Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trumpers play fascist peekaboo: Are Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson backpedaling on Putin?

Going into the weekend, Donald Trump and his allies were feeling themselves, after Russia’s President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Clearly, Trumpists thought this was the moment to press their advantage, praising Putin and doubling down on overt white nationalist and fascist sentiment at home.

Trump spent the week gushing over Putin, calling him a “genius” and insisting he’s “playing Biden like a drum.” Tucker Carlson of Fox News argued that the only reason Americans hate Putin was because they were victims of a propaganda campaign and that the real enemy was liberals at home. Anchors on Fox News repeatedly contrasted the supposed decadence of a “woke” American culture with the “serious civilization” of Russia’s authoritarian government. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., made a surprise appearance at a white nationalist event Friday night. Right before and after her speech, the openly racist organizer, Nick Fuentes, led the crowd in a chant of “Putin, Putin” and praised Adolph Hitler

For Trump and his authoritarian buddies, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must have felt like a turning point in the global war on democracy. But that moment of triumph very quickly faded. They had clearly underestimated the strength of both the Ukrainian resistance and the worldwide outpouring of pro-democratic sentiment that the war has inspired. The sanctions against Russia are looking like they’re going to cause serious damage, and even many of Putin’s strongest allies are jumping ship. Trumpists started backpedaling with an almost comical speed. 

RELATED: “I have morons on my team”: Mitt Romney blasts radical Republicans in Congress

Carlson has switched tactics, however temporarily. He now insists that he believes that Putin “is to blame for what we’re seeing tonight in Ukraine.” During a Saturday speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Trump claimed to believe that the “Russian attack on Ukraine is appalling” and “an outrage and an atrocity.” Taylor Greene, meanwhile, tried to play dumb about the meaning of her appearance at the openly racist America First Political Action Conference, claiming, “I do not know Nick Fuentes” and “I am not aligned with anything that is controversial.” Instead, she pretended that her purpose at a white nationalist conference was merely about reaching out to his “young, very young, following” because it’s “a generation I am extremely concerned about.”


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


Taylor Greene is, of course, not telling the truth, as a photograph of her posing with Fuentes was soon circulated. But even without that, the idea that she did not know what she was signing up for or could not hear the chants of “Putin Putin” before she spoke is, at best, implausible. Indeed, despite her supposed unawareness of the white nationalist nature of the event, she hasn’t held back from promoting her appearance there, posting snippets of her speech on Instagram

Taylor Greene is playing peekaboo, pretending one moment to one audience not to be a fascist, while signaling her true intent at other times to other audiences. Trump and his allies are playing the same game when it comes to Putin. Even during his speech where he formally denounced the invasion of Ukraine, Trump winkingly gestured towards his true feelings, reiterating his belief that Putin is “smart” and “playing Biden like a drum.” 

RELATED: Trump is not confused about his bromance with Putin

Talking out of both sides of their mouths is a common tactic with authoritarians. It allows them to communicate their true views to the people who they want to hear them. At the same time, they construct a facade of plausible deniability so they can keep accessing mainstream politics — at least until such time as their fascist views become mainstream enough that they feel comfortable being more out about it. 

Over the past week, it’s easy to see how this strategy plays out in real time.

During the period where it seemed Russia’s triumph over Ukraine would be swift, Trump and his fellow travelers pulled back the veil, seizing the moment to push anti-democratic sentiment more into the mainstream. But once Russia’s hand got shakier, they dropped the veil back over their pro-Russia, pro-fascist sentiment, so as to maintain a claim to be within the mainstream of American politics. But, crucially, they never drop the veil so much that their followers will doubt their commitment to authoritarianism. 


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


The non-stop whining about “cancel culture” helps construct the narrative that justifies peekaboo politics to their followers.  The implication is that they’d love to come right out and say what they really think, but the supposed power that be won’t let them. Indeed, Taylor Greene’s speech focused heavily on this narrative, praising the attendees of the conference as “canceled Americans.” 

Trump’s alleged attempt to create a social media network of his own employs the same narrative. It’s literally called “Truth Social,” with the implication being that it’s about preserving supposed truths that are being purged from Twitter and Facebook. Sure enough, Fuentes quickly became a verified member, putting his openly white nationalist beliefs and Nazi apologetics into the realm of the “truths” that Trump is protecting. This allows Trump to have it both ways. He can use Fuentes to signal unapologetic fascism to his base, while avoiding saying this stuff directly himself. 

RELATED: Jelani Cobb on the anti-CRT campaign’s high stakes and the deep roots of fascism in America

As the past week showed, Trump and his supporters will push the fascist rhetoric as far as they think they can get away with. When they thought that the resistance to Putin would be weak, they were gung-ho for the man and his invasion of Ukraine. Now that the Putin apologetics aren’t muddying the waters as much as they’d hoped, they’re pulling back and biding their time for another opportunity to once again aggressively mainstream authoritarian politics. 

What’s crucial to understand is this game of peekaboo is incredibly effective at communicating the underlying sentiment, which is that democracy is bad and fascism is good, to the conservative base. It’s unlikely many people are truly confused about how Trump or Carlson or Taylor Greene feel about Putin or white nationalism in general. The only question is how much they feel they can be honest about it in public. But playacting the put-upon victims who aren’t “allowed” to let their true feelings rip communicates their views well enough without them coming out and saying it. When playing peekaboo, the fascist doesn’t just disappear because they put their hands in front of their face.

READ MORE: 

CPAC opens and immediately devolves into GOP dissent over Ukraine 

Candace Owens, with bizarre observation on bear sex, leads CPAC into nonstop CRT panic

Ron Johnson blames Democrats’ Trump “impeachment travesty” for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on Sunday accused Democrats of paving the way for Russian President Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. According to the senator’s somewhat tortured logic, the first impeachment of Donald Trump, over his attempt to blackmail the Ukrainian president, somehow empowered Putin’s aggression.

Johnson appeared on Fox News as numerous Republicans over the weekend issued statements blaming President Biden for Putin’s aggression, even though it was Trump who sought to withhold defense aid — already authorized by Congress — from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky unless the latter helped Trump smear Biden in the 2020 election. Johnson spread the blame widely, suggesting that Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and impeachment witness Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman were all responsible after they tried to hold Trump accountable for the blackmail scheme led by Rudy Giuliani.

“I don’t think Vladimir Putin would have moved on Ukraine were it not for the weakness displayed ― certainly by the Biden administration, but by the West in general,” Johnson told Fox. “I’m certainly hoping that Col. Vindman, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi ― who used Ukraine as a pawn in their impeachment travesty ― are also recognizing and reflecting about how they weakened Ukraine, weakened the West, weakened America by the divisive politics that they play.”

“There’s much blame to go around, but in terms of atrocities, that falls squarely on the shoulders of Vladimir Putin and his cronies,” he added.

Johnson notably did not place any of the blame on Trump, who withheld nearly $400 million in military aid in an effort to pressure Zelensky into launching an investigation into Biden’s family over an alleged corruption scandal. Congress had approved the aid to help Ukraine battle Russian aggression, and Trump finally released the money after coming under pressure from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle once the scheme was exposed.

At the time, Zelensky repeatedly sought a meeting with Trump, which the former president never granted, while repeatedly trying to ingratiate himself to Putin. Zelensky was finally welcomed to the White House last year after Biden took office.

RELATED: Lt. Col. Alex Vindman: How Trump’s coup attempt encouraged Putin’s Ukraine invasion

Johnson supported Trump during both of the former president’s impeachment trials and played a key role in helping Trump stoke conspiracy theories about Russia and Ukraine. In 2020, the FBI warned Johnson, who was then chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, of a Russian disinformation scheme involving Giuliani as a go-between. But the senator blew off the warning as “completely useless and unnecessary.” Johnson also met with a former Ukrainian diplomat friendly to Russia, who pushed baseless allegations that it was the Ukrainian government, not the Russians, who had interfered in the 2016 election, as part of Johnson’s effort to help Trump spin his connections to Russia during the 2019 impeachment proceedings.

Schiff, who led Trump’s impeachment proceedings in the House, wrote on Twitter that Johnson is “clearly confused.”

“It was Trump who withheld military aid from Ukraine. It was Trump who demanded a ‘favor’ from Zelenskyy in exchange for the aid. It was Trump who weakened Ukraine. And it was Senator Johnson who voted to acquit,” Schiff wrote. “Sit this one out, Senator.”

Vindman shared a defense from his wife, Rachel, who tweeted that Johnson “is the last person anyone would want in their foxhole.”

“Also, he’s a piece of shit,” she added.


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


Vindman, who testified to Congress that he blew the whistle on Trump’s call with Zelensky to higher-ups and later sued Trump allies, alleging a witness intimidation campaign, told Vice News over the weekend that Trump’s blackmail scheme had “absolutely” weakened Ukraine’s defenses by undermining the country’s military preparations.

“It’s because of Trump’s corruption that we have a less capable, less prepared Ukraine,” Vindman told the outlet.

Vindman, who served as director of Eastern European affairs on the White House National Security Council, also told Salon’s Chauncey DeVega, in an interview published Monday, that Republicans had “stepped into a trap” by supporting Putin.

Trump and his supporters “were cheering on this vile tyrant as he attempts to destroy a peaceful country on his border, a democracy, and now they’re going to own that decision,” Vindman said. “The Tucker Carlsons, the Donald Trumps, the Mike Pompeos, they and other Republicans are going to have to own this issue because they are the reason that Russia launched this operation.”

Attorney Daniel Goldman, who served as House Democrats’ counsel during Trump’s first impeachment, wrote on Twitter that Johnson himself played a role in fueling Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, accusing the senator of having “knowingly promoted Russian disinformation from known Russian assets in Ukraine to help Trump’s re-election in 2020, even though you knew it was all bogus.”

“You parroted disinformation that you knew was Russian propaganda designed to undermine Ukraine, not Russia,” Goldman wrote in response to Johnson. “You clearly do not understand what collusion means, but regardless, accusing Russia of colluding with Trump makes Russia weaker, not Ukraine.”

Read more:

“I have morons on my team”: Mitt Romney blasts radical Republicans in Congress

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, called Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., “morons” on Sunday after the two House lawmakers attended a white nationalist event whose participants heaped praise on Russia for invading Ukraine. 

“Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar, I don’t know them,” Romney said during a CNN interview. “I’m reminded of the old line from the ‘Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid’ movie, where one character says, ‘Morons, I have morons on my team.'”

“I have to think anybody that would sit down with White nationalists and speak at their conference was certainly missing a few IQ points,” the senator added. 

Romney’s comments came in response to Greene and Gosar’s presence at the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), held this past weekend in Orlando, Florida. The event, organized by white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, featured a number of conservatives firebrands known for their off-color rhetoric, including Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers, Idaho Lt. Governor Janice McGeachin, and former Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio.  

RELATED: White nationalists prep for “physical” altercation with security at Dallas CPAC conference

Most participants ostensibly elided or downplayed Russia’s recent invasion into Ukraine, which was launched last week on the heels of months of brinkmanship along the Ukrainian border. 

However, Fuentes addressed the issue head-on, prompting the crowd to give a “round of applause for Russia.” 

The crowd immediately erupted into cheers, chanting, “Putin! Putin! Putin!”


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


Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who is spearheading the investigation into the January 6 Capitol riot, condemned the event this week, accusing Greene of “using her official USG congressional account to promote anti-Semitic, white supremacist, pro-Hitler, pro-Putin conference.”

“House GOP Leaders,” Cheney tweeted. “Have you lost all sense of decency? 

RELATED: Putin leaves Republicans splintered and confused

Following her appearance, Greene attempted to dissociate herself from Fuentes, telling CBS News, “I don’t know what his views are, so I’m not aligned with anything that may be controversial.”

“I went to his event last night to address his very large following because that is a young, very young, following and a generation I am extremely concerned about,” the lawmaker added.

Over the past week, Republicans have been uncharacteristically divided on the Russian invasion, lacking any unified message as to whether Putin should be condemned. Several Republicans, including Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump, have walked back their praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin as civilian and military casualties continue to mount.  

Last week, Trump called Putin’s unprovoked incursion “genius,” arguing that the Russian leader has “taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions.” But during an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this past weekend, Trump condemned the Russian attack “appalling.”

“We are praying for the proud people of Ukraine,” said the former president. “God bless them all.”

Monday marks the fifth day of Putin’s invasion, with Russian forces continuing the edge their way into the heart of Kyiv, the Ukrainian capital. Thus far, Russia has failed to overtake any key Ukrainian cities, casting strong doubt over prior speculation that the invasion would be carried out quickly.

RELATED: Trump praises “very smart” Putin for invading Ukraine

Trump is not confused about his bromance with Putin

I don’t think anyone who happened to turn on the TV or went online over the weekend missed the horrifying events that are unfolding in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are putting up a valiant fight so far and seem to have thwarted the enemy’s plan for a quick takeover of their capital and decapitation of the democratically elected government. But it’s early days yet, so it’s important not to get overly optimistic. It’s going to be a very rough time for the Ukrainian people.

It also appears that it’s going to be a very rough time for Russia as President Vladimir Putin has accomplished one thing he probably did not anticipate: the unification of most of the world against him.

Both the European Union and United States, as well several other key countries in Europe and around the world, have acted very quickly to enact sharp sanctions on Putin and his wealthy oligarch compatriots. Russia’s already been cut off from the international banking system and the Ukrainians have already seen a massive resupply of military equipment. NATO has never been more united. Countries like Finland ,which have always rejected NATO membership, are suddenly discussing the possibility of joining up.

This is not what Putin wanted. He thought he was dealing with a fractured alliance and a United States so bitterly divided that it could not act with any credibility. It turns out he was wrong.

It’s a bit hard to focus on domestic politics while all this is going on but since the U.S. is involved, whether we like it or not, and our political situation is hugely relevant, it’s important not to lose sight of what’s happening here at home. This weekend the Conservative Political Action Conference was meeting in Orlando Florida and the keynote speaker was their once and future Dear Leader Donald Trump. He spoke on Saturday night to an ecstatic crowd that was eager to hear him do his greatest hits.

I think everyone in politics was interested to hear what he had to say about the Ukraine situation. Last week his comments about the invasion were abhorrent. After saying silent for the entire time the U.S. was warning Ukraine that the invasion was imminent he finally stepped up and said this:

“I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. He used the word ‘independent’ and ‘we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.”

He followed that up with this comment the next day at a political event at Mar-a-lago:

‘Oh, Trump said Putin’s smart.’ I mean, he’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart. He’s taking over a country, really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people and just walking right in.”

That’s the kind of talk you expect from drunk guys at the end of the bar, not a former American president. But this is Donald Trump so what else could we expect?

In the days that followed those comments, there was a sea change within the GOP coalition when it became obvious that much of their pro-Putin commentary was falling flat with the public. Putin cheerleaders like Tucker Carlson abruptly pivoted from attacking those who criticized Putin to attacking President Joe Biden for being weak and failing to stand up to him. And in fairness, Trump had been saying the same thing, of course, suggesting from the beginning that the genius and savvy Putin would never have attempted the invasion if he were still president.

His appearance at CPAC Saturday night would finally clarify if Trump would continue to extol the great genius of Putin — as he has been doing for years now — in the face of a brutal, unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country or whether he would finally find it in himself to condemn the actions of his favorite dictator. He did not do the latter.

It was the usual prepared speech (which sounded like a Stephen Miller special) mixed with ad libs about how America is an apocalyptic hellhole interspersed with shout outs to his cronies and fangirls. It took Trump nearly 15 minutes to even mention Ukraine and when he did it was an aside about “the perfect phone call.” His first mention of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was how he had allegedly told the world that Trump had done nothing wrong. (Zelensky did not do that.) It took several more minutes before he finally got to the part in his script where he condemned the invasion, calling it an outrage and an atrocity before he resumed bragging about what a great president he’d been.

In his first mention of Putin he said he’d made the decision to attack Ukraine after he witnessed the Afghanistan withdrawal and once again said he was smart and NATO and the U.S. are dumb.

If you take over Ukraine, we are going to sanction you, they say. Sanction? That is a weak statement. Putin says they’ve sanctioned me for the last 25 years. I can take over a whole country and they’re going to sanction me? They’re not going to blow us to pieces … at least psychologically?

Blow them to pieces psychologically? What in the world?

Then he slammed Democrats for defending Ukraine sovereignty when they supposedly care nothing about protecting their own borders which garnered huge cheers from the crowd. Apparently, Trump and his followers are unable to see any difference between people who are coming over the border to work in restaurants and harvest crops and an army mowing down innocent people with rockets and tanks.

And then that was it on Putin. 

So Putin’s just a smart guy doing the smart thing according to our former president. But there is a serious threat to democracy and world peace that’s much worse:

It’s tempting to make jokes about this but I really can’t. Trump pretty much announced he is running again at this event. (He said that he’s already won twice and he’s going to do it a third time.) And according to at least one recent poll, nearly half of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of the situation in Ukraine. Only 66% of Democrats even approve. I’m not sure what they think he should have done differently, perhaps kowtow to dictators as Trump did?

This is all very concerning. Biden and his team have actually done a good job of wrangling a fractious alliance and putting together some very tough economic sanctions. Their decision to telegraph the intelligence that the invasion was coming took guts as well — because if Russia had pulled back they would have been accused of either lying or being hysterical. As it was, Biden and his team prepared the world for what was coming and laid the groundwork for a unified response. The fact that the president doesn’t even have the full support of his own partisans despite that is a very bad omen.

The man who practically declared war on Canada and literally cannot say a bad word about a dictator who has just invaded his own neighbor is still almost certain to be the next Republican nominee for president.

Lt. Col. Alex Vindman: How Trump’s coup attempt encouraged Putin’s Ukraine invasion

It’s worth remembering in this moment of global crisis that Donald Trump’s first impeachment was the result of Trump’s attempt to blackmail Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding weapons and other military aid that Congress had already authorized. What Trump wanted was for Zelensky and the Ukrainian government to smear Joe Biden with false charges, potentially influencing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

That crime was part of a much larger pattern, in which Donald Trump and his regime consistently acted as vassals for Vladimir Putin’s regime and Russia’s strategic interests.

Writing at the Washington Post, Colbert King reminds us of further history in this regard:

Maybe now that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is well underway, the implications of President Vladimir Putin’s actions against the United States in 2016 will finally sink in, especially for Republicans in Congress. The Vladimir Putin who planned, staged and launched a large-scale war on Ukraine is the same Vladimir Putin who ordered an aggressive, multifaceted, clandestine campaign to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Putin’s Ukraine goal: pull that country from the West and back into Russia’s sphere of influence. His U.S. goal in 2016: undermine the democratic process, disparage and undercut Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president, and help elect Donald Trump.

The outcome of his Ukraine campaign is yet to be decided. His U.S. effort found full success. … The simple truth is that Putin believed Russia would benefit from having Trump in the White House, and he pushed his intelligence services to help secure that outcome. Just as he perceives that a subjugated Ukraine benefits Russia and is now working to achieve that end.

How many people had privileged knowledge of the Trump administration’s likely or certain criminal acts including and far beyond what took place with Ukraine? Was it dozens or hundreds? Yet, only a few have possessed the courage and personal integrity to speak up publicly as whistleblowers.

U.S. Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, now retired, was one such person. While serving on the White House’s National Security Council, Vindman filed formal reports in 2019 disclosing that Trump and his representatives were engaged in the aforementioned acts of political extortion or blackmail against the Ukrainian government. Vindman, a U.S. citizen who was born in Ukraine, would later testify during Trump’s impeachment inquiry.

RELATED: The Ukraine catastrophe and how we got here: Chronicle of a war foretold

Vindman was formerly director for Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Russia on the National Security Council, and before that served as political-military affairs officer for Russia for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as an attaché at the U.S. embassy in Moscow. He is now a doctoral student and senior fellow for the Foreign Policy Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, a Pritzker Military Fellow at the Lawfare Institute, an executive board member for the Renew Democracy Initiative and senior adviser to the PAC VoteVets. His recent memoir, “Here, Right Matters: An American Story,” was a New York Times bestseller.

For his acts of courage and patriotism, Vindman would lose his military career and become a target of violent threats and other acts of retaliation. Those threats have continued to the present. I recently spoke with Lt. Col. Vindman about his decision to speak out and about the extent to which he perceived the existential threat that Trump and his movement would represent to American democracy, as seen in the events of Jan. 6, 2021, and the Republicans’ ongoing coup attempt.

