

With the election of Glenn Youngkin in Virginia, politicians began to see they might fulfill their ambitions for higher office by riding this anti-CRT train. It spawned a race to the bottom with more extreme bills in 2022, which, in addition to targeting CRT and prohibiting teaching about systemic racism or sexism, sometimes also target higher education. In 2021, only Idaho, Iowa and Oklahoma did that; now there are over 20 states with pending legislation targeting higher education.

The 2022 legislation also includes a lot more mandatory punishment. Oklahoma’s pending bill gives parents the right to object to any book in a public school library. If that book isn’t removed within 30 days, the librarian must be fired and cannot be rehired for two years and the complainant is eligible for $10,000 a day in damages until the book is removed. In Wisconsin, there are monetary damages up to $50,000. It’s obvious these measures are designed to cripple public education.

You also see private causes of actions that follow from the Texas anti-abortion bill, where you give parents and individuals the ability to sue teachers and school districts. That led to the phenomenon of Moms for Liberty essentially putting a bounty on teachers‘ heads, offering $500 for whoever could turn up the first violation of the New Hampshire gag order.

We also see the scope going beyond race and gender to the “Don’t Say Gay” bills, which in Florida were so egregious that their proponents had to pull back their proposal for mandatory outing — that if an administrator, teacher or even a student reported another student was not heterosexual, that information would have to be reported to the parents within six weeks.

These are the surveillance states being set up to monitor teachers and chill the environment for free inquiry and critical discussion, with the overall purpose of undermining public education and multiracial democracy.

Can you talk more about how these attacks add up to an assault on public education as a system?

The conservative think tanks that have promulgated this entire disinformation campaign — like Christopher Rufo’s work with the Manhattan Institute and the Heritage Foundation — have made clear their attempts to undermine public education through vouchers, charter schools and opposition to teachers’ unions. In November, just after the Virginia elections, Rufo bragged about his success to New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg, saying, “We are right now preparing a strategy of laying siege” to these “public schools [that] are waging war against American children and American families.” In response, he proposed using the traditional school choice agenda of private school vouchers, charter schools and homeschooling to combat this existential threat he perceived.

So you don’t have to take my word for it. The architect of this entire campaign, who’s also been clear that he doesn’t know what CRT is and doesn’t care, is simply trying to put all the “cultural insanities” under one brand to render it toxic.

Considering AAPF founder Kimberlé Crenshaw’s role in creating the CRT framework, what is it like, as an organization, to be at the center of this storm?

It’s like ground zero. On the other hand, it’s quite a testament to the power of the work and the persuasive function it’s had around the world, among very diverse audiences, especially young people. And I think that is the threat, because this is within the pattern of backlash that we’ve seen since Reconstruction whenever there is racial reform.

AAPF’s Truth Be Told campaign is primarily concerned about the long-term effects of this backlash on the broad ability to research, teach, talk and think about race, gender and social justice issues, due to this coordinated campaign to undermine the public’s belief in public education, multiracial democracy and intersectional justice. Kimberlé Crenshaw is concerned that this current backlash, like the one following Reconstruction, will endure for not just a season, but a century.

Can you talk about how the campaigns targeting schools have expanded, from teaching about racial discrimination, to book bans, to proposals that schools actually out their LGBTQ students?

It does seem mind-boggling. When you read the UT resolution, it’s very modest, simply saying, “Let’s support the principles of academic freedom and the right of faculty to teach CRT and about race and gender justice.” Why would that prompt the unhinged outburst by Lt. Gov. Patrick, saying he wants to fire any critical race scholar in Texas and then remove tenure for all new hires?

But I think you have to go back to a quarter century ago, when George H.W. Bush accepted his party’s nomination in 1988, and announced that he would be campaigning on the theme of a “kinder and gentler” America, perhaps recognizing a need to be more inclusive amid the changing demographics of America. This was back when we had real voting rights, of course. And so now, when you fast-forward to the evisceration of voting rights and the rise of white nationalism under Trump, we see that strategy has dramatically changed. It’s no longer about accepting the promise of a multiracial democracy. It’s quite the opposite.

It’s a very cynical attempt to win back the white suburban vote — the white women who may have marched against the murder of George Floyd — with this manufactured “parental rights,” “your child is being branded a racist” campaign. I think it started there, to reach into the darkest fears politicians thought they could take advantage of, but it was always intended to grow larger.

How did AAPF’s model resolution for college faculty come about, and what role are these resolutions playing?

All along, the Truth Be Told campaign has made very clear that we don’t think the goal is simply to defend against these negative things, but to proactively stand up for a robust vision of what multiracial democracy means and requires. We don’t simply want to push back against these bills, but to create dynamic learning environments for all of our children.

That’s the province of faculty, that through their research and scholarship, they need to be the primary unit involved in curriculum, and administrations have to support that. Almost all of them do. So this is a proactive campaign we developed, thinking about the foundations of higher education being grounded in academic freedom and using it to say, that must be respected, whether you agree with or teach CRT or not.

That’s what the campaign was about: providing a template for faculty to be able to say as a unit, “This is important. We see this important principle on which higher ed is being breached currently by outside forces, and we call upon our administrations to defend this important principle.”

What has the process been like when it comes to collaborating with these schools?

After we held a 2021 CRT summer school, we drafted an open letter notifying people about this campaign and our template for defending academic freedom. We posted the template, and various suggestions and tools people could use, on our website. We have tireless faculty working out of our Truth Be Told education working group, like Jennifer Ruth at Portland State, Valerie Johnson at DePaul University, Emily Houh at University of Cincinnati, and Ellen Schrecker, the foremost expert on McCarthyism, who believes we are now witnessing the new McCarthyism. We had a strategy of reaching out to every public university flagship in the 50 states and hoped it would ripple out from there, which it has. We just heard today that UC Riverside passed the resolution.

But governance is a process, and you need to introduce things. At UT Austin, it had to go through three separate committees. So it can be a months-long process. We launched this back in the beginning of the school year, and it’s just now beginning to bear fruit. We do believe that it will bear further fruit, especially after all of the national publicity around Lt. Gov. Patrick’s unhinged reaction.

I’ve heard from faculty at other schools trying to introduce resolutions like this who are frustrated by the slowness of the process, at a time that seems to call for more urgency.

Faculty are notoriously bad at the resolution process because of the endless nuance they attach to every single word. Given this tendency, it’s even more impressive that nearly two dozen academic senate faculties have considered and debated these issues before passing these resolutions, typically by an overwhelming margin.

That’s also why we offered a template, knowing a lot of common questions would come up and giving people a starting place, but inviting them to modify it according to their own institutional needs and history. We welcome whenever people do modify it, like the University of Alabama did. But yes, it does seem as though there is a wildfire, and many people in higher ed haven’t quite noticed that it’s actually at their doorstep.

The long game of these conservative think tanks that are intent on eliminating public education, not only at the K-12 level but also in higher ed, implicates and reaches all of us. And we need to be as on top of it and as coordinated as ALEC was back in December 2020, when they held their anti-CRT seminar for state legislators.

The expansion of these attacks to higher education seems surprising, given how much of the rationale for the K-12 bills and laws was protecting impressionable children from “indoctrination.”

I think that that speaks to this race to the bottom, with the meaner and more extreme versions of these various bills in 2022, just to make a national name for oneself. But it does leave the proponents unprepared for scrutiny, as the Indiana sponsor found out when his bill essentially demanding a both-sides approach to teaching about Nazism was properly ridiculed.

I think we’re seeing people who don’t know anything about CRT, don’t know anything about academic freedom or free speech, and don’t know anything about higher education writing these bills filled with contradictions and incoherencies. They can’t even answer for what they’re putting in their bills, like still sticking with the “parental rights” language they used to power the K-12 legislation without realizing that, in higher ed, you’re talking about young adults who are supposed to be their own creators of knowledge.

If we’re facing a new McCarthyism, how do people fight back?

The new McCarthyism is not unlike the old McCarthyism, where you just blend something with ad hominem, and freeze the conversation by putting it into this negative category you hope people won’t touch. I think by engaging history — what happened then, what was wrong with it and what we don’t want to repeat — those are exactly the sort of lessons we are undertaking with CRT. We look at the problems, the mistakes we’ve made in the past as a country in terms of structural subordination, unfairness and the ways in which even in an allegedly colorblind society with civil rights laws we are still reproducing rampant, visible and durable inequalities. And if we want to change that, we have to get to the essence of the analysis. That’s what these bills are trying to prevent.

As a parent with two kids currently in college — at USC, of all places — it strikes me that the politicians and parents behind this closing of the American mind are doing just as big of a disservice to their young people as the parents arrested under Operation Varsity Blues. If you read about the children involved in those scandals, they’re angry at their parents for not believing in them. In a similar way, I think that people undertaking these actions are also doing a disservice to their young adults by taking away their ability to engage in the very conversations that students from every neighborhood, of every race, religion and background, desperately want to engage in. They understand the challenges of living in a multiracial society and are very hungry for these conversations, whether they agree with all the conclusions or not.

The politicians claiming they know what’s best for students and even parents taking up the mantle are in for a rude surprise: These efforts are really not appreciated by their own students.

Ex-Fox News director who helped Russian oligarch launch propaganda network arrested

A former Fox News director who helped a Russian oligarch launch a propaganda network was arrested last month in London on charges that he helped the oligarch dodge sanctions, according to newly unsealed court documents.

John Hanick, who worked at Fox News for 15 years, beginning when the network first launched in 1996, was charged with violating sanctions and lying to the FBI in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

Hanick, who left Fox in 2011, spent four years working for sanctioned Russian oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev, who is “closely tied to Russian aggression in Ukraine,” the Justice Department said in a news release.

The DOJ said that Hanick’s work for the oligarch had violated sanctions imposed by the Treasury Department in 2014 in response to Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea territory. The Treasury at the time called Malofeyev “one of the main sources of financing for Russians promoting separatism in Crimea.”

“Hanick knowingly chose to help Malofeyev spread his destabilizing messages by establishing, or attempting to establish, TV networks in Russia, Bulgaria and Greece, in violation of those sanctions,” Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen, who oversees the National Security Division, said in a statement.

Though the charges stem from past sanctions and not the latest slew of economic sanctions imposed on Russian oligarchs in response to the invasion of Ukraine, U.S. Attorney Damian Williams stressed that Hanick’s indictment shows the department’s commitment to the “enforcement of laws intended to hamstring those who would use their wealth to undermine fundamental democratic processes. This office will continue to be a leader in the Justice Department’s work to hold accountable actors who would support flagrant and unjustified acts of war.”

Malofeyev, a banker, is a prominent right-wing figure in Russia with ties to far-right politicians in the U.S. and Europe, according to the New York Times. Malofeyev hired Hanick in 2013 to build a Russian cable news network, according to the DOJ. The network was called Tsargrad TV and was intended to be a Russian version of Fox News, according to the indictment.

“In many ways, Tsargrad is similar to what Fox News has done. We started from the idea that there are many people who adhere to traditional values and they absolutely need a voice,” Malofeyev told the Financial Times in 2015.

Hanick later moved to Greece to launch a TV network that would provide an “opportunity to detail Russia’s point of view on Greek TV,” Hanick wrote to Malofeyev, according to the court documents. He also traveled to Bulgaria to purchase a TV network on behalf of the oligarch, the DOJ alleged.

In an interview with FBI agents in February 2021, Hanick admitted that he knew that his boss was under sanctions, but falsely claimed he did not know about Malofeyev’s connection to the Bulgarian network, according to the indictment.

The DOJ alleged that Hanick “reportedly directly back to Malofeyev” about his efforts in Greece and Bulgaria but “took steps to conceal Malofeyev’s role in the acquisition by arranging to travel to Bulgaria with another person identified by a Greek associate of Malofeyev, so that it would appear the buyer was a Greek national rather than Malofeyev.”

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

Prosecutors learned about Hanick’s activities from an unpublished memoir that was “discovered by investigators through a judiciously authorized search of Hanick’s email account,” according to the indictment.

Hanick was arrested in London last month and is awaiting extradition. He faces up to 25 years in prison in convicted on both charges.

The indictment described Hanick as a former Fox News producer, although a Fox News spokesperson describes him as a “weekend daytime director.”

Hanick and Malofeyev appear to have connected over religion. The Times reported that Malofeyev is a “devoted follower” of the Russian Orthodox faith and Hanick and his family joined the Russian Orthodox church after moving to Moscow. Hanick complained in a 2013 interview flagged by Right Wing Watch that in the U.S., “serious problems, including the decline of morals … brought the separation of church and state” and praised Russia for its state embrace of religion.

Malofeyev, who sought to launch a Russian Orthodox-based news network, is also a proponent of bringing back Russia’s monarchy.

“The quasi-monarchy that we basically now have is a very good thing,” he told the Times in 2020, after Russian President Vladimir Putin was re-elected. “If we were now to start calling him emperor, not president, then we wouldn’t have to change much in the Constitution.”

The indictment was unsealed after the Justice Department launched Task Force KleptoCapture as part of the Biden administration’s sanctions on Russia over its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Attorney General Merrick Garland said last Wednesday that the task force will “use all of its authorities to seize the assets of individuals and entities” who violate sanctions against Russia.

President Joe Biden, during his State of the Union address last week, said that his administration would move to seize assets from sanctioned Russian oligarchs.

“We are joining with our European allies to find and seize your yachts your luxury apartments your private jets,” he said. “We are coming for your ill-begotten gains.”

Read more:

Trump belittles NATO during donor speech

Donald Trump on Friday lashed out during remarks to Republican National Committee donors in Louisiana on Saturday.

Josh Dawsey of The Washington Post and Alex Isenstadt of Politico both reported obtaining a recording of Trump’s remarks.

Dawsey reported Trump referred to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) as “terrible” and complained “that dumb son of a b*tch” George Conway. He also reportedly called NATO a “paper tiger” as Russia continues it’s invasion of Ukraine.

Isenstadt reported Trump predicted Republicans will win the presidency in 2024.

“We will see a Republican president reclaim that beautiful White House in 2024. I wonder who that might be,” Trump said. “We are looking at it very, very strongly, because we have to do it, we have to do it.”

Conway was undeterred by the criticism from the former leader of the free world.

“He’s just jealous I can spell,” Conway said, with a face with tears of joy emoji.

He's just jealous that I can spell. 😂 https://t.co/Id79Hl0sjJ

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) March 6, 2022

New report shows details of Trump’s unraveling

The New York Times on Saturday published a detailed account of what led two prosecutors involved with the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into former President Donald Trump’s business practices to abruptly resign last month—a “seismic development” that some experts had called “troubling.”

The probe was launched under the former district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., who did not seek reelection. When prosecutors Carey Dunne and Mark Pomerantz resigned, the newspaper reported that it was because the new DA, Alvin Bragg, had concerns about moving forward with the case.

Following up on their initial reporting, a trio at the Times provided an “account of the investigation’s unraveling, drawn from interviews with more than a dozen people knowledgeable about the events,” which “pulls back a curtain on one of the most consequential prosecutorial decisions in U.S. history,” given that Trump would be the first president to be criminally charged.

Prosecutor Cary Dunne acknowledged case against Trump no "slam dunk" but argued better to lose than to not try at all -“It’s a righteous case that ought to be brought,” Dunne told Mr. Bragg. Lack of courage not a lack of evidence allowed Trump's escape.https://t.co/w9vZrdRTSx

— Shanlon Wu (@shanlonwu) March 6, 2022

Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, and Jonah E. Bromwich laid out major developments in the probe and at the office from Vance’s final days to the resignations—including a December 9 meeting of the former DA’s “brain trust,” the public relations “firestorm” Bragg faced over criminal justice reforms and high-profile shootings, and intense discussions between the new district attorney and the two prosecutors in January and February.

As Protess, Rashbaum, and Bromwich reported:

Mr. Bragg was not the only one to question the strength of the case, the interviews show. Late last year, three career prosecutors in the district attorney’s office opted to leave the investigation, uncomfortable with the speed at which it was proceeding and with what they maintained were gaps in the evidence. The tension spilled into the new administration, with some career prosecutors raising concerns directly to the new district attorney’s team.

Mr. Bragg, whose office is conducting the investigation along with lawyers working for New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, had not taken issue with Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz presenting evidence to the grand jury in his first days as district attorney. But as the weeks passed, he developed concerns about the challenge of showing Mr. Trump’s intent—a requirement for proving that he criminally falsified his business records—and about the risks of relying on the former president’s onetime fixer, Michael D. Cohen, as a key witness.

The prosecutors quit the day after the new district attorney told them that “he did not want to continue the grand jury presentation” and was not prepared to authorize charges against Trump, according to the report, which noted that “Mr. Dunne and Mr. Pomerantz also bristled at how Mr. Bragg had handled the investigation at times.”

While Pomerantz and Dunne declined to comment, Danielle Filson, a spokesperson for Bragg, said that “this is an active investigation and there is a strong team in place working on it.” She added that the probe is being led by Susan Hoffinger, the executive assistant district attorney in charge of the office’s Investigation Division.

Responding to the new report, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted that “this is a remarkable article that gives us an inside look into the Manhattan DA’s deliberations regarding whether to charge Trump. If you believe prosecutors should indict Trump, it’s worth reading. We rarely get a window into prosecution decisions.”

3/ Bringing criminal charges in a complex white collar case is not as simple as some Twitter lawyers (and non-lawyers) would have you believe.

Prosecutors aren’t supposed to charge people unless they can prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And they don’t want to lose.

— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) March 5, 2022

According to Mariotti, it is not possible to tell from the Times‘ reporting “whether the current Manhattan DA is making the right call. We don’t know the evidence his team has, and ultimately they could develop evidence that convinces them to file charges.”

“I wouldn’t be surprised if other prosecutors agonize over charging Trump. Not because they believe he’s above the law, but because of issues with the evidence they have,” he added. “If you’re convinced that other prosecutors are doing nothing, they might be doing what this one did.”

The sappy, poignant, and risqué love letters of 7 world leaders

Napoleon Bonaparte was a bit of a clinger. Richard Nixon was shockingly sweet. And Warren Harding was a smut peddler.

We learn a lot about world leaders when the love letters they’ve written to their sweethearts become public. The results can either be humanizing or humiliating — and there’s been plenty of both over the years. Check out some of the sweetest, strangest, and steamiest love letters written by seven world leaders.

1. RICHARD NIXON’S SHOCKINGLY SWEET LOVE LETTERS TO HIS FUTURE WIFE, PAT

Sappiest line: “Let’s go for a long ride Sundays; let’s go to the mountains weekends; let’s read books in front of fires; most of all let’s really grow together and find the happiness we know is ours.”

The list of words used to describe Richard Nixon over the past 70 years is long and not particularly flattering — and chances are, not many people would have described the 37th president of the United States as a romantic. But it turns out the brusque politician could really lay on the schmaltz in his pre-White House days.

In 2012, love letters written to his soon-to-be wife, Pat, were put on display at the Nixon Library, and they show [PDF] a whole different side of Tricky Dick:

Dearest Heart

As I look out the window at the clouds with the sun trying to break through, I am thinking of how much you have meant to me the past two years.

Do you remember that funny guy who asked you to go to a 20-30 ladies night just about two years ago?

Well — you know that though he still may be funny — he’s changed since then. But you may not know — dear one — that he still gets the same thrill when you say you’ll go someplace with him — that he did when you said one time that he could take you for a ride in his car!

And did you know that he still looks out the window toward wherever you are and sends you the best he has in love, admiration, respect, and ‘best of luck’?