In this conversation, Vindman argues that Trump’s coup attempt and other assaults on American democracy and the rule of law gave Vladimir Putin encouragement to pursue his illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Vindman also shares his concerns that the Trump regime’s crimes against democracy are only a blueprint for a future fascist leader who will be much more effective and dangerous. Vindman also offers his thoughts about the possibility of a second American Civil War, and about what it means to be a patriot in a time of rising fascism and a worsening crisis of democracy.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

Given the state of the world and this country, how are you feeling?

It depends on the day. In general, I remain optimistic. As a historian, I look at the scope of the challenges the United States has had to overcome. On the day to day, we are in the heat of battle, and it is hard to maintain that optimism. It is really disturbing that the events of Jan. 6 were not sufficient to correct the direction this country is going in terms of political polarization.

Your tone of voice suggests that even in the face of all these challenges that you are hopeful about the country. How do you maintain that?

America has faced many challenges. At the time it was hard to see that light at the end of the tunnel when we were in the midst of seismic events such as the Vietnam War, for example, or the 1960s more generally. But we persevered and made incremental progress as a country. We are on one of those trajectories where we make a few steps forward and then take a step back. The country has not been properly prepared for the changes and challenges of the 21st century. Large swaths of the population have been left behind and that has left fertile grounds for radicalization.

Nativism and racism and ethnocentric nationalism were able to gain purchase there. We find ourselves in a really difficult moment right now. What I find so fascinating about the American people is their deep sense of patriotism, especially when they perceive a threat to the country. At present, the country is so divided that those different audiences and groups see a completely different set of threats. Nefarious political actors, both domestically and overseas, have been able to exploit those differences to drive a wedge between us.


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


How did you decide to blow the whistle and reveal the truth about Trump and his administration’s corruption, in terms of the illegal pressure campaign on the Ukrainian government?

There is a huge element of uncertainty. I had a military career that was thriving and that was derailed. But when it really counted and I was faced with the personal challenges that would greatly impact my life, I met the test and did what I thought was right.

How many military officers could pinpoint exactly the moment where they made a difference? Yes, it is true that over the broad scope of a career, you have an impact on soldiers and their lives. But for me this was a moment when American democracy was in peril. The president was trying to steal an election, and I lived up to my obligation to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Why did you make the choice to speak out when so many of your peers and other colleagues did not?

In many ways, I believe that I am representative of the public servant class of the military. The weight of the decision was on my shoulders. I was the responsible officer in the White House and in a senior position of trust. If I didn’t say anything, then nothing would have been said. I recognized that reality. There were many people that did something similar within their organizations to the best of their ability. The news media was not necessarily aware of those happenings.

Here is an example. The career public servants who testified alongside me during Trump’s first impeachment are representative of the excellence of the people who serve in the American government. Every single one of them went up there and told the truth, regardless of personal consequences. There are plenty of such people who raised the alarm within their organizations and institutions.

One of the things I’m most adamant about is accountability. There has not been enough accountability for the corruption of the Trump administration and the insurrection on Jan. 6 and related events. The country needs a truth and reconciliation commission. We need to really understand the harm that was done to good governance in this country by the Trump administration. There is a perception that now, because Biden is president, the danger to the country has ended. That is incorrect. The danger is still there because of the erosion of institutions. There is a blueprint now about how to corrupt the country’s governing institutions.

RELATED: Christian nationalism drove Jan. 6: Now it’s embraced the Big Lie, and wants to conquer America

Donald Trump did an enormous amount of harm. But he is a fool, and he could only do so much harm. If there is a really sophisticated person like a Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis, then America would be in a much more difficult situation in terms of the country’s democracy.

For example, the Office of the Inspector General should at least conduct an audit where things went wrong in the most important departments and agencies within the intelligence community, within the State Department, within the Department of Homeland Security, within Department of Defense and so on to make sure we take the steps that are necessary to protect the country.

What is hard to legislate against is presidential corruption. Our system is not designed to have a corrupt president and that is where the existential dangers lie, as we saw with Donald Trump.

How did you make sense of Jan. 6, 2021? What were you thinking as it was happening?

As I watched the events unfold, I knew intellectually that such an outcome was possible. Several months prior, I had conversations with other national security experts where we explored worst-case scenarios. You could see that Donald Trump was prepared to do anything to stay in power. He was telegraphing it.

Watching that violence and the assault, and seeing the Capitol building being successfully breached, was something that was hard to fathom. You would think in a worst-case scenario that there might be some violence, but that the mob would have have been stopped from getting inside the Capitol building. That didn’t happen.

Were you afraid that Trump would order the military to intervene on his side? That there would be a military coup?

I did not fear the military coming down on the side of Donald Trump. I trusted that the military was going to be principled and do the right thing, and not be immersed or dragged into domestic politics. But I did have some fears about the president successfully rallying a fringe, extremely right-wing radicalized portion of the public to cause real harm to the peaceful transition of power. And to a certain extent, that did happen. It lasted hours and failed. I have seen such things in other countries. These events leave me deeply worried about the health of our political system. Ultimately, I’ve tried to raise the alarm about the vulnerabilities in America’s democracy and governing institutions without being an alarmist.

What about all this talk about a second American Civil War?

I am somewhere in the middle. I have looked at the polling and other data which suggests that there are perhaps tens of millions of right-wing Americans radicalized and prepared to take up arms. I’ve also read academic analyses about America and the possibility of a second civil war. But there is a difference between the academic analysis and theorizing and the reality of the situation, and I don’t see the American public radicalized to that point — or at least not a significant portion of it.

RELATED: Who were the Jan. 6 attackers? Isolated white folks, searching for meaning — and enemies

Now, even if we’re talking about a fraction of that larger number, say 2 million, then yes, they could do a huge amount of damage. But that’s far from a civil war. It is disturbing. It could be a violent insurrection or something of that nature, but ultimately, I do not believe that the United States is on the brink of a civil war.

Why should the American people care about events in Ukraine?

There is a values argument and there is an interests argument. The values argument takes you only so far. This is a like-minded people fighting for their freedom, their homes and democracy.  

But the interests side of the equation is oftentimes more compelling. The Ukrainians are fighting on freedom’s frontier. They are warding off greater aggression by Russia in a region that is central to, if not the linchpin, for America’s interests and democracy.

The other example is that Russia is more powerful with Ukraine than it is without it. America does not want to deal with a belligerent Russia, a country with a leader that has attempted to interfere with our elections, put bounties on American soldiers’ heads and assassinated people on NATO territory. Do we want them to be even stronger?

There is that old saying from the Cold War that “politics stops at the water.” What has happened with the Republican Party, the right-wing news media and other “conservatives”? How did things go so wrong?

That quote and advice has not been ironclad, but it’s been generally consistent, especially so when critical United States interests or American lives are under threat. Donald Trump has taken the Republican Party in a disastrous direction. Again, everything Trump touches dies. He’s his own worst enemy. He is a stubborn ass who latched onto this idea that he will not criticize Putin. It’s a test of his manhood. Trump is now going to continue to press that issue. It looks like the Republican Party is going to follow him.

With Putin and the Ukraine invasion, it is almost like the Republicans stepped into a trap. You could see the trap from a mile away if you were paying attention. The Republicans were cheering on this vile tyrant as he attempts to destroy a peaceful country on his border, a democracy, and now they’re going to own that decision.

In my opinion, this is going to be an important theme for the Democratic Party going into the 2022 and 2024 elections. The Tucker Carlsons, the Donald Trumps, the Mike Pompeos, they and other Republicans are going to have to own this issue because they are the reason that Russia launched this operation. 

RELATED: Tucker Carlson’s Hungarian rhapsody: A far-right manifesto for waging the “demographic war”

Putin could have done this at any time. The reason he acted now is not coincidental. Putin started building up his forces in the spring of 2021. This was weeks after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Putin, like Trump, smells vulnerability and exploits it. Vladimir Putin perceived that the United States was distracted and vulnerable. He’s been testing our resolve. He’s been getting positive signals in that regard.

There is blood on the Republican Party’s hands. They were partially responsible for what is happening in Ukraine. Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump were basically as popular on Russian TV as they are here in this country. They’re constantly being played there. What is the impression given? The United States is divided, and there’s an opportunity there. So these folks now own it.

Why is Trump so enamored with Vladimir Putin? What does he represent for Trump?

It is about power for Donald Trump. Trump yearns for the kind of power that Vladimir Putin wields. Putin is who Trump wishes he could be. Donald Trump just doesn’t have the capability. He’s not smart enough. He doesn’t have the fortitude for that kind of behavior. He doesn’t have the determination. Donald Trump just doesn’t have a lot of those skills that Putin has, but that is who Trump wishes he could be. It is also why Trump is so fond of other authoritarian rulers, such as Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping. But Vladimir Putin is Trump’s favorite.

What does it mean to be a patriot in this moment of democracy crisis?

It is important to reclaim the symbols of this nation. That is why I would wear my American flag lapel pin when I was out on my book tour. These symbols of our nation cannot be usurped by the far right. We also need to reclaim the term “patriot.”

To me, a patriot is somebody who actually puts the interests of the nation above themselves. That is the exact opposite of what many in the Republican Party are today — the exact opposite of Tucker Carlson, the exact opposite of Donald Trump. These are people who put their own interests ahead of the nation’s. Such people usurp the symbols of the country while undermining it.

Do you have a message for the Ukrainian people?

I have faith in the Ukrainian people. I have faith in their spirit and their resolve to live a life in which individuals have a say in their destiny. It’s a struggle, but they’re moving toward a system where the rule of law is sacrosanct. The Ukrainians aren’t there yet, but they’re moving in that direction. I’ve been impressed with how the Ukrainian people, under these very difficult circumstances, have held up.

Mainstream media opposes military aggression — unless the U.S. is doing it

Having worked inside mainstream U.S. media during the beginning of the “War on Terror” and run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the differences in today’s war coverage are dizzying to me.   

Civilians

While covering Russia’s horrific aggression in Ukraine, there is a real focus — as there always should be — on civilian victims of war. Today, the focus on that essential aspect of the Russian invasion is prominent and continuous — from civilian deaths to the trauma felt by civilians as missiles strike nearby.     