And when the wind blows and the rains fall and the sun shines through the clouds (as it is now) he still resolves, as he did then, that nothing so fine ever happened to him or anyone else as falling in love with Thee — my dearest heart —

Love,

Dick

The two met while auditioning for roles in a community theater production of “The Dark Tower” in 1938 — Nixon, the thespian! — and were married after two years of courtship and maudlin letters. Though critics called their marriage loveless and “dingy” while they occupied the White House, those closest to them told a different story. Former Secretary of State Alexander Haig said that “[Nixon] worshipped Pat,” and the couple was often found watching movies together or relaxing at the Camp David pool during their rare downtime.

The couple remained together until Pat’s death in 1993. Less than a year later, Richard Nixon followed at the age of 81.

2. WARREN HARDING’S X-RATED LETTERS TO HIS MISTRESS

Most scandalous lines: “Wouldn’t you like to get sopping wet out on Superior — not the lake — for the joy of fevered fondling and melting kisses? Wouldn’t you like to make the suspected occupant of the next room jealous of the joys he could not know, as we did in morning communion at Richmond?”

Yikes. Of all the historical documents the U.S. government would unearth, the erotic writings of President Warren G. Harding couldn’t have been high up on anyone’s wishlist. These ribald notes were written while Harding was lieutenant governor of Ohio and later through his stint as senator, stopping before his presidential inauguration in 1921. The only problem is that the letters weren’t written to his wife, Florence, but instead to her close friend — and the couple’s neighbor, Carrie Fulton Phillips — with whom he had an ongoing affair.

In the letters, Harding described the “glorious kisses and fond caresses” of their secret dalliances, while bemoaning his own marriage as “merely existence, necessary for appearance’s sake.” To throw people off their trail, Harding concocted a lurid code for his writing, referring to his penis as “Jerry” and her genitalia as “Mrs. Pouterson.” (“Wish I could take you to Mount Jerry. Wonderful spot,” Harding once wrote.)

And it’s more than just the standard letters of lust — Harding also threw in some racy poetry, like this little number from January 1912:

I love to suck
Your breath away
I love to cling —
There long to stay . . .

I love you garb’d
But naked more
Love your beauty
To thus adore . . .

Eventually, the whole affair went south, with some theories saying Phillips’s pro-German sentiment was a strain on Harding as a politician during World War I (some even believed she was a spy), and others claiming she became infuriated over his affairs with other women (of which Harding apparently had many).

The letters themselves were ordered sealed by the courts until July 29, 2014, when they were released for all the world to blush over. Phillips probably should have just listened to Harding‘s plea from a January 1913 letter when he told her, “I have been thinking about all those letters you have. I think you [should] have a fire, chuck ’em!”

3. NAPOLEON BONAPARTE’S TURBULENT LOVE LETTERS TO JOSEPHINE

Most fiery lines: “You are going to be here beside me, in my arms, on my breast, on my mouth? Take wing and come, come . . . A kiss on your heart, and one much lower down, much lower!”

Before he was crowned emperor of France in 1804, Napoleon was leading armies, consolidating his power, and pitching woo to Josephine de Beauharnais, who would become his wife and empress. And one look at his early love letters shows a conqueror who isn’t shy about displaying his passions — or his clinginess:

Since I left you, I have been constantly depressed. My happiness is to be near you. Incessantly I live over in my memory your caresses, your tears, your affectionate solicitude. The charms of the incomparable Josephine kindle continually a burning and a glowing flame in my heart. When, free from all solicitude, all harassing care, shall I be able to pass all my time with you, having only to love you, and to think only of the happiness of so saying, and of proving it to you? I will send you your horse, but I hope you will soon join me.

But in many of his letters to her, Napoleon just bemoans how many notes he writes and how few he receives in return:

I have your letters of the 16th and 21st. There are many days when you don’t write. What do you do, then? No, my darling, I am not jealous, but sometimes worried. Come soon; I warn you, if you delay, you will find me ill. Fatigue and your absence are too much.

There may be a reason for the seemingly one-sided passion in their relationship: During the First Italian Campaign, just months after their marriage, rumors of Josephine’s infidelity reached Napoleon’s ears. This changed the tenor of their relationship, and by November 1796, his letters took a turn for the erratic:

I don’t love you anymore; on the contrary, I detest you. You are a vile, mean, beastly slut. You don’t write to me at all; you don’t love your husband; you know how happy your letters make him, and you don’t write him six lines of nonsense . . .

Soon, I hope, I will be holding you in my arms; then I will cover you with a million hot kisses, burning like the equator.

Eventually, Josephine’s affair was confirmed to Napoleon, and the passion he once had for her slowly fizzled. They both took new lovers, but they remained officially married until 1809, when Napoleon announced plans to divorce Josephine, mainly because she couldn’t bear any children for him.

4. JOSEPH STALIN’S PLAYFUL LOVE LETTERS TO HIS WIFE, NADYA

Most uncharacteristic line: “I miss you so much Tatochka — I’m as lonely as a horned owl.”

The man who once chillingly said, “If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves,” was also known to end his love letters to his second wife, Nadya, with the adorable sendoff, “My kisses! Your Joseph.”

Not many of Stalin’s letters survive, but, according to “Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar” author Simon Sebag Montefiore, we do know that the notes were trafficked by Soviet secret police and that the two were rarely out of touch for long. In the letters, he would call her by her pet name, Tatochka, but unlike Napoleon’s attempts to contact a seemingly indifferent Josephine, Nadya’s responses were far more loving: “I am kissing you passionately just as you kissed me when we were saying goodbye!”

But the relationship was also fiery, with the couple arguing often and Nadya threatening to leave Stalin and take their children with her. In November 1932, the morning after the couple had a blow-up at a party, Nadya was found dead of a gunshot wound that was allegedly self-inflicted.

5. KING HENRY VIII’S EXTRAMARITAL LOVE LETTERS TO ANNE BOLEYN

A line fit for a king: “And to cause you yet oftener to remember me, I send you, by the bearer of this [letter], a buck killed late last night by my own hand, hoping that when you eat of it you may think of the hunter.”

Sending a freshly killed buck unannounced to your mistress may result in a restraining order in modern times, but when King Henry VIII sent one to Anne Boleyn via messenger circa 1527, she knew she was officially being courted by the most powerful man in the land. At the time the letter (and venison) arrived, Henry was still technically married to Catherine of Aragon, his first wife — but since she couldn’t produce a male heir for the king, his eye started to wander to Anne. The two exchanged letters for years as they waited for the marriage to be dissolved. (It took the establishment of the Church of England to make that happen.)

When Henry’s letters weren’t humblebragging about his latest kill, they were surprisingly poignant and vulnerable for a man notorious for settling his disputes in the Tower of London. Often, Henry would anxiously profess his love while fretting that Anne wasn’t reciprocating his feelings.

It is absolutely necessary for me to obtain this answer, having been for above a whole year stricken with the dart of love, and not yet sure whether I shall fail of finding a place in your heart and affection.

After all that wooing, Henry and Anne’s marriage would go on to last just three years. Unable to bear him a male heir — just like Catherine — Henry’s eyes wandered yet again. To annul the marriage he once sought so desperately, Henry had charges of alleged adultery and conspiracy levied against Anne, who was executed in May 1536.

6. GEORGE H.W. BUSH’S VERBOSE LETTERS TO BARBARA

Most touching lines: “I love you, precious, with all my heart and to know that you love me means my life. How often I have thought about the immeasurable joy that will be ours some day. How lucky our children will be to have a mother like you.”

All the love letters George H.W. Bush wrote to his future wife, Barbara, during his time serving in World War II are lost, except for this one from December 1943, just months after becoming engaged. The letter paints a picture of a 19-year-old desperate to return home to his new fiancée but still duty-bound to the war. And coming in at over 500 words, it’s clear the young Bush had a lot to say.

As the days go by the time of our departure draws nearer. For a long time I had anxiously looked forward to the day when we would go aboard and set to sea. It seemed that obtaining that goal would be all I could desire for some time, but, Bar, you have changed all that. I cannot say that I do not want to go — for that would be a lie. We have been working for a long time with a single purpose in mind, to be so equipped that we could meet and defeat our enemy. I do want to go because it is my part, but now leaving presents itself not as an adventure but as a job which I hope will be over before long. Even now, with a good while between us and the sea, I am thinking of getting back. This may sound melodramatic, but if it does it is only my inadequacy to say what I mean. Bar, you have made my life full of everything I could ever dream of — my complete happiness should be a token of my love for you.

And when he wasn’t writing to Barbara, he was writing about Barbara. Existing letters H.W. wrote to his mother, Dorothy Walker Bush, are littered with effusive declarations of love for his young beau. “[I] miss Bar something terrific but I suppose it’s only natural,” he wrote. “It’s really agony — so close and yet so far away.”

7. WINSTON CHURCHILL’S TIMELESS LETTERS TO HIS WIFE, CLEMENTINE

Most romantic lines: “Time passes swiftly, but is it not joyous to see how great and growing is the treasure we have gathered together, amid the storms and stresses of so many eventful and, to millions, tragic and terrible years?”

The British Bulldog’s gruff exterior may have played great on the world stage, but in the privacy of pen and paper, Winston Churchill proved himself a loving, sentimental husband to wife Clementine. The two were engaged in 1908, after just four months of courtship, and a handful of their letters to each other survive to this day.

In an early note from September 1909, Winston wrote, “Sweet cat — I kiss your vision as it rises before my mind. Your dear heart throbs often in my own. God bless you darling keep you safe & sound.” The letter is accompanied by a drawing of a galloping pug — “pug” being the nickname Clementine had for Winston. For Winston, Clementine was his “cat.”

The couple’s 56-year marriage remained loving as the decades moved along, through world wars and through peace. In a 1935 letter, Churchill summed it up simply: “What it has been to me to live all these years in your heart and companionship no phrases can convey.”

Jodie Whittaker’s penultimate “Doctor Who” episode coming out over Easter

We have two more episodes left with Jodie Whittaker starring as the Doctor before she passes the baton on to an as-yet-unidentified someone. And now, thanks to an update on director Haolu Wang’s Independent Talent page, we know when the second-to-last one will air: over Easter.

Granted, we don’t know whether it will drop on Easter Sunday, or just over Easter weekend, or what, but at least this gives us a time frame: expect to see “Doctor Who: Legend of the Sea Devils” somewhere over the weekend of April 16-17.

“Doctor Who: Legend of the Sea Devils” release date

“Legend of the Sea Devils” will also feature Mandip Gill and John Bishop as the Doctor’s companions Yaz and Dan. They will head to a small coastal village in 19th century China that’s under threat from both a pirate queen named Madame Ching and a terrifying alien force. Maybe one of those the villagers could handle on their own, but for both you need to call in a specialist.

This will also be the last of Jodie Whittaker’s “Doctor Who” episodes to basically be a standalone adventure, because the one that comes after this will see her regenerate into the next Doctor, whoever that is. We still don’t know who that is, although we do know that when season 14 rolls around, current showrunner Chris Chibnall will be replaced by Russell T. Davies, who brought “Doctor Who” back in 2005. Gill and Bishop are also exiting, so this is a clean sweep here.

The future is full of mystery, but we still get to hang out with the Thirteenth Doctor a bit longer.

Vegans, this is why you’re always hungry

Just because you’re trying to adopt a more vegan diet, it doesn’t mean you have to go on a vegan diet.

You already know all of the great reasons to stop eating animal products, or at least reduce your consumption of them. A standard American diet is bad for the environment and climate, it’s cruel to animals and it’s rough on your health. But it’s hard to change your habits when you’re feeling deprived. And going vegan can often mean feeling hungry.

Indeed, it’s a common thread on vegan forums and a normal topic of conversation among the newly vegan. As soon as you start searching for advice on adopting a vegan lifestyle, you’ll come upon questions about dealing with the hunger. And if you’ve ever attempted firsthand a “Veganuary,” a trial vegan period, or just having an oat milk smoothie for breakfast instead of eggs, you may have found your own stomach growling — or your head spinning — in defeat.

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

“Now that I’m vegan I’ve experienced that when I get hungry I’m so weak, dizzy, nauseous,” writes a typical commenter on one vegan site. A Redditor in a 2021 thread, meanwhile, asks what to do about being “newly vegan and constantly hungry!” The commenter explains, “I never feel quite full and it’s driving me crazy.”

But regardless of your size, gender, age, or appetite, you can eat well and eat enough without eating animals. It starts not in your stomach but in your head, and by looking at what you need to add rather than take away.

Let’s examine the hunger. If you’ve unilaterally removed a chunk of your daily calories off your plate — the chicken from your sandwich, the cheese from your pizza — then of course you’re going to be ravenous.

It might seem obvious, but “one of the reasons why you might feel hungrier when you transition to a vegan or plant-based diet is because you may not be eating enough calories and nutrients,” explains Julie Barrette, a senior clinical dietician with Providence Mission Hospital. In other words, one’s innate understanding of how calorie-rich food is suddenly changes. Barrette continues: “Abrupt changes to one’s diet can lead to initial negative side effects as certain nutrient rich foods are no longer being consumed, such as animal proteins. The good news is this will resolve as you adjust to the vegan diet — as long as a variety of nutritious plant based foods are consumed.”

Not all of the newly vegan (or long-time vegans) opt for the processed foods that mimic non-vegan foods, such as vegan “cheese,” fake meat, or alternative milks like soy and oat. But some experts suggest these kinds of substitutions to ease oneself in to a new diet. “Replace the meat and dairy with plant-based versions,” nutritionist and recipe developer Rachel Lessenden advises, noting that “the vegan versions may be lower in calories than their omnivore equivalents. . . This means needing to eat larger portions in order to consume the same amount of calories. For most people this isn’t a problem,” she says, “but if you need to sneak more calories into your diet, adding nuts and seeds can help, as well as avocados.”

Yelina Perez, a vegan wellness coach and creator of Yeli’s Belly, concurs. “When I decided to go vegan six years ago, I felt hungry pretty much ALL the time,” she admits. “At the time I didn’t understand why and immediately concluded I ‘needed’ to eat meat. But,” she says, “that wasn’t the case.”

So how does one go about avoiding feeling hungry often, while still eating healthy? The answer, Perez says, is simple: “Eat more! One cup of a smoothie in the morning won’t do it, that’s only about 200 to 300 calories”; which means, “you will get hungry in about 45 minutes.” Instead, she suggests something like “at least six cups of a smoothie, and make it calorie dense using different fruits, medjool dates and coconut water. It’ll take you about 30 minutes to drink, so be patient with it.”

Beyond just making sure that one’s calorie consumption doesn’t dramatically drop off, another consideration is protein intake. As registered dietitian nutritionist Blanca Garcia explains, “most people don’t know that animal protein provides the foundation to repair tissues like muscle and organs. Because of its composition, it also helps with the feeling of fullness and satisfaction. Removing animal-based proteins requires adding plant-based proteins to fulfill that function of feeling satisfied and full.” She suggests sources like “beans, lentils, chickpeas, mushrooms, nuts, seeds, quinoa, green peas and buckwheat.”

And what about that notorious new vegan wooziness that can set in? Being fastidious about vitamins can ward that off.

“Red meat and other animal proteins are rich sources of vitamin B12 and iron,” Julie Barrette said. ” By eliminating these foods, your body might become deficient. This potential lack of vitamin B12 and iron can cause fatigue, headaches, dizziness, and if left untreated, anemia. It may be suggested to take a vitamin B12 or iron supplement to ensure sufficient nutrients are being consumed.” And Plantable’s Julie LaPiana Evarts, RN, MSN, CRNP, suggests an often overlooked culprit: not enough water.

“Often the brain thinks that the body is signaling hunger when it is really thirsty,” Evarts notes. “New vegans are often not used to the significant fiber load that their new diet brings, and as a result can suffer from constipation, bloating and diarrhea. All three of these can be mediated with time and adequate water intake. Drinking water is not only good for overall health, but can help you feel full longer.”

There may be something else at play here too. Contemporary diet culture has put millions of us on an endless of treadmill of self famine and feast, making it tough to recognize and respect our body’s cues. But on an omnivore’s diet, it’s pretty easy to consume satiating fat and calories without really thinking much. Cutting out animal products can mean having to intentionally bring more of those elements in. And, with perhaps the exception of avocado toast, America does not openly embrace its fats and calories. According to a 2018 CDC estimate, “49.1% of adults tried to lose weight within the last 12 months.” More recently, a January market industry report from the market research firm Fact.MR citing “rising demand for low-fat diets” found that “the global fat replacer market is set to top US $2 billion by the end of 2021.” In other words, it’s not just vegans who are hungry. It’s a wonder everybody isn’t.

One of the more pernicious aspects of our American relationship with food is the moral baggage we bring whenever we come to the table. We conflate removing or reducing certain foods with restriction and discomfort, which makes it hard to learn lasting habits. Whether we’re vegans, meat eaters, or somewhere in the middle, hunger is never a virtue, and you definitely can’t make a lifetime plan out of it. “We can get so caught up in what we can’t eat,” says Rachel Lessenden. “But if we focus more on all the things we can eat, it can expand our palates by trying new things we wouldn’t have otherwise.”

More of Salon’s nutrition coverage:

Travel south to the “Seafood Capital of Alabama” with these delectable, punchy pickled shrimp

Southern Alabama has always been my home. Well, all but my first nine years, but even then we lived close enough to Mobile (the city) for the 3 D’s: the doctor, the dentist and dance classes.

Southern Alabama is made up of two counties: Mobile County on the west side of Mobile Bay and Baldwin County on the east side. They’re the only two counties in the Yellowhammer State that border the Gulf of Mexico.

Fresh seafood is abundant everywhere in this region. Thus, it may come as no surprise that the “Seafood Capital of Alabama” is Bayou La Batre, a little fishing village of maybe 2,500 people located about a half hour drive southwest of Mobile down on the Mississippi Sound.

For as long as I can remember, Bayou La Batre was where you headed for the freshest, best oysters around. Going inside a seafood shop wasn’t necessary; you just drove down there with a cooler and looked for somebody taking their haul off the boat.

It was a different world, with the shipbuilding industry on full display as you entered the small bayou community. No glitz or trendy shops — just hard working people.

The shoreline surprised me the most on my first trip to “The Bayou.” As we drove along the beach road, I saw once stately homes on beautiful unspoiled waterfront lots with mossy oaks still standing. They had been left mostly in various states of disrepair, echoing back to a bygone era when times were more prosperous there.

Bayou La Batre gained a little bit of national notoriety when “Forrest Gump” came out in 1994. In the movie and in the book by Winston Groom, it was the home of Forrest’s army buddy, Bubba, and later Forrest’s home during his time as a shrimp boat captain. Though it wasn’t actually filmed in Bayou La Batre, it was a pretty good depiction nonetheless.

Life changed overnight on Aug. 29, 2005, when Hurricane Katrina nearly wiped Bayou La Batre off the map for good. It was, without a doubt, the end of an era. The community was decimated.

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

Luckily, I spent time in The Bayou in the 1990s, long before Katrina. I became good friends with a family whose shipbuilding business had been there since the late 1930s, and my friend’s mom still lived there at that time.

They were a big family filled with exceptional cooks, great story tellers and talented musicians. If you didn’t cook, you sang. If you didn’t sing (or cook), you played an instrument or figured out how to entertain the kids. There were a few who could do it all, but everyone had a part to play. It was that kind of family.

And those who could cook . . . let me tell you, they could cook! If family or friends happened to drop by and stay long enough, any given day would turn into a celebration. Guitars would come out, family harmonies and laughter would fill the air and good food would seem to appear from all directions.

Coming from a small, quiet family, I just enjoyed the show and the food. These were some of the best years of my life.

***

Pickled Shrimp is one of the first recipes I remember falling in love with back in the day. These shrimp were always a part of the celebrations and get-togethers down on The Bayou. Before we start cookin’, here’s a closer look at the main ingredients:

Shrimp

Wild-caught, Gulf of Mexico shrimp are what I would recommend, but any wild shrimp would be delicious.