Unfortunately, there was virtually no focus on civilian death and agony when it was the U.S. military launching the invasions. After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 on false pretenses — made possible by U.S. mainstream media complicity that I witnessed firsthand — civilian deaths were largely ignored and undercounted through the years.   

RELATED: The Ukraine catastrophe and how we got here: Chronicle of a war foretold

Shortly after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, leaked directives from CNN’s management to its correspondents and anchors showed that the network was intent on playing down and rationalizing the killing and maiming of Afghan civilians by the U.S. military. One memo instructed CNN anchors that if they ever referenced Afghan civilian victims, they needed to quickly remind their audience that “these U.S. military actions are in response to a terrorist attack that killed close to 5,000 innocent people in the U.S.” Such language was mandatory, said the memo: “Even though it may start sounding rote, it is important that we make this point each time.”   

A few weeks after 9/11, what CNN viewer had forgotten it?  

Noting the cursory U.S. television coverage of Afghan civilian casualties, a New York Times reporter wrote: “In the United States, television images of Afghan bombing victims are fleeting, cushioned between anchors or American officials explaining that such sights are only one side of the story. In the rest of the world, however, images of wounded Afghan children curled in hospital beds or women rocking in despair over a baby’s corpse, beamed via satellite by the Qatar-based network, Al Jazeera, or CNN International, are more frequent and lingering.”  

The near-blackout on coverage of the civilian toll continued for decades. In April of last year, NBC anchor Lester Holt did a summing-up report on Afghanistan as “America’s longest war” by offering one and only one casualty figure: “2,300 American deaths.” There was no mention of the more than 70,000 Afghan civilian deaths since 2001, and no mention of a UN study that found that, in the first half of 2019, due mostly to aerial bombing, the U.S. and its allies killed more civilians than the Taliban and its allies.


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


As the war on terror expanded to other countries, U.S. mainstream media remained largely uninterested in civilian victims of U.S. warfare and drone strikes

International law

Invasions and military force by one country against another are clearly illegal under international law, unless conducted in true self-defense (or authorized by the UN Security Council). In coverage of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. mainstream media have correctly, repeatedly and without equivocation invoked international law and declared it illegal, as they did when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014.   

By contrast, when the U.S. illegally invaded or attacked country after country in recent decades, international law has almost never been invoked by mainstream U.S. media. That was surely the case in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion — unlike in Britain, where major media prominently discussed the reality that invading Iraq would be a crime against international law unless authorized by a Security Council resolution. On a BBC television special six weeks before the invasion, for example, Tony Blair was cross-examined on that point by antiwar citizens.   

In 1989, when the U.S. invaded Panama in perhaps the bloodiest drug bust in history, mainstream U.S. media made a concerted effort to ignore international law and its violation — as well as the slaughter of civilians.  

Imperialism

Mainstream media in our country today are outraged by imperialism. Last Friday night, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell indignantly and repeatedly denounced “Russian imperialism.”  

As a lifelong opponent of imperialism, I’m also indignant that a powerful country like Russia is using force to try to impose its will and its own chosen leadership on the Ukrainian people. But I’ve never heard O’Donnell or anyone at MSNBC denounce U.S. imperialism. Indeed, the existence of something called “U.S. imperialism” is so adamantly denied by mainstream U.S. media that the phrase doesn’t appear in print without scare quotes.  

This stubborn unwillingness to recognize U.S. imperialism persists despite the fact that no other country (including Russia) has come close to ours in the last 70 years in imposing its will in changing the leadership of foreign governments, often from good to bad (for example, Iran in 1953; Guatemala in 1954; Congo in 1960; Chile, in 1973; Honduras in 2009). And that’s not to mention other U.S.-led regime changes (for example, Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011).  

This denial persists despite the fact that the U.S. maintains 750 military bases in nearly 80 foreign countries (Russia has about 20 foreign bases, in half a dozen countries), that our military budget dwarfs that of every other country (it’s more than 12 times larger than Russia’s) and that the U.S. provides nearly 80% of the world’s weapons exports — including weapons sales and military training to 40 of the 50 most oppressive, anti-democratic governments on earth.   

Speaking of U.S. imperialism, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been all over the news in recent days commenting on Ukraine and accurately denouncing Putin as anti-democratic. But her commentary reeks of hypocrisy on many grounds, one of those being her key role, largely ignored by mainstream U.S. media, in enabling the violent military coup regime that replaced elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009. (You can read about it here and here.)  

So as we rally to support Ukrainian civilians against great-power aggression from Russia, let’s do so with the understanding that imperialism should always be opposed, that all civilian victims of wars and violent coups are worthy, whether Iraqi or Honduran or Ukrainian, and that all criminals who violate international law should be held accountable, whether they’re based in Moscow or Washington. 

Read more:

Big tech pressured to take firm stance against Russia

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues, Big Tech companies with the world’s largest social media platforms, mobile devices and apps are facing more pressure to use their platforms and online influence to push back against Russian aggression.

On Friday, February 25, Ukraine’s digital minister Mykhailo Fedorov penned a letter addressed to Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple. According to The Washington Post, Fedorov is appealing to Cook to impose restrictions on products and services as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues his assault on Ukraine. Fedorov believes such bold action will inspire younger Russians to “proactively stop the disgraceful military aggression.”

“We need your support — in 2022, modern technology is perhaps the best answer to the tanks, multiple rocket launchers … and missiles,” he wrote.

Tech advocates and legal experts are also making similar appeals. Karen Kornbluh, director of the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the think tank, German Marshall Fund, expounded on the calls for Big Tech companies to take a stance as she emphasized the “moral obligation” to step up in the midst of the crisis.

“There is a growing sense they have a moral obligation to ensure their sites are not exploited at a time of crisis,” said Karen Kornbluh, director of the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the German Marshall Fund, a think tank. “The Russian playbook is clear — and the companies are under pressure not to wait to act against fake accounts or malign influence activity until after they are used to interfere with humanitarian assistance or inflame the conflict.”

Although there are calls for action to be taken against Russia, Natalia Krapiva, the tech legal counsel of Access Now offered a different perspective as she explained why turning off access could lead to adverse effects.

“Major tech companies have a responsibility to their Ukrainian and Russian users to respect their rights to freedom of expression and access to information, especially in the time of war and political crisis,” said Krapiva.

She added, “They do, however, also have responsibility to keep their users safe and identify and respond to any campaigns of disinformation that may result in violence and abuse.”

 

Trump has choice words for Brett Kavanaugh

Former president Donald Trump ripped into his own Supreme Court justices on Saturday after they declined to block the House Select Committee investigating Jan. 6 from obtaining his White House records.

Trump was particularly hard on Justice Brett Kavanaugh — suggesting that he’s afraid to do the right thing because Democrats might impeach him over sexual assault allegations.

The former president said that “at any cost,” Supreme Court justices “don’t want to be impeached.”

“Please don’t impeach me. I don’t want to be impeached,” Trump said, mocking the justices. “Don’t impeach me, please, for being with women that I’ve never heard of before — women that he didn’t know, women that a particular justice, Kavanaugh, had no idea who they were but you know what, he’s lived through hell, and he’s afraid, I believe he’s afraid, I believe he’s afraid to do the right thing, I really do.”

“They said not so long ago, we’re going to impeach him for something, and then they found out, the woman got up and said he never did anything wrong,” Trump added. “They said, ‘We don’t care, we’re going to impeach him anyway.’ These are vicious people, and we can’t let this go on. They (Supreme Court justices) have to gain strength. They have to gain new courage, and they have to stand up for freedom and stand up for what is right. They can no longer be afraid of the radical left, our Supreme Court.”

Later, Trump vowed that Republicans will “stop the radical Democrats from packing the Supreme Court with far-left justices.”

“Although the way the Supreme Court is behaving, perhaps the Republicans should pack the Supreme Court,” Trump said, “They are behaving not the way we think is appropriate for our country.”

Trump also referred to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court, as “a radical left zealot.”

Watch below:

 

11 commonly misheard phrases that actually make sense

When Malachy McCourt (brother of Pulitzer Prize-winning author Frank McCourt) was a kid, he misheard the line “Blessed art thou amongst women” from the Hail Mary prayer as “Blessed art thou, a monk swimming.” Needless to say, the malapropism is completely nonsensical — and therefore hilarious.

But what about phrasal gaffes that make just as much, if not more, sense than their correct counterparts? Those are eggcorns, a term coined by linguist Geoff Pullum in 2003 as a nod to people’s long-running habit of mistaking the word acorn for eggcorn. You could feasibly argue that acorns look like some sort of cross between an egg and a piece of corn.

Below are 11 other misconstrued expressions that fit the bill, from cold slaw to coming down the pipe.

1. Cold slaw // Coleslaw

The term coleslaw derives from the Dutch koolsla, a truncated version of kool-salade — in English, “cabbage salad.” Since coleslaw, like most salads, is traditionally served cold, the eggcorn cold slaw is a little redundant. But it’s not inaccurate (and considering the existence of hot slaw recipes, it may occasionally help to clarify). It’s not new, either. The first known written mention of cold slaw is from 1794.

2. Extract revenge // Exact revenge

Back in the 16th century, exact was used as a verb that meant to forcefully require or demand something (payment, labor, etc.). By the 19th century, people had started using it to mean inflict — as in exact revenge. You don’t often hear exact used as a verb at all these days. Extract, meaning to take out with force or effort, is much more common. And because revenge usually involves force and effort — the same type of painful process that you might associate with extracting a tooth — it’s no surprise that some people think the phrase is extract revenge.

3. Happy as a clown // Happy as a clam

The phrase happy as a clam is generally believed to have begun as happy as a clam at high tide. At low tide, the mollusks are much more likely to get plucked from the sand by clam harvesters. But the shortened version of the phrase makes little sense without that context, and plenty of people have unwittingly (or wittingly) replaced clam with clown. After all, clowns are known for being jolly, even if their antics have a tendency to terrify us.

4. Last-stitch effort // Last-ditch effort

last-ditch effort or attempt is one final, no-holds-barred, possibly desperate push to accomplish (or prevent) something. It’s a reference to the military tradition of defending your territory to the death, even when invaders have reached your very last trenches; the phrase die in the last ditch has been around since the early 18th century. Last-stitch effort, though technically incorrect, evokes a similar sense of eleventh-hour determination and futility: If there’s only a single stitch holding your pant legs together, it’s probably working quite hard to keep them from separating.