Oil and vinegar

This recipe has been around for a very long time. Like many of my recipes, it’s old-fashioned and from a time when grocery stores didn’t have so many options. For this recipe, I used avocado oil and/or high quality sunflower oil, but any neutral tasting oil would work.

The same goes for the vinegar. When this recipe originated, the choices in local stores were cider vinegar or distilled. Over the years, I’ve used many different types of vinegar in this recipe. Though they’ve all been good, more often than not, I usually opt for cider vinegar.

Pickling spice

Pickling spice is made up of black pepper, coriander, dill, mustard seed, allspice, red chili flakes and bay leaf.

***

Recipe: Pickled Shrimp from The Bayou

Yields

7-10 servings

Prep Time

30-60 minutes

Cook Time

0-10 minutes

Ingredients

2 1/2 lbs. raw shrimp, peeled and deveined.
1/2 cup celery and leaves
1/4 cup pickling spice
5 tsp salt divided
7-8 bay leaves
2-3 onions, chopped small or sliced thin
1 cup salad oil
3/4 cup vinegar
2 1/2 tsp celery seed
2 1/2 Tbsp capers and caper juice
Several dashes of Tabasco sauce
Optional: 2-3 lemons, halved lengthwise and sliced

Directions

In a pot with about 2 quarts of water, add the celery, pickling spice, 3 1/2 tsp salt and bay leaves.
Bring the seasoned water to a boil, then add the shrimp. Cook until nice and pink and “C” shaped, about 10 minutes. The shrimp will sort of curl up when they’re done. Drain in a colander.
Alternate layers of shrimp and onion in a large pretty bowl. Add the lemon slices to the layers, if using.
Mix together the oil, vinegar, 1 1/2 tsp salt, celery seed, capers and Tabasco sauce. Pour over the shrimp and onions.
Cover and allow to marinate for no less than 24 hours.

Cook’s Notes

Exactly how long to boil your shrimp has not been agreed upon so far in my lifetime. It depends on the size of the shrimp, as well as how you grew up eating them. My mother likes to boil her shrimp until they’re pink and curled, then she allows them to remain in the seasoned water a bit longer to soak up the flavor.

Choose “large” or “jumbo” sized shrimp for this recipe. To save time and hassle, I pick up up already steamed shrimp from my local seafood shop. It’s a great time saver, and if you aren’t experienced with boiling shrimp or you just want to eliminate that step, feel free to do so. Just make sure to ask for peeled and deveined shrimp.

I’ve always served this appetizer in a big, pretty bowl, sometimes doubling (or tripling) the recipe for a crowd. I’ve also seen it served in individual dishes or Mason jars at parties. Whatever way you present it, one thing’s for sure — it’s delicious.

More recipes from Bibi’s Southern kitchen:

The best 10-minute vegan breakfast starts with instant rice and canned coconut milk

When I’m experiencing stress (something I know has been a near-constant undercurrent for everyone these past two years), the two things I lose first are my ability to sleep and my early morning appetite. This makes getting through some days tough, as I’m literally running on empty — which only perpetuates the stress cycle.

Sometimes you just have to weather the storm, but I know there are little things I can do to make weathering it easier. I can leave my phone in the living room when I go to bed to put a cap on my Twitter doomscrolling; spritz my pillowcases with a lavender spray before attempting to sleep, hoping for some kind of pavlovian association with relaxation to kick in; take my dumb vitamins and go for a daily walk; and put stuff in my pantry that can be used to make a quick breakfast.

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

I mean really quick. If it takes more than a few minutes, I’m not going to make it. I’ll just end up subsisting on coldbrews until I get hangry at two o’clock in the afternoon. That said, I do like something that’s a little more flavorful and filling than cereal.

Recently, I’ve settled into a routine of making coconut-rice breakfast bowls from instant rice and canned coconut milk — two cheap items I consistently have on deck. They come together in about 10 minutes, and I can use whatever bits and bobs I have in the kitchen that week. Sometimes, I go in a savory direction — incorporating scallions, whatever vegetables are lingering in my crisper drawer and a glug of hot sauce. Other times, I’m craving something sweet, so I add dried fruit, nuts and a spoonful of maple syrup to the mix.

Savory Vegan Breakfast Bowl (Ashlie Stevens)

The resulting bowls are flexible and filling. Best of all, they’re super comforting with their warming congee or oatmeal-like consistency. The coconut-rice base is vegan, as are the toppings I suggest (because I’m trying to stick to a “weekday vegan” schedule). However, this would also be a good opportunity to add a little extra protein. Toss in some shredded rotisserie chicken or top the bowl with a jammy six-minute egg. You won’t regret it.

The below recipes originally appeared in “The Bite,” Salon’s weekly food newsletter. Sign up to access original recipes, essays and other food writing from the Salon Food archive sent straight to your inbox every weekend.

***

Recipe: Savory coconut-rice breakfast bowl

Yields

1 servings

Prep Time

0 minutes

Cook Time

10 minutes

Ingredients

1/2 cup instant rice
1/4 cup full-fat coconut milk
1 teaspoon non-chick’n bouillon
1/2 avocado, sliced
2 to 3 radishes, sliced
2 tablespoons roasted, salted pumpkin seeds
Scallions for garnish
Drizzle of olive oil
Red pepper flakes for garnish
Salt and pepper to taste

Directions

In a small pot, combine the instant rice, coconut milk and non-chick’n bouillon. Add enough water to cover the rice and bring the mixture to a simmer.
Stir the mixture over heat until it’s thick — you’re looking for an oatmeal-like consistency — and the rice is tender. Add salt and pepper to taste.
Scoop the rice into a bowl. Now, it’s time to add toppings: sliced avocado, sliced radish, pumpkin seeds and scallions. To make this dish feel extra luxe, I like to add a drizzle of olive oil. Finish it off with a sprinkle of red pepper flakes.

***

Recipe: Sweet coconut-rice breakfast bowl

Yields

1 servings

Prep Time

0 minutes

Cook Time

10 minutes

Ingredients

1/2 cup instant rice
1/4 cup full-fat coconut milk
1 teaspoon cinnamon
2 to 3 fresh figs, sliced
2 tablespoons roasted, salted pecans
Drizzle of maple syrup

Directions

In a small pot, combine the instant rice, coconut milk and cinnamon. Add enough water to cover the rice and bring the mixture to a simmer.
Stir the mixture over heat again until it’s the consistency of oatmeal. You’re looking for tender rice.
Transfer the rice to a bowl and top it with the fig slices, pecans and a drizzle of maple syrup.

More of our favorite quick breakfast recipes:

How to build a cheese board, according to an expert

Our Resident Cheese Plater Marissa Mullen knows that once you learn how to build a cheese board, you may find yourself looking at appetizers and snacks a little differently. From how to pair cheeses with potato chips to a deep dive on what Brie is exactly, Marissa is our one-stop shop for all things cheesy. Here’s what she’s been up to lately.

Whip, whip, hooray!

Do you love whipped cheese? We do! (It’s perfect for dipping.) Have you tried these lighter-than-air options yet?

Inspired by the Greek dish htipiti, Marissa’s whipped feta with red peppers begs to be slathered on toasted pita.
Would you, could you, whip cream cheese? We’d serve it sweet (whipped with confectioners’ sugar and a touch of heavy cream) with sliced fruit or savory (whipped with chopped scallions, grated garlic, salt, and pepper) with bagel chips and vegetables.
Bake prosciutto until it’s just crispy, then crumble it over lemony whipped goat cheese.
Whipped mascarpone with honey and black pepper feels like a dreamy after-dinner treat to dollop over a bowl of berries or onto a slice of pound cake.
Paired with tangy Greek yogurt, Marissa’s whipped ricotta is waiting to be topped with a springy walnut-pea pesto.

Marination station

If you’re not already marinating your own cheese board elements, now is a great time to start.

Garlicky marinated olives are available at plenty of grocery stores — check the cheese section!
Marissa’s Marinated mushrooms, tangy and packed with flavor thanks to vinegar and fresh herbs, are a snap to prepare.
Don’t forget the cheese! Start with Marissa’s marinated feta recipe, but try marinating mozzarella or goat cheese in oil with fresh or dry herbs and spices too.

When in doubt, fry

Because sometimes, the only thing better than cheese is fried cheese.

Every salad could use globs of crispy fried goat cheese crusted in panko.
“Grilling cheeses” like Halloumi, paneer, and bread cheese don’t even need a batter or coating — just plop pieces in a hot skillet and fry until golden and slightly melty.
With a coating of nutty pistachios, Marissa’s fried feta is perhaps the most luxe addition to a cheese board.

Dip it real good

For those who prefer their cheese ooey-gooey, skip the board and bake your cheese.

Marissa’s baked Gruyère has rosemary, thyme, and fresh chopped garlic; her baked Camembert is topped with balsamic-roasted grapes and walnuts; and her baked fontina is topped with a jammy onion and fig situation.
Use a fresh wedge of French blue cheese (as opposed to the pre-crumbled stuff) in this smoky, tangy warm blue cheese dip.
To make cheese the main event, try baked goat cheese with chickpeas and broccoli, served with bread (or tossed with pasta).

Party time? Here’s what Marissa’s making

Smoked Gouda Cheese Ball with Crispy Prosciutto

Bloody Mary Cheese Plate

Cheesy Pull-Apart Bread with Mustard and Chives

Cheese Board with Smoked Trout, Potatoes, and Eggs

More cheesy tips from Marissa

How to shop for cheese, according to an expert

The best cheese for cheeseburgers, period

How to make charcuterie actually look cute on a cheese board

14 best lobster recipes for summertime flavor now

Fun fact about me: I was obsessed with Red Lobster growing up. In fact, I spent at least three of my preteen birthdays there, scarfing down a basket of Cheddar Bay Biscuits and my very own one-pound lobster with unbridled glee.

Why? Lobster is the crown jewel of the ocean — and even though I was young when I had my first taste, I quickly realized that I was eating the good stuff. Lobster meat is sweet, tender, and has that light, ocean-fresh flavor. While the price tag might be a bit steep, it certainly makes any dinner (especially birthdays) feel like a special occasion. Nowadays, I can’t get enough of lobster rolls and big seafood boils during the hotter months, but there are so many other ways to enjoy this popular crustacean throughout the season.

So I’ve rounded up 14 of our very best lobster recipes just in time for summer, from a chilled avocado soup to a spicy tomato spaghetti. There are a handful of our favorite lobster roll recipes in there, too, because any lobster-y list wouldn’t be complete without at least a few of them.

Our best lobster recipes

1. Jasper White’s World-Famous Lobster Rolls

These Genius-approved lobster rolls are famous for a reason: The lobster is steamed slowly and gently before getting tossed in a special tarragon mayonnaise. Oh, and you can’t forget that fluffy, butter-toasted roll.

2. Lobster Diavolo

You won’t find a better lobster-y recipe for ripe summer tomatoes than lobster diavolo, a classic Italian pasta that gets its kick from red pepper flakes or Calabrian chiles.

3. Dyers Island Lobster Hash

Simple potato hash with a fried egg gets taken up about a hundred or so notches when you bring sweet, rich lobster meat into the mix — perfect for breakfast or brunch the day after a big lobster boil.

4. Garganelli with Lobster and Caramelized Fennel Purée

This dish is all about taking a humble ingredient — fennel — and cooking it nice and slowly until it becomes something altogether luxurious, elegant, and delicious. The fresh lobster meat, white wine, and heavy cream don’t hurt either.

5. Seafood Paella (Paella de Mariscos)

This Catalan-style paella calls on tons of smoky spices, herbs, and vegetables to create an earthy, fresh-tasting dish that has just the right amount of from-the-sea flavor thanks to cuttlefish, squid, mussels, clams, cod, and a lobster stock that makes it.

6. Brown Butter Lobster Caprese Salad

You probably know and love a traditional Caprese salad: juicy tomatoes, creamy mozzarella, and basil. But once you try it with nutty, brown butter lobster and crunchy raw corn, you’ll never look back.

7. New England Lobster Rolls with Lemon Chive Mayonnaise

There’s always going to be lobster roll lovers out there who like theirs with nothing but steamed lobster in a buttered, toasted bun — not a lick of mayo in sight. But the recipe author for this lobster roll likes to mix things up by bringing in a lemony mayo, chives, and a bit of crisp Boston lettuce.

8. Lobster Avocado Panini

If you’ve already had one too many lobster rolls this season (is that even possible?), give this avocado panini a shot — it’s light, easy, and perfect for leftovers.

9. Creamy Lobster Risotto

For special-occasion summer dinners, it doesn’t get better than this creamy lobster risotto. Think: Arborio rice cooked until perfectly al dente in broth, dry white wine, and juicy San Marzano tomatoes. A sprinkling of fresh parsley at the end adds just the right brightness.

10. Pappardelle with Corn, Lobster, Pancetta, and Crème Fraîche

Sweet corn and lobster make a tasty duo in this silky pappardelle pasta, while salty pancetta and tangy crème fraîche bring a bit of balance.

11. Brown Butter Vinaigrette Lobster Buns

Take what you think you know about lobster rolls and throw it out the window. This version from Eventide Oyster Co. in Portland, Maine warms up the lobster in browned butter and stuffs it in a fluffy steamed bun.

12. Cold Avocado Soup with Lobster and Scallions

This chilled, ready-for-summer soup gets its smooth creaminess from avocados, broth, and a splash of cream, plus a little bit of smoky heat from chipotle and cayenne pepper.

13. Avocado Lobster Rolls with Crispy Shallots

If you’re not too keen on mayo-heavy lobster rolls, try this creamy variation: avocado dressing (made from puréed avocados, garlic, and lemon juice) for a zippy dressing that beautifully complements the lobster’s sweet flavor and tender meat.

14. Flip-Side Lobster Lettuce Wraps

This is the most literal definition of a lobster salad, in which cold lobster meat tossed with mayonnaise, lemon juice, and celery is tucked into bibb lettuce “cups.” It’s the perfect light lunch or crowd-friendly starter to dinner after a day lounging in a cushioned chair poolside with a cocktail in hand. Sounds nice, right?

All products are independently selected by Food52 editors, and Food52 may earn an affiliate commission.

HBO’s “Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty” knows how to put on a show

By the time we get to coach Jack McKinney’s part in “Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty,” we already understand the type of once-in-an-era lineup the Los Angeles Lakers had in the early 1980s. Then again, anyone who grew up in that decade knows at least a few of the names responsible for transforming the team into a famous powerhouse.

There’s Magic Johnson, whose energy gave a second wind to veterans like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Stormin’ Norm Nixon. Pat Riley, the former player turned coach who came out of nowhere to lead the Lakers to four NBA Championships. We’re also obligated to give a layup to Paula Abdul, the first Laker Girl who went on to choreograph for the Jacksons and become a pop music star and “American Idol” judge.

McKinney, played by Tracy Letts, is perhaps the least known character in this to all but the most devoted students of basketball lore and Lakers history, and yet he’s the one who understands the sport’s potential to become a theatrical blockbuster.

He likens his overhaul of the Lakers’ by-the-numbers offense to transforming classical music into jazz. Instead of operating like every other team does, which is to play the pretty melody everybody knows, they’ll introduce marvelous anarchy by putting the music in the players’ hands.

“What seems or sounds like chaos is actually the symphony of Mother Nature,” he intones. “Everything unpredictable has underlying patterns. And when those patterns become reflex, individuals become an unstoppable force. Or that’s the theory, anyway.”

Winning Time (Warrick Page/HBO)I’d stop short of likening “Winning Time” to one style of music, since co-creators and showrunners Max Borenstein and Jim Hecht treat needle-drops like a jukebox spinning on random. (A better comparison would be to call it the debauched L.A. answer to “Succession” that aspires to be a better class of celebrity than “Entourage” or “Ballers.”) But they do follow McKinney’s description of flow, embracing the situational disarray of the Lakers’ Showtime era with giddy nonchalance.

The Lakers put this theory into practice through the teamwork of Magic, Kareem and the rest of the 1980 starting lineup, but it also plays out for us through each episode’s unpredictable visual collages. At any moment the story might leap into an animated sequence or flash between a fictional version of a figure and the real person’s face.

This highlights the Showtime era lineup’s lasting connection between sports to popular culture, one reason on a long list explaining why “Winning Time” shouldn’t summon the usual sports drama question about whether its appeal will be broad enough. The extensive cast is populated with enough premium label actors to make the basketball question irrelevant; even if you don’t know who Pat Riley is, you’ll probably want to see Adrien Brody play him. Remember Donald Sterling? Even he drops by for a cameo preview of his grossness behind closed doors.

Adrien Brody as Pat Riley in “Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty” (Warrick Page/HBO)“Winning Time,” based on Jeff Pearlman’s book “Showtime: Magic, Kareem, Riley, and the Los Angeles Lakers Dynasty of the 1980s,” is a miracle of showmanship that knows precisely how to capitalize on the magnetism of its principal players. Whether this season’s wins, losses and drama are etched in your memory or you are coming in cold, the risk and tension feels as real as the rivalries, and it’s all leavened by an insouciant sense of humor.

John C. Reilly’s take on Dr. Jerry Buss is the main source of its comedic effervescence, especially when we meet him in 1979. Buss is one part business man and two parts huckster, over-leveraging his real estate and cash assets to buy a team nobody takes seriously in a league that’s lost its relevance. The Lakers are viewed as losers; even Buss’ mother (Sally Field) says so, and she’s the closest thing next to his daughter Jeanie (Hadley Robinson) to the man’s ride-or-die.

But Buss follows his hunch that with the right injection of showbusiness style and fleshy jiggle, he can transform these also-rans into a dynasty and their home stadium into a bustling attraction. He’s exactly the type of womanizing hustler Reilly excels at playing, an ambitious clown whose shirts don’t button higher than his lowest rib, and who is smarter than everyone thinks he is. He revels in knowing men like Celtics owner Red Auerbach (Michael Chiklis) look down on him. That’s what lights the fire in his belly to make them choke on their cigars.

And Buss places the NBA’s most expensive bet on Michigan State point guard Earvin “Magic” Johnson (Quincy Isaiah), another man nobody’s sure of, least of all Lakers’ coach Jerry West (Jason Clarke). Both men prove their doubters wrong – Jerry by spending enough money to make the team’s bean counter Claire Rothman (Gaby Hoffman) want to implode, and Magic by backing up his sparkling smile and flashy style of play with enough spirit and skills to win over the team’s stoic captain Kareem (Solomon Hughes).

The showrunners and executive producer Adam McKay draw more inspiration from Buss’ love for entertainment than his affection for the game. Nevertheless, there isn’t much to quibble over with regard to the artistic license taken to scripting the interpersonal relationships between the players, their lovers and their family. The same goes with the narrative’s reveal of personality facets of these men that the public didn’t see, like Jerry West, whose devotion to the team is only exceeded by his angry outbursts.

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

If there are MVPs in this crowd of star performers – other than Reilly and Adrien Brody, who builds a more convincing version of Pat Riley than Jason Segel’s take on Paul Westhead – that title belongs to Isaiah and Hughes.

These relative unknowns make the distinct personalities of Magic and Kareem their own without straying too far from the reality of who these men are. There’s no getting around Magic’s hobby of “spreading the love around” with many women, keeping a few on the hook to make sure his dishes get washed.

The downside is that the script neglects to explore Kareem’s approach to balancing his faith with his love of his sport. Like Magic, we’re kept at arm’s length to wonder about all of that.

Solomon Hughes as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in “Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty” (Warrick Page/HBO)Of the two, it is Isaiah who has more frequent opportunities to join Reilly in the production’s frequent fourth-wall breaks, and indulgence overly used in the first episode as if to establish the play before pulling back in subsequent episodes. It’s difficult to predict how people will receive this, but if you can get past the initial irritation you might come to embrace it as part of the show’s stylistic swagger.