5. Old-timers’ disease // Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease is named for Dr. Alois Alzheimer, the German pathologist credited with identifying the affliction in 1906. Alzheimer’s surname is often misheard as old-timers’ — an apt eggcorn, as most people diagnosed with the disease are older than 65. In fact, if you’re diagnosed with it before you turn 65, it’s considered younger-onset or early-onset Alzheimer’s.

6. Deep-seeded // Deep-seated

Calling something “deep-seeded” implies that its seeds were planted far into the ground; so by the time it breaks the surface, it’s likely established a vast network of strong roots that aren’t easy to yank out. A deep-seeded fear or prejudice, for example, isn’t easy to get rid of. But the proper phrase is deep-seated, meaning the subject’s seat — as in its center or central power — is situated deep below the surface. This paints a much less literal picture than deep-seeded, which helps explain why deep-seeded-versus-deep-seated is one of many word usage mistakes that even smart people make.

7. Take for granite // Take for granted

If you take something for granted, you’re failing to appreciate it because you assume it’ll always be there, or failing to question it because you assume it’s true. The phrase dates all the way back to the early 1600s. Though it’s unclear when its eggcorn, take for granite, first appeared, it’s pretty clear why some people think it makes sense. Granite is a relatively hard rock — sturdy enough to last at least a good century as a countertop (and much, much longer in nature). Taking something for granite, therefore, could mean you’re assuming it’ll be around for at least as long as you are.

8. Bad rep // Bad rap

When the word rap arrived on the scene in the 14th century, it described a physical blow — as in a rap across the knuckles, a later phrase that sheds light on how rap became associated with punishment (think rap sheet). But rap came to accommodate verbal blows, too. And if people are constantly talking negatively about you (especially unfairly), you’re said to have a bad rap. You also probably have a bad reputation, so it’s understandable how bad rap gets mistaken as bad rep.

9. Bold-faced lie // Bald-faced lie

The bald-faced in bald-faced lie is a variant of barefaced. In other words, the lie is as apparent and uncovered as a clean-shaven face. But bold-faced has existed since the 1600s —Shakespeare used it in Henry VI — and if you’re telling an obvious lie, chances are good that you’re doing it with a pretty bold face. It’s also possible that people these days assume the bold face in question is a typeface: A lie printed in bold would be especially obvious.

10. Coming down the pipe // Coming down the pike

Something that’s coming down the pike is going to arrive (or happen) soon, just like something that’s literally coming down the turnpike — i.e. a central road or expressway, which is what pike in the phrase refers to — is going to arrive soon. But isn’t something that’s coming down the pipe going to arrive soon, too? Probably so, making down the pipe an effective, albeit incorrect, expression. As Merriam-Webster points out, the pipe-or-pike confusion is likely compounded by the existence of the phrase in the pipeline, which also alludes to things happening soon.

11. Wet your appetite // Whet your appetite

You can’t wet something abstract, and an appetite falls into that category. The verb you want is whet, meaning sharpen. That said, wetting your appetite could insinuate that you’re salivating at the sight, smell, or thought of food, which would probably whet your appetite.

Beyond Cyrano de Bergerac’s nose – the real man behind the swashbuckling hero

There’s something quite striking missing in Peter Dinklage’s performance of Cyrano de Bergerac. In the upcoming musical film, Cyrano is missing his iconic large nose.

Cyrano’s nose has been integral to popular images of the character ever since Edmond Rostand’s swashbuckling 1897 verse drama “Cyrano de Bergerac.” This connection became even more so after Gérard Depardieu’s take on the role in 1990.

In every iteration of Cyrano’s tale till now, his large nose causes him trouble and affects how people perceive him. In the new film, Dinklage’s form of dwarfism, called achondroplasia, as one critic wrote, “serves the same purpose the character’s oversize schnoz originally did, lending Cyrano an outsider quality that he must overcompensate for in personality.”

Cyrano is a witty wordsmith and staggeringly proficient swordsman, able to defeat his opponents with both verbal and physical deftness. For instance, in one scene in the Depardieu film, Cyrano duels and vanquishes a vicomte who insults his nose. He does this while improvising an elaborately complex poem called a ballade.

Despite such prowess, his looks limit him. Secretly in love with his dazzling cousin Roxane, Cyrano is held back by shame at his physical appearance. He can only find selfless, vicarious satisfaction by feeding lines of passionate poetry to his rival-cum-alter-ego, the handsome but ineloquent hero Christian, who wins Roxane’s heart.

In each new retelling of the story of Cyrano we see the fragile romantic hero tormented by his own perceived lack – it is easy to forget that another Cyrano lurked still further in the background: the real-life playwright, satirist, novelist, and duellist Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac (1619-55). Because of his taste for bluster and grandiose self-mythologisation, we know relatively little for certain about the historical Cyrano.

A colourful life

As a young man, the real Cyrano was taught by the idiosyncratic polymath Pierre Gassendi and mixed in free-thinking “libertine” circles. He was known to spend time with writers such as Paul Scarron and Tristan l’Hermite. It’s even believed that perhaps at the fringes of these circles was the great comic playwright Molière.

In his short life, Cyrano proved himself to be a talented and adaptable writer. He never settled down to one genre for long (tragedy, comedy, letters, fiction and more) but maintained a strong intellectually satirical vein throughout. The impressive verbal ingenuity we see in Rostand’s play is also reflected in Cyrano’s various writings, perhaps most cruelly in his witty fat-shaming of the actor known as Montfleury.

A would-be astronaut

The real Cyrano was very adept at self-construction and even self-mythologisation. As a young soldier, he fostered rumours that he had routed 100 attackers at once. He claimed some symbolic kinship to classical heroes and warriors by styling himself “Hercule” de Bergerac. Unsurprisingly, both these elements find their way into Rostand’s play.

While the persona Cyrano adopts for himself as protagonist and narrator of his philosophical novel “L’Autre monde” is somewhat more modest and cryptic (the name of its hero “Dyrcona,” a near-anagram for Cyrano). The first-person, pseudo-autobiographical fiction he spins here is even more outlandish. In this tale of adventure and daring, he claims to have travelled through outer space to visit the Moon and the Sun and to have conversed with the curious inhabitants of both.

As well as inspiring a scene in Rostand’s play, the novel also anticipates the various philosophical travel narratives of Montesquieu, Jonathan Swift, and Voltaire in the following century. Indeed, Dyrcona’s discussions with his various otherworldly interlocutors cover a range of theological, scientific, political, philosophical, and “libertine” topics – from theories of atomism to biblical accuracy, from cannibalistic orgies to the existence of God. Knowing that the text was philosophically and theologically contentious, he did not publish the work during his lifetime. It was published in a heavily sanitised version titled “Histoire comique” (“Comical Story”) in 1657.

“L’Autre monde” remains Cyrano’s most popular work and has various quirks to interest the modern reader. Among other things, the novel anticipates caravans (some moon-dwellers own mobile houses) and audiobooks (small boxes which read chapters out loud). Some of Cyrano’s other fabrications are rather more fantastic: hunting weapons that simultaneously cook the game they shoot, intercontinental flight with the help of bottles of evaporating dew, musical communication, and poetry as a means of currency.

One of the most suggestive moments of the novel for many comes when the moon-dwellers explain how a large nose is the marker of someone “spiritual, courtly, affable, noble-minded, [and] liberal.” This leads us back to Cyrano’s actual nose: was it purely Rostand’s invention? Yes and no. Contemporary illustrations of Cyrano show him to be relatively well-endowed nasally but never quite reaching the grotesque extremes we find in Rostand. Even so, in his overall encapsulation of Cyrano’s swagger, ebullience, and creative verve, it is fair to say that Rostand’s depiction was very much on the nose.

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

Why scientists think we could find extraterrestrial intelligence by searching for pollutants

At this very moment, the long-anticipated James Webb Telescope (JWST) is situated a million miles from Earth, preparing its mirrors and instrumentation for this summer when its observations will finally begin. When it does kick off observation, scientists say that the uniquely powerful space telescope will have an unparalleled ability to observe distant solar systems and their exoplanets — probing their atmospheres for likely signs of life, such as water, oxygen or methane. 

Now, some scientists are considering the proposition that JWST could be tuned to observe something like atmospheric pollution in an alien civilization’s sky. Indeed, given that certain pollutant molecules have no known natural origins, the notion of using the telescope to search for such “technosignatures” — as opposed to biosignatures — is intriguing. 

Astrobiologist Jacob Haqq Misra’s curiosity over whether JWST could probe for alien industries turned into a paper he recently co-authored, which will be published in the Planetary Science Journal in the next few months (currently a preprint is available in preprint on ArXiv). The paper explores the possibility of using JWST to search for industrial pollutants in the atmospheres of exoplanets. Specifically, the paper focuses on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), refrigerant compounds which were banned after they ravaged Earth’s protective ozone layer.

“Atmospheric pollution is one unique hallmark of industry that does not occur from other forms of biology on Earth, so finding such pollution in an exoplanet atmosphere would be compelling evidence that the planet has technology,” Misra told Salon via email. “CFCs are a particularly compelling technosignature because they are known to be technological, they are potent greenhouse gases and they can have a long atmospheric lifetime.”

RELATED: Somewhere on Earth, an ozone-destroying supervillain is hard at work

Misra said he and his colleagues not only wanted to determine the extent to which they could search for CFCs in nearby planetary systems with current and near-future technology— like JWST— but they also wanted to encourage ” broader thinking” about searching for intelligent extraterrestrial life on other planets.

Misra and his co-authors concluded that JSWT could identify CFCs, but there are some limitations. For example, if a planet’s host star is too bright, JWST wouldn’t be able to identify CFC signals. The authors concluded that JWST would have the most success looking at small red dwarf stars like TRAPPIST-1, which is 40 light years away. The TRAPPIST-1 system is notable for having at least three planets in the star’s habitable zone, which is where liquid water (and therefore life) can exist.

“Searching TRAPPIST-1e for CFCs with JWST would require significant observing time, but this might be comparable to the time that would be required to search for biosignatures like oxygen,” Misra said. “Such a long observing program could search for both biosignatures and technosignatures simultaneously.”

Misra emphasized that the TRAPPIST star system is “probably one of the best planetary systems to study so far, so there would be a lot of knowledge to gain from such a search even if TRAPPIST-1e turns out not to host life or technology.”

In the future, aside from JWST, should human telescopes search for pollutants as a sign of intelligent life? Misra believes there is a compelling reason to do so.

“If we saw pollution in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, such as CFCs, this would be compelling evidence for extraterrestrial technology,” Misra said. “Many of these searches can be done at the same time as searches for biosignatures, so it is worth keeping the possibility of technosignatures in mind as we attempt to understand exoplanet atmospheres.”

Misra isn’t the only scientist thinking that pollutants could be a marker for intelligent life in the universe. Avi Loeb, the former chair of the astronomy department at Harvard University, co-authored a paper published in 2014 exploring the idea as well.

“That was the first detailed study demonstrating the idea that JWST could detect industrial pollution in planetary atmospheres,” Loeb told Salon. “In the original paper we considered a habitable planet around a white dwarf; the new paper considers habitable planets around an M-dwarf which are supposed to be more challenging targets.”


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


There are some reservations about what kind of intelligent life would intentionally pollute their planet, Misra said.

“It is also worth noting that any extraterrestrial technology that we observe will probably need to have been around for a long time in order for us to observe it, [and] this means that a polluted exoplanet atmosphere would probably have to be in a continual state of pollution for us to see it,” Misra said. “We will hopefully avoid such a future on Earth, and so it is worth asking whether or not advanced extraterrestrial life would intentionally pollute their atmosphere.”

Misra said the question is “worth thinking about,” and could perhaps motivate scientists to think more deeply about different types of technosignatures.

“One idea is that CFCs could be useful in terraforming a planet to make it warmer — this idea has been suggested as a way for humans to terraform Mars,” Misra said. “Another idea could be that an exoplanet is used entirely for industry or waste, so that the accumulation of CFCs does not pose a hazard to anyone.”

But the most far-out idea?

“An even more imaginative possibility is a planet populated by ‘post-biological life’ that would be impervious to any of the harmful effects of CFCs,” Misra said.

More stories on astronomy:

Slow roasted sweet potatoes are better than any beyond burger

I rarely want to eat something based on what it is not. Or worse, what it’s pretending to be. I’ve yet to find a single ersatz meat or cheese that rings my bells; I’d much rather just have spaghetti with tomato sauce or a big plate of olives.

So when cookbook author Jessica Seinfeld described her own journey to “part time veganism” by talking about “having tons of sweet potatoes and vegetables and tofu,” I completely related. I may be an omnivore, but most days, I’d rather have a sweet potato than almost anything. Especially when it’s a sweet potato that speaks to my love of burnt stuff.


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


Chef Michael Solomonov’s “definitive” recipe calls for a super low temperature and super long cooking time, so sadly, you can’t pull this one out when you’re ravenous right now. But unlike those other perfectly acceptable, steamy microwaved sweet potatoes you may have made in your past, this is a meltingly tender, unbelievably flavorful, incredibly rich and satisfying dish. As Smitten Kitchen’s Deb Perlman says, “You’re going to immediately retroactively resent all of the sweet potatoes you had before.” Besides, it takes about a minute to actually prepare.

RELATED: Moby is happily boring now: “I look at the desperation that I had … I don’t glorify the past”

If you’re working at home, throw this in the oven for a superlative lunch. If you’re puttering around on a weekend, double or quadruple the portions and start roasting in the early evening for a side dish that deserves to be a main dish. I’ve taken inspiration here from Jessica Seinfeld and topped my sweet potato with coconut chips, but you can let your imagination go wild. It’s also, obviously, outrageously good with chili crisp. So why would on earth you want to eat something “impossible,” when this could be your reality today?

***

Recipe: Slow roasted sweet potato with coconut chips
Inspired by Michael Solomonov for Saveur and Jessica Seinfeld

 

Yields
1 serving
Prep Time
 5 minutes
Cook Time
2 hours 30 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 medium sweet potato, scrubbed and left whole
  • 1/4 tablespoon of olive oil
  • 1/4 teaspoon of sea salt, or more to taste
  • 1/4 teaspoon of freshly ground black pepper
  • 1 tablespoon of coconut chips

 

Directions

  1. Preheat your oven to 275°F.
  2. Line a sheet pan or cast iron skillet with foil or parchment paper.
  3. Put your sweet potato on your pan. Drizzle  with oil, salt and pepper, and rub all over with your hands to coat evenly.
  4. Bake until completely soft and tender when pierced with a fork, about 2 1/2 hours.
  5. Turn on your broiler and broil an additional minute or two, until nicely browned on top.
  6. Remove from oven, split and top with coconut chips or the garnish of your choice.

 

 

More vegan food we love: 

An indulgent brownie that’s accidentally vegan, in less than a minute

Just because you want to eat something that doesn’t have any animal products, that doesn’t mean you’ve given up on everything.

One of the biggest obstacles many of us who want to lean more plant based face is how irritatingly, unappetizingly virtuous so many of the recipes out there are. Have you ever gone searching for a delicious vegan cake or cookie, only to be assaulted with a bunch of suggestions for things that also promise to be gluten-free, sugar-free, fat-free, low-calorie, and/or all of the above? And then you’re like, if I wanted all that, I’d eat a potato. Did I say I wanted to be healthy? I refuse to suffer through any brownie, ever.


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


This is all so unfortunate and unnecessary, because plenty of delicious, indulgent foods happen to be vegan. One of my favorite chocolate cakes. A good avocado toast. Oreos. Plenty of really great dark chocolates. So in my quest to find the easiest, fastest vegan dessert in creation, I realized I had to stop searching for a vegan dessert.

RELATED: Journeying through New Orleans for the best vegan king cakes

What I found was a brilliant little mug brownie with no eggs, no dairy and no butter from Kirbie’s Cravings. I especially love it because it doesn’t call for a nondairy milk, so even the least vegan person in the world can pull this together without buying anything they wouldn’t otherwise use. Don’t expect an overflowing mug. Because there’s no leavening, this is a dense, fudgy number. I’ve upped the chocolate a little and swapped the water with cooled brewed coffee for a super intense flavor, but work with what you’ve got here. In less than one minute, you’ll end up with a rich treat that doesn’t feel like you’ve sacrificed anything. Because you haven’t.

***

Recipe: The richest 1-minute mug brownie
Inspired by Kirbie’s Cravings

 

Yields
1 serving
Prep Time
5 minutes
Cook Time
1minute

Ingredients

  • 2 tablespoons cocoa powder
  • 1 1/2 tablespoons of white flour
  • 2 tablespoons of white sugar
  • 2 tablespoons of neutral oil, like vegetable or canola
  • 2 tablespoons of cooled brewed coffee (or water)
  • 1 ounce of chopped dark nondairy chocolate (Ghiradelli and Lindt both offer great options.)

 

Directions

  1. In a microwave-safe mug, add cocoa, flour and sugar. Stir together with a whisk or fork.
  2. Add oil and coffee. Whisk until smooth.
  3. Add half the chocolate and stir into batter. Sprinkle remaining chocolate on top.
  4. Microwave brownie for about 40 seconds at full power. (You may need to add a few seconds more, depending on the strength of your microwave.) The brownie should look a little firm but still jiggly. Let cool a bit, and then enjoy warm.

 

 


Cook’s Notes

I would not dissuade you from topping this with a spoonful of peanut butter.

 

More vegan desserts we love: 

“Killing Eve” is back, and misses its calling — despite faint echoes of its past seduction

Killing Eve” is a provocative case of a series that has fallen prey to its central assets. This doesn’t expressly refer to the monumental chemistry Sandra Oh and Jodie Comer share as Eve Polastri, a one-time spy for MI6, and Villanelle, the assassin who burns for her. When the show first exploded into the world it was enough to luxuriate in their strange attraction to one another.

Villanelle, an elegant assassin, excelled in her profession by being invisible; Eve’s invisibility as a pencil-pusher at MI5 made it easy for her peers to ignore her. Each woman yearned to be seen and thrilled at being discovered by the other. Villanelle murdered people, even one of Eve’s co-workers who was like family to her. But the pull between these women overcame all that and more.

Their relationship birthed some unnamed other sensation, something alluring and sinister that propelled the show to a point. But as it enters its fourth and final season, even that usual yearning isn’t quite enough to elevate the show’s mission beyond that of a typical conspiracy-driven spy game.

RELATED: A Killer Conversation with Sandra Oh

Flawed though the show may be at this point, Oh and Comer remain one of the better double acts on TV, with each just as solid and enjoyable to watch on their own. Oh’s Eve is also much transformed from the first season, honed to a knife point by her frustration and a sensuality Villanelle brings out in her.

She’s also returned to field work in these final episodes, which find her freed from a marriage that Villanelle destroyed, working in private security and enjoying trysts with her hot co-worker Yusuf (Robert Gilbert). Any f**ks she might have been growing in her emotional fields have long since dried up.

Villanelle, by appearances, tries to head in an entirely different direction as she hinted at the end of the third season, when she professed to have grown tired of killing. These new episodes find her born again and taking a prominent place in a church community. It makes no sense, but in her world, not much does . . . except for murder.

Killing EveKilling Eve (Anika Molnar/BBCA)

BBC America shared a long list of “do not reveal” points with critics, limiting our ability to engage in explicit discussion about the direction this season takes. Nothing forbids mentioning the part of the series that has derailed the development what made “Killing Eve” such a unique vision, which was its exploration of how three women – Eve, Villanelle, and Eve’s icy boss Carolyn (Fiona Shaw) – work together, whether as allies or adversaries, to defy patriarchal environments intent on hemming them in.

Instead the show is obligated to follow Eve and Carolyn’s rampage against the all-powerful international cabal known as The Twelve to its conclusion, occasionally visiting the passion these women still hold for each other by way of intermittent interludes and the occasional violent outburst.

All worthwhile series are obligated to evolve around and beyond its central relationship. This one has done that by constructing a ladder of out of loss and revenge in a medium that calls for the more elaborate structure of scaffolding. Carolyn and Eve have both lost loved ones, motivating them to take aim at the head of this beast that’s made their lives hell. Konstantin (Kim Bodnia), survivor that he is, doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s side but his own.

Villanelle is merely tired and angry at having been herded into a life of killing. Resurfacing her as a holy roller makes very little sense beyond exploring its absurdist potential, however. Even this asks us to ignore the fact that Comer’s killer took lives for sport as often as she did for pay. When she reconnects with Eve, the former spy would very much rather that her former obsession remains in the past while Villanelle purports to want to earn her love through genuine divine contrition.

The banter and the performances are still excellent and entertaining enough to distract from a sprawl that’s still global but fails to register the bold, lurid memories it was once capable of spinning. The fashion is still on point, and the show’s top-notch casting brings Anjana Vasan into the fold, though her introduction contains little of the revelatory spark that set alight her performance in “We Are Lady Parts.”


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


Part of the problem may rest in the series’ signature practice of switching up showrunners between seasons: Phoebe Waller-Bridge handed the reins to Emerald Fennell, a friend and fellow writer with similar sensibilities, for season two. Suzanne Heathcote’s assumption of the role in the third season made the show’s distancing from its magnetic north more apparent; now, with Laura Neal at the helm, these early episodes feel like more like an approximation of what was than a natural growth out of the previous season’s action.  

Regardless of its fading luster, plenty of viewers remain invested in “Killing Eve,” and Neal has written for truly wonderful series like “Secret Diary of a Call Girl” and “Sex Education.” For them, enjoying the idea of “Killing Eve” may be enough — that, and the weekly couture parades, one part of the show that hasn’t lost its magic or ability to seduce, and savor what remains of the killer approximation of romance that Eve and Villanelle shared.

Once, it defied us to look away. Now, like a love gone cold, we may feel more obligated to see it through rather than be moved. 

“Killing Eve” returns at 8 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 27 on BBC America and on AMC+.

More stories like this:

Biden’s 500,000 EV charging stations get a $5 billion start

One of President Joe Biden’s favorite slogans on the campaign trail was “500,000 charging stations” for electric vehicles. And now, as president, he has continued to conjure an image of an America filled with electric cars and peppered from coast to coast with lightning-fast EV chargers.

Now, some of those chargers are going to be built. On Thursday, the departments of energy and transportation jointly announced $5 billion for states to build out a network of EV chargers along the Interstate Highway System. The funding comes from the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law in November and is a cornerstone of the president’s climate plan. Transportation is currently the U.S.’s biggest source of carbon emissions. 

“This is a big deal for the future of EV charging and EV adoption,” said Pete Buttigieg, the U.S. secretary of transportation, in an interview with Grist. “We’re partnering with states and the private sector to build out the backbone of electric vehicle charging across our entire federal and interstate highway system.”

According to Buttigieg, the funding for each state depends on its infrastructure and needs. In general, bigger, more populous states will get more: Out of a total of $615 million in funding available this year, California will receive around $57 million and Texas will get $60 million.

Most of the chargers built through the new program will be “DC fast” chargers, meaning that they can power up an electric car to 80 percent in 20 to 30 minutes. Among the types of EV chargers, DC fast are most similar to gas stations, and therefore well-suited to being placed along interstates and highways. Most public chargers are currently Level 2, meaning that they take around 3 to 8 hours for a full charge.

Buttigieg said that it’s unclear how many chargers the $5 billion will pay for. “It really depends on how the states decide to mix the fast chargers and different types of technology,” he said. According to the International Council on Clean Transportation, it costs between $30,000 and $140,000 to install a single DC fast charger. That means that the cash allocated could pay for between 36,000 and 166,000 fast chargers across the country — although it could be much more if states and private companies contribute their own funds, too. 

Although fast chargers will help reduce what’s known as “range anxiety” by making EV drivers more comfortable with long-distance trips, they won’t be enough to fully support the electric vehicle transition. Most EV owners charge their vehicles at home or at the office, where slower — and much cheaper — Level 2 or Level 1 chargers are sufficient. The International Council on Clean Transportation estimates that, to support an expansion in electric vehicles along the lines of Biden’s plans, the U.S. would need to have around 2 million public Level 2 or workplace chargers by 2030. 

And there, the Biden administration has hit a roadblock. For many years, companies and homeowners were able to claim a 30 percent tax credit if they installed their own electric vehicle charging stations. But that tax credit ran out at the end of last year, and its extension is tied to the Build Back Better Act, which is currently stalled in Congress

Buttigieg argues that the second round of charger funding in the $1 trillion infrastructure bill — $2.5 billion grants for chargers in rural and low-income communities — will help mitigate that problem if Build Back Better stays stuck in the Senate. But ultimately, he said, EV charging will increasingly be cost-effective even without government support. “The fuel savings of electric compared to gas or diesel continue to bear out,” he said. “We just haven’t yet seen the market mature.” 

COVID-19 is linked to long-term mental health issues in recovered patients, study finds

Long Covid — the shorthand term for people who continue to have long-term side effects long after their initial COVID-19 infection has subsided — has become a major condition that affects tens of millions. Doctors estimate that 10 percent of children who get COVID-19 will develop long COVID, and a study published earlier this month found that COVID-19 patients are more likely to have long-term heart problems.

Now, a new study published in the medical journal BMJ reveals that COVID-19 is linked to long-term mental health issues. The findings suggest that a dual mental-health crisis, evidently caused directly or indirectly by COVID-19 itself, now looms.

By looking at the health data of 153,848 veterans whose information had been catalogued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the researchers learned that patients were far more likely than uninfected people to have mental health issues within 12 months of getting sick. These issues included anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, sleep disorders, cognitive decline and dependence on drugs like opioids, benzodiazepines and antidepressants. The symptoms were primarily attributed to brain inflammation, although the scientists noted that stress also likely played a role in many cases.

“I think greater awareness that this is happening is an important first step,” Dr. Ziyad Al-Aly, the study’s senior investigator and Chief of Research and Development at the VA St. Louis healthcare system, told Salon by email. “I also think that health systems should anticipate this and build capacity to provide equitable care to people with mental health disorders. it is important to identify people early, and treat them to mitigate development of much larger problems down the road (e.g. suicide epidemic, or another opioid epidemic).”


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


This is not the first study to link COVID-19 to long-term brain damage. Last year Dr. Ricardo Costa, author of a then-upcoming study about the lingering effects of COVID-19 on the brain, told Salon by email that the general public needed to be aware that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not merely infect the lungs.

“Our in vitro study using cell cultures suggests that astrocytes and neurons – the cells that make up most of our brain – can be infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19,” Costa explained. “We also analyzed the resistance of each of these cell types to infection and saw that astrocytes seem to offer more resistance to infection, while neurons appear to be easily infected.”

Beyond the physical damage done to the brains of infected patients, experts also believe that COVID-19 has caused mental health problems by inflicting collective trauma.

“This will take generations to get past,” Dr. David Reiss, psychiatrist in private practice and expert in mental fitness evaluations, told Salon in an interview recently. “And that’s because at every stage of development, things have been disrupted, whether you’re talking about like my two-year-old grandchild who somehow has to understand seeing family members in masks, to four and five-year-old kids who are just starting to socialize, to adolescents who can’t socialize and all through different stages of life.”

RELATED: How the novel coronavirus attacks the brain

Experts suspect that the mental health component of the pandemic — both in terms of physical damage to the brain and the psychological harm from the entire ordeal — will linger with humanity long after the worst phases of the pandemic have passed. Much of the burden will rest on the shoulders of health care providers and governments to assist the people who will live with the effects of the virus for the rest of their lives. As Al-Aly told Salon when asked if he had any advice for the people concerned about COVID-19 and mental health, he emphasized realizing that they are not experiencing this on their own.

“They should know that they are not alone,” Al-Aly told Salon. “There are a lot of people suffering from similar problems. And people should seek professional help. This is very important. This is not something that people should deal with on their own. Identifying these and getting them treated early is the best thing to ensure the most optimal outcome.”

Read more on Long Covid:

Ukrainian and Russian delegations agree to meeting on Monday

On the same day that Vladimir Putin announced his decision to put Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert, delegates for Russia and Ukraine are in the process of scheduling a meeting for Monday. 

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine agreed to a talk with Russia “without preconditions,” according to The New York Times, but the exact location of the meeting, as well as who will be attending, varies based on reporting.

Related: Limited sanctions won’t stop Putin in Ukraine: It’s time to step up the pressure on Russia

In The New York Times report the planned location is said to be “on the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, near the Pripyat River,” but according to Al Jazeera‘s Dorsa Jabbari, who filed coverage directly from Moscow today, there’s been some confusion as to the specifics there.

“The Ukrainians are saying these talks will be held near the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, but according to the Russians, they believe, still, that the talks will take place in the southeastern city of Gomel in Belarus,” Jabbari said.


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


In a televised speech on Sunday, Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba said his country will “not give up a single inch of … territory.” 

“We go there to listen to what Russia wants to say, we are going without any … preliminary agreement on what the outcome of these talks can be. We are going there to listen and to say what we think of this war and Russia’s actions,” Kuleba said.

Although the exact location for this meeting differs per reports as of Sunday, The New York Times states that Ukraine delegates are against having the meeting in Belarus because Russia “staged part of its invasion from Belarus after amassing troops in the country.”

Read more:

Candace Owens, with bizarre observation on bear sex, leads CPAC into nonstop CRT panic

Right-wing personality Candace Owens traveled to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Orland to host a town hall panel titled, “Pupil Propaganda,” and began by talking about bear sex.

Owens went on to explain how male bears sometimes kill and eat their own cubs in order to regain sexual access to female bears. She said it was the origin of the beloved conservative image of the “Mama Bear” and wondered what might be accomplished if conservatives drew greater inspiration from that ursine fight-to-the-death maternal instinct. In the American context, Owens said, it would mean protecting them from a different range of predators, starting with school boards, but also pharmaceutical companies, politicians and bureaucrats “who accept money…to violate our children mentally and even physically; to, without our express consent, masking them, injecting them, sexualizing them through the education system” and teaching them “ideologies of hate” like critical race theory.

It was all part of the most important fight in the country, Owens said: “The battle for our children against the state” — particularly in the realm of education.

More than any other subject, the battle against public education has represented the through-line of CPAC so far, meriting multiple dedicated panels and at least a mention in a majority of the speeches delivered. Speakers like North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson made hay of the idea that parents protesting school boards were labeled “domestic terrorists,” or, as Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley charged, had had the FBI sicced on them. Many suggested Democrats were seeking to “indoctrinate our children,” as talk show host Ben Ferguson claimed. Others mused on an imminent reckoning coming through elections from Congress to local school boards.

RELATED: Surge in GOP’s war on free speech should sound alarms

Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who has made parental rights a theme of his pre-presidential campaigning, said he’d “battled adversaries all across the world,” from the Taliban to China’s Xi Jinping. But, he continued, “There is no greater threat to the United States than that which emanates from inside our republic, inside our public school system. If we do not teach our children, the next generation, that we are not a racist nation, then surely the bad guys will come to be right about an America in decline.”

Republican Florida Rep. Byron Donalds, whose wife runs a consultancy group that helps establish conservative charter schools, agreed. “The battle for our future, the battle for our country, the battle for our economy is in every public school, every private school, every charter school, and every homeschool across America.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, speaking Thursday night, took potshots at teachers’ unions and boasted about his record on “school choice” before getting into the red meat. “We will not spend taxpayer money to teach our kids to hate our country or hate each other,” he said, noting that Florida has banned CRT and replaced it with “the most robust civics education in the country” — a “patriotic” curriculum the state developed in partnership with Hillsdale College, a private Michigan Christian college that played a significant role in Trump’s 1776 Commission. DeSantis added that he’s instituting both new civics tests for students based on that curriculum and a $3,000 bonus for teachers who opt into attending a “bootcamp” on the new conservative standards.

Not to be outdone, Republican Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn argued that Democrats had deliberately taken the culture wars to the classroom because “Their goal is to replace education with indoctrination because that is an essential step for them.” As a grandmother, she continued, she wanted her grandkids “to know that the United States of America traces our founding to 1776, not some arbitrary date that a debunked author from The New York Times traces it to…I don’t want them to learn how to build a Molotov cocktail for a ‘mostly peaceful’ protest. I want them to learn the 50 states; I don’t want them to feel they have to learn 50 pronouns.”

At a long session on Thursday, “Domestic Terrorists Unite: Lessons from Virginia Parents,” a panel of four activists from the conservative group Fight for Schools described their activism in Loudon County, Virginia, widely credited with helping lead to Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s victory last November. Along with the group’s executive director, Ian Prior, three blonde mothers dressed in identical “Fight for Schools” t-shirts described becoming radicalized, first through a pressure campaign to reopen the schools, then growing to envelop complaints about “pornographic” books, critical race theory, and ultimately leading to a campaign to recall school board members.

RELATED: Right’s attack on “critical race theory” goes back decades — but media hasn’t noticed

At the Orlando hotel where CPAC is being hosted, one mother said they’ve been treated as near celebrities, as indeed they are on the right. When one mother, Amy Jahr, stood on a chair during a particularly volatile school board meeting last year and began singing the national anthem, she earned an immediate invite onto the Laura Ingraham show on Fox. When the group issued a press release announcing that they’d gathered a huge number of signatures for their recall campaign, another mother, Michele Mege, recalled how conservative commentator Dan Bongino had tearfully thanked them. They were invited to Youngkin’s election night watch party in November, and when he won, the mothers said, they danced, cried and received a “giant bear hug” from the new governor-elect.

Together the group, whom Prior cast as veterans of “the Lexington and Concord of the parents’ revolution,” urged other parents to take up the battle. “If you’ve got books happening, and it’s happening at my kids’ schools, and I know those books are happening at your schools,” Jahr told the audience, “and now I’ve got a sexual assault at my kids’ school, they’re happening at your schools too. You just don’t know about it yet.”

Prior advised other potential school board activists to look for rivalries and lines of division in their local school boards that they might exploit in their own campaigns. “You’re up against a massive bureaucracy so you need every tool at your disposal,” he said. And he stressed the possibilities of the movement: “We’re looking at a moment where we have the potential to build the biggest bloc of single-issue voters in the history of American politics.” That potential wasn’t lost on CPAC’s organizers, who have packed the conference agenda with school politics.

RELATED: Republicans’ war on education is the most crucial part of their push for fascism

In a “talk show” session on Friday morning, conservative commentator and former White House strategic communications director Mercedes Schlapp heralded several conservative educational “freedom fighters.” One was a Jan. 6 protester who has admitted to breaking into the U.S. Capitol, Brendon Leslie, also the founder of a right-wing news website that last summer rallied hundreds of parents to protest a South Florida school district over a “trans bathroom policy.” 

Another panelist was Hannah Smith, a recently-elected member of the school board in Southlake, Texas, which, like Loudoun County has become a name synonymous with conservative revolt, after a Republican-backed slate of right-wing candidates took over the school board by campaigning against a district plan to address racism and diversity. The diversity plan had been introduced after a video of some district high schoolers chanting the n-word went viral, and since the board’s takeover of the district has come under unwelcome national attention after a staffer’s suggestion that educators teach “opposing” views of the Holocaust. But in Smith’s telling, the story is more heroic: “In 2020, the left came for our kids,” she told the CPAC audience, and their “plan was defeated because parents like you stood up and said no, this is not happening to our kids, in our schools, on our watch.”

The third of Schlapp’s freedom fighters was probably the oddest: Leila Centner, founder of a private Miami “happiness school” that caters to wealthy parents and combines right-wing politics with classes on meditating with crystals. The school’s website specifies that, as a principled stand against “controlled messaging from the media” it does “not promote or teach Critical Race Theory, Gender Fluidity, or the mainstream narrative surrounding Covid, all hot topics that many schools are now choosing to teach as factual rather than as the theories they are.” In April 2021, Centner gained national attention after announcing via an open letter to students’ parents that, following guidance from “advisors,” she wouldn’t employ any staff who received a Covid-19 vaccine, since vaccinated teachers might “be transmitting something from their bodies” that could affect other women’s menstrual cycles or students’ future fertility. The letter threatened legal action against staff who didn’t truthfully report their vaccination status, and, last fall, when vaccines were opened to younger children, Centner required any student who received the shot to stay home for a month. 

Despite the media ridicule that followed and requests from some parents that she step down, Centner said at CPAC that she realized she was “on the right path and they don’t like the fact that I am letting our kids be kids, because they’re on a mission to destroy our youth.” She told unhappy parents to take their children elsewhere, and when 100 students left, she said, “I gained more than 100 way-more aligned families — families that moved from all over the country.” Now, she said, there’s so much demand for a spot in her anti-vaccination academy that she’s actively recruiting new teachers, so long as those teachers “understand what our country is about, they’re against critical race theory — which I’m completely against — they’re against all this crazy transgender stuff that they’re teaching in schools.”

If that list of job requirements seems like an odd fusion of unrelated conservative hobbyhorses, it is. And it perfectly captures the range of grievances that fell under educational policy at CPAC this year.

RELATED: “Critical race theory” panic is just a cover for silencing educators

Back at Candace Owens’ panel Friday afternoon, the speakers represented a range of conservative complaints. Owens herself charged that Second Wave feminism in the 1970s had lured women out of the home, leading to a “wonderful opportunity…for the state, because in mothers’ absence, the Department of Education began raising our children. And today we are reeling from the custodial aftermath of that transfer.”

Then there was Stacy Langton, another Virginia mother who became right-wing famous after bringing blown-up illustrations from LGBTQ books “Gender Queer” and “Lawn Boy” to charge that their explicit content amounted to “pedophilia” and illegal “grooming” (the latter since “you cannot present sexual images to children even under the guise of education). In response, Langton, who said she was called to action both by her Christianity and the model of former national security advisor turned QAnon hero Michael Flynn, has created an advocacy group, Mama Grizzlies, that is now advocating for a book labeling system they call “PAW Prints” (Parental Advisory Warning) that she hopes will keep “radical librarians” in check.

There was also Republican Illinois Rep. Mary Miller, a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, who described “going at it” with Education Secretary Miguel Cardona over “how many genders” he recognizes.

“They’re openly hostile to our American values and it’s time to fight back,” said Miller. She later added that she’d seen the threat “coming a long time ago. The problem is that we kicked God out of our schools. …We’ve told our kids that they come from nowhere, and they’re here for no purpose and that they’re heading for oblivion.” Instead, she continued, “We need to tell our kids that we’re created by God, they have a gift, they have a purpose, and put that back in the public schools as a foundation.”

Another panelist, National Review contributing editor and frequent Fox News guest Deray Murdock, charged that liberal teachings on race amounted to “institutionalized child abuse.” Owens agreed, saying that liberal teachings on LGBTQ issues were likewise “child abuse” that should probably result in criminal investigations.

RELATED: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott directs state agencies to investigate trans youth for child abuse

In a moment that earned her applause from all her fellow panelists and a standing ovation from the audience, Owens called for the complete abolishment of the Department of Education. She said she felt hopeful because she saw the fight over education as a mission that could spark a transformative unity.

“At long last,” she said, “we finally have an issue that can bring this country together.”

Before “Stop the Steal” there was “Free, white and over 21”

It was late when we returned to the hotel. We parked the rental cars in the back lot, nearest the entrance that opened to the shortest walk to our block of rooms. A sign posted on that door directed that the rear entrance not be used after 9 p.m. My coworkers were fatigued from a long workday followed by an evening out with drinks. One objected to walking around the building to the front of the hotel.  While we all stood in the dark, she exclaimed that we should disregard the sign because, after all, “We are free, White, and over 21.” The ease with which the phrase fell from her mouth left no doubt that she had uttered it comfortably many times before. However, on that occasion, her mouth spoke before her mind caught up.

I was the only one who did not fit her description. I was born with a permanent early summer tan and tight curl to my hair.  Her declaration of privilege was based on her membership in a group to which I do not belong. Admittedly, after dusk and from a distance, my African ancestry might not be noticed. That was not the case that evening; these colleagues knew me. Everyone grew silent. The offender noticed the change in the group’s disposition. Then, as responsible U.S. Department of Justice employees in town on official business, we all walked to the front door.

Thirty years later, the “free, White, and over 21” mentality was well represented among those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. After Trump told them “we will stop the steal” a mob broke through the doors of the Capitol Building with a fearlessness stemming from the belief that the rules do not apply to them. Jenna Ryan, who recorded herself participating in the insurrection, paraphrased this slogan when she proclaimed on