Such enhancements fit well in a story about a guy who injected a lot of Hollywood into a dying national pastime by shaping his corner of the world as he sees it, merging the two things in this world that make him believe in God: sex and basketball.

The main disappointment of “Winning Time” is the paucity of character development allotted to most of the women. Robinson, Field and Hoffman fare the best in this respect mainly due to their relationship proximity to Buss, the master of this domain. That Tamera Tomakili is not commensurately rounded out as Magic’s eventual wife Cookie is a nonsensical airball, along with all the other underused women (including Julianne Nicholson and Gillian Jacobs) who are basically around long enough for you to recognize them from more complex works.

Winning Time (Warrick Page/HBO)Speaking from the perspective of someone who does not follow sports but grew up surrounded by feverishly devoted basketball worshippers, the fast pacing of “Winning Time” coupled with its grindhouse cinematic style won me over nevertheless. Then again, I’m not someone necessarily looking for an echoing well of emotion similar to what “The Last Dance” achieved.

That was about truth; this is decidedly a candy-coated fantasy giving a slice of professional sports history the bounce of street ball. NBA devotees may find plenty to critique, but fun-seekers could do a lot worse.

“Winning Time” premieres Sunday, March 6 at 9 p.m. on HBO and streams on HBO Max, with new episodes debuting weekly.

More stories like this:

Climate change is intensifying Earth’s water cycle

Rising global temperatures have shifted at least twice the amount of freshwater from warm regions towards the Earth’s poles than previously thought as the water cycle intensifies, according to new analysis.

Climate change has intensified the global water cycle by up to 7.4 percent — compared with previous modeling estimates of 2 percent to 4 percent, research published in the journal Nature suggests.

The water cycle describes the movement of water on Earth — it evaporates, rises into the atmosphere, cools, and condenses into rain or snow and falls again to the surface.

“When we learn about the water cycle, traditionally we think of it as some unchanging process which is constantly filling and refilling our dams, our lakes, and our water sources,” the study’s lead author, Taimoor Sohail of the University of New South Wales, said.

But scientists have long known that rising global temperatures are intensifying the global water cycle, with dry subtropical regions likely to get drier as freshwater moves towards wet regions.

Sohail said the volume of extra freshwater that had already been pushed to the poles as a result of an intensifying water cycle was far greater than previous climate models suggest.

“Those dire predictions that were laid out in the IPCC will potentially be even more intense,” he said.

The scientists estimate the volume of extra freshwater that shifted from warmer regions between 1970 and 2014 is between 46,000 and 77,000 cubic kilometers.

“We’re seeing higher water cycle intensification than we were expecting, and that means we need to move even more quickly towards a path of net zero emissions.”

The team used ocean salinity as a proxy for rainfall in their research.

“The ocean is actually more salty in some places and less salty in other places,” Sohail said. “Where rain falls on the ocean, it tends to dilute the water so it becomes less saline… Where there is net evaporation, you end up getting salt left behind.”

The researchers had to account for the mixing of water due to ocean currents.

“We developed a new method that basically tracks… how the ocean is moving around with reference to this freshening or salinification,” Sohail said. “It’s kind of like a rain gauge that’s in constant motion.”

Richard Matear, a chief research scientist in the CSIRO Climate Science Center, who was not involved in the research, said the study suggested existing climate modeling has underestimated the potential impacts of climate change on the water cycle.

“There’s been a dramatic uplift in our ability to monitor the ocean,” he said.

“Observational datasets [like those used in the study] are really ripe for revisiting how global warming is changing the climate system, and the implications it might have on important things like the hydrological cycle.”

This story was originally published by The Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Covid-positive deer may be harboring the virus and infecting humans, study says

Humans aren’t the only animals that are suffering a COVID-19 pandemic.

A recent Canadian study raises the possibility that deer — one of the most ubiquitous large mammals in North America — may have infected humans with COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. That would imply the virus circulated for a while in deer, reproducing and occasionally mutating on its way, before jumping back into people.

The new study provides evidence that deer may have infected humans, although it is not definitively proven. Conducted by more than two dozen scientists across Ontario and posted on the database bioRxiv (it has not yet been peer reviewed), the study included 300 samples from white-tailed deer in Canada during the final months of 2021. Seventeen of those deer tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, all of them from southwestern Ontario.

The scientists discovered that this same strain of SARS-CoV-2, which is highly divergent from other known strains, was also highly similar to a SARS-CoV-2 virus that had infected a human. (It was also closely related to a strain found among humans in Michigan in late 2020.) While the scientists cannot confirm that the virus had been transmitted to the human by a deer, they know that the human lived in the same geographic area as deer and had been in close contact with deer during the same time when the infected samples were collected.

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

That said, the sample size is very small and no one has definitively proved that the deer gave the virus to the human. There is also no evidence that the person with the mutant SARS-CoV-2 virus passed it on to anyone else, and initial experiments suggests the new virus would not be able to evade antibodies. In other words, if it did spread among people, individuals who are vaccinated would likely be safe.

Finally, because the deer-based SARS-CoV-2 virus is such an unknown, there is no reason to believe yet that it presents any kind of increased risk to humans. The bigger concern is that, because viruses can evolve in animals, there is the possibility that it could turn into something more dangerous.

“The virus is evolving in deer and diverging in deer away from what we are clearly seeing evolving in humans,” Samira Mubareka, a virologist at Sunnybrook Research Institute and the University of Toronto and an author of the new paper, told The New York Times. After fully sequencing the genomes from five of the infected deer, the scientists discovered many mutations that had not been previously documented. They also found 76 mutations that set the new version of SARS-CoV-2 from the original version of the virus. Some of those mutations had been previously discovered in other infected animals like mink.

There is a public health urgency to knowing whether or not SARS-CoV-2 is circulating back-and-forth from deer to humans, and it relates to the usefulness of vaccination. Aside from saving human lives in the immediate moment, the other fundamental reason that public health officials were pushing mass vaccination to slow the spread of COVID-19 is because the more hosts in which a virus resides, the more likely the virus is to eventually mutate into something more virulent. Obviously, that has happened at least twice so far with SARS-CoV-2: first with the ultra-contagious delta variant, and then later with the even more contagious omicron variant.

Currently, the number of human hosts in the U.S. is waning as the omicron wave falls from its peak. If we are lucky, that may imply that this wave of infections is over, and while the coronavirus will continue to circulate (and mutate) as it becomes endemic, it would have fewer hosts in which to do so. Or, at least human hosts. Unfortunately, SARS-CoV-2 can circulate in other animals besides humans and deer; it appears to have circulated in bats and pangolins before crossing over to humans. We also know that the virus spread back into animals, presumably through humans: dogs, cats, a zoo lion, and a large population of deer appear to have been infected by humans. Even if the virus is largely eliminated from the human population, if it circulates in an animal population (say, deer) for a significant amount of time, it could re-infect humans after mutating to the extent that the immune system no longer recognizes it as the same virus.

Shortly before this study was published, a separate group of scientists announced that Pennsylvania deer may have continued to be infected with the Alpha variant even after it disappeared in humans — and that it evolved within them as they continued to spread it. This further reinforces the concern about deer incubating SARS-CoV-2 viruses.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus is believed to have originated in in a horseshoe bat. At some point, the virus is thought to have been transmitted to another animal through one or many “spillover events,” and then eventually found its way to a human host. Bats are notorious for serving as hosts to dangerous coronaviruses because their immune systems are unusually aggressive. This means that viruses which live in bats need to evolve and replicate more quickly in order to survive.

“The bottom line is that bats are potentially special when it comes to hosting viruses,” Mike Boots, a disease ecologist and UC Berkeley professor of integrative biology, told Science Daily in 2020. “It is not random that a lot of these viruses are coming from bats. Bats are not even that closely related to us, so we would not expect them to host many human viruses. But this work demonstrates how bat immune systems could drive the virulence that overcomes this.”

For more on animals and COVID-19, please read:

How Joe Rogan does what he does: My day with America’s most famous podcaster

It was a March Wednesday in 2019 and I was sitting in a green room in the San Fernando Valley. Across from me, a middle-aged man tapped at his phone. His face was tan and indistinct. In his lap he was holding a pile of red folders. We were both, it seemed, waiting for Joe Rogan.

Rogan’s podcast, on which I was scheduled to appear, was supposed to go live at noon. Already it was 12:10.

“He’ll be here,” Jeff, the on-site manager, assured me. “Eventually.”

The studio was an enormous, multi-purpose facility. It opened back on itself, torus-shaped, to include an MMA gym, an indoor archery range and even a sensory deprivation tank. The entrance to the recording booth was positioned off to the side, opposite from where I sat. It was there, in a narrow, nondescript, soundproof space about the size of a small school bus, that “The Joe Rogan Experience” had grown over the last decade into the most popular show in the country.

Today, an average episode reaches an audience of nearly 11 million. More than 200 million users download the podcast each month. In 2019 alone, Rogan was reportedly paid $30 million, twice as much as his closest competitor, and that was before he signed on with Spotify, last May, for nearly $200 million over a four-year span. And while his listeners are predominantly male—as much as 71 percent of them — they’re also, according to a survey by Media Monitors, “largely representative of the majority of podcast listenership,” a demographic that also enjoys shows like “Serial,” The Daily” and “This American Life.”

To some, Rogan is a conman, selling bigotry beneath an awe-shucks veneer. Or he represents the torrid heights of faux-intellectualism unleashed by Trumpism. Or, conversely, his fault is that he’s just too normal. Or the problem is that he means well but, in generously welcoming back the Alex Joneses of the world, he’s shed whatever capacity for empathy and moral judgment he once maintained. The takes go on and on — he’s the new Walter Cronkite! He’s an insurrectionist precipitating civil war! — with varying extremity.

But this essay isn’t about whether you should condemn or contextualize Joe Rogan. Instead, my goal is to try and convey, through a personal lens, what it is about Rogan as a podcaster that helps to explain why he’s so popular — something inherent to his style that goes beyond his demographic appeal.

* * *

I was there that afternoon to talk about my new book, “Freak Kingdom,” a chronicle of the countercultural journalist Hunter S. Thompson’s political writing and activism in the 1960s and early ’70s. Apparently Rogan was a huge Thompson fan, and his show was the final stop on a months-long publicity tour I’d waged between weekdays and off-days from the university where I teach. I was exhausted, the book hadn’t done as well as I’d hoped, and my marriage of 15 years was coming to an end.

I had listened to a few episodes to prepare, but what I knew about Joe Rogan was cursory. How different could he be from, say, Terry Gross?

The minutes ticked past noon with still no sign from the host. I tapped my foot. I counted the ceiling tiles. I was reminded of Joan Didion’s essay “The White Album,” in which she had resigned herself to counting the console knobs in a Sunset Boulevard recording studio while waiting, along with the rest of the Doors, for Jim Morrison. (“There were seventy-six.”)

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

I counted the files in the lap of the stranger across from me. Why not? It seemed to help. I was first diagnosed with ADHD at the age of six and I’ve been receiving treatment for it, in one way or another, for as long as I can remember. Lately, moments like the one I was experiencing now had been coming on with startling frequency, and my usual approach at management, which included regular exercise, psychotherapy and medication, seemed woefully inadequate.

I reached into my pocket and pulled out my phone, which was already powered down — the prospect of it going off in front of an audience of millions seemed all too plausible — and stared at the empty screen. A few more minutes passed. Now it was nearly 12:30. At last Joe Rogan arrived.

He walked into the green room, I stood up, and we quickly shook hands. Then he took a seat next to the man across from me, who passed him the stack of documents.

Rogan was stout and muscular, dressed in a tight long-sleeve shirt he’d unbuttoned at his neck. His balding head was cleanly shaved. His jaw was sharp with stubble. He read through the contents of the folders carefully, pen in hand. Every few pages he’d scribble something on the documents and pass them to the guy alongside, who’d do the same. His posture was like that of a student athlete, reminding me of a boxer.

But he wasn’t young. He was 51. There was a tightness to his squint that broke up the smoothness of his face. The hair at his temples, what was left of it, had grayed. Each time he moved the pen across a paper, the skin at the back of his hand corded and creased.

He finished signing papers. I was still watching him. He glanced at the man alongside, then at me, and shrugged. “He’s my notary,” he said. And he got up and headed to the recording room. There was no indication he wanted me to follow. I stood there not sure what to do.

His notary gathered up the documents and departed. His manager Jeff wanted to know if I’d like anything to drink.

“Is it too early for whiskey?”

In the recording studio, as I tried to settle in, Jeff brought me a glass with ice and filled it to the top. Rogan was sitting opposite. Things were finally about to start.

But there was a technical issue. The software for the live video feed kept crashing.

As we waited for his producer to iron things out I tried to introduce myself. Coming in, I’d known that this was probably the largest audience I was likely to appear before in my lifetime, but now, the nervousness in my voice shocked me. I was speaking quickly but somehow I could barely get the words out.

Rogan held up a hand. “Let’s save it,” he said, “for the show.”

* * *

The episode we recorded that afternoon has been available to download for almost three years. Millions of people have done so in the time since. I’ve never been able to listen to it, let alone watch the video feed. It was only recently that I finally sat down and went through it again.

For an hour and a half, Rogan and I talked about, among other things, Hunter S. Thompson. Or to be more accurate, I talked. At a feverish pace. He hardly had a chance to break in. And when he did, I kept bringing everything back, without fail, to Donald Trump’s presidency; again and again I connected our current political moment to the past, regardless of context. I sounded like I’d been handed a set of talking points.

“Joe’s interviews are informal and conversational in nature,” his producer had emailed me beforehand, “and generally run between two and three hours in length.” Nevertheless, I’d gone in expecting an interview with questions prepared ahead of time.

Rogan wanted to discuss Thompson in a personal way. He talked about a visit he took to Woody Creek, the small town outside Aspen where Thompson had spent much of his life, with his children. And he told a story from his childhood — what it was like to watch his favorite athlete, Muhammad Ali, fight on television for the first time. “My parents were hippies,” he said. “My parents never watched TV, and they definitely never watched boxing. And they sat in front of the TV to watch that … I just remember thinking, I can’t believe my parents want to watch a boxing match. And that’s when it sunk in at an early age that this guy was not just this heavyweight boxer. He was a cultural icon. He was a storied figure.”

About an hour into our episode the conversation turned to stimulants. Hunter Thompson, during his most productive stretch of writing and reporting, had taken Dexedrine, which is similar to Adderall.

“There’s a weird tradition in journalism right now to destroy your body while creating art,” Rogan said. “There’s a big problem with Adderall today. Have you done it?”

My first book, “Hyper,” was a memoir and cultural history of ADHD that included my personal experiences with different treatments for the disorder. It was published in 2014. I mentioned it to Rogan quickly, assuming he already knew about it. (He did not.) “I take 30 milligrams a day,” I said.” I also brought up, as an aside, a moment from the opening to “Hyper”: an extreme response I had to Ritalin at the age of six. This only seemed to confuse matters further.

“I mean,” he responded, “you don’t have an issue that you need to take it for?”

It was a straightforward question: He was asking me to clarify what I’d been talking about — an opportunity to discuss my ADHD and why I was prescribed stimulants. I literally wrote a book on the topic. But I froze.

Five years earlier, after “Hyper” was released, I’d been invited by the council for Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) to talk about promotional opportunities. At their headquarters in Maryland I met with the executive board. I’d packed my pens and notebooks the night before. I arrived 30 minutes early. My shirt was pressed and tucked, my tie was straight. I was just another neurotypical, I told myself — I was together. I spoke slowly and did not move my hands. I tilted my head thoughtfully and listened when others spoke. Afterward, walking out, I was elated. Then I caught my reflection in the elevator door. My fly had been down the entire time.

Here I was now, on the largest stage of my life; I’d been found out. Maybe the zipper to my pants wasn’t down, but I’d hijacked a freewheeling podcast and, at a rapid clip, gone from discussing Trump’s totalitarian impulses to inviting the show’s host to discuss my shortcomings — along with the psychotropic medication I was prescribed in order to deal with them. I wanted to get back to talking about other subjects — about Thompson, about politics, about America, about anything else — even though I understood that the way in which I was coming across on the show precluded the possibility of leaving this question behind.

“The world,” I replied at last to Rogan, “is incredibly painful.” That’s it. I refused to simply say: I have ADHD.

He shook his head. “Wow,” he said. “Fuck. It’s crazy that we’re talking about this.”

* * *

Rogan had asked a personal, difficult question. He was curious and engaging. It was up to me, however, to go further. I wouldn’t. I was the one making assumptions. We talked together for a half-hour longer before, mercifully, wrapping up.

Rogan’s talent, during conversations with strangers like myself — with people who are often very different from him — is to isolate points of complexity without derailing the discussion in the service of correcting or contradicting.

That’s why, in my opinion at least, so many people listen. And that’s also at the heart of the recent controversy over COVID misinformation: Rogan’s failure to challenge his guest Robert Malone, in the moment, over the latter’s bogus vaccine claims. “If I were Joe Rogan,” John Oliver said in response, “I would employ a search department if I want to confidently say things and not just sit with a laptop next to me fucking Googling stuff as it occurs to me. I would be mortified if I passed on bad information.”

But to expect him to correct his guests is to take away what makes the show — and makes him — so appealing.

Take my experience: By refusing at that moment to say that I had been diagnosed and was being treated for ADHD, I seemed to be admitting that I was consuming the drug illegally. Another host would no doubt have pursued that fact. (Some of his listeners certainly did, threatening in direct messages to report my “drug abuse” to my employer and law enforcement.) But Rogan let it stand.

My appearance would turn out to be one of the shortest in his catalog of episodes. By the time we finished up it was just after 2 p.m. I walked out of the small studio, buzzing from the whiskey, with the California sun brightening the windows along the wall.

Rogan was waiting to say goodbye. He smiled and, reaching out, shook my hand vigorously, a far cry from our introduction in the green room, when he’d walked in to find me panicked and restless with anticipation.

“I hope you sell a million books,” he said, “and everyone is talking about what you wrote.”

Neither would turn out to be true. I had a feeling, at the time, that this was the case. Still, his gesture felt sincere.

“I really enjoyed our conversation,” he added. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I believed him. I still do.

Study: COVID-19 infects four areas of the male genital tract

A new study conducted by Tulane National Primate Research Center has collected data pointing towards evidence that the coronavirus has a negative impact on four different areas of the male genital tract.

The 500-acre primate center where the study was conducted is located in Covington, Louisiana and houses upwards of 4,800 primates. Results concluded that three male rhesus macaques tested showed evidence of coronavirus in their “penis, prostate, testicles and a network of temperature-regulating veins,” according to coverage by The Times-Picayune.

“Three out of three is pretty phenomenal,” said Ronald Veazey, a professor of pathology at the Tulane University School of Medicine and an author of the study.

Veazey stated that he and his researchers began the study a year and a half ago, and went into it thinking they’d discover the virus in the gut of the primates, but things shook out a little further south.

“Surprisingly, the male reproductive tract lit up like a Christmas tree,” said Veazey. “We weren’t even thinking male – it just happened to be a male macaque.”

The study has not yet been peer reviewed, but the data collected sheds new light on the, still, surprisingly mysterious effects of coronavirus on the body. It’s not yet known if the effects found to take place in male genitals is long-term, or if they go hand in hand with other symptoms such as pain, erectile dysfunction or low sperm count.

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

What the study does seem to clearly show is that the male genitalia are a prime hunting ground for the virus, which is troubling.

“What tissue in the body would be the most responsive and have the most expansion and contraction? The penis,” said Veazey. “It’s a major target. He furthered that “It certainly is another excuse to get vaccinated,” said Veazey. “Any strong virile males who think the vaccines going to hurt them probably should reconsider.”

Read more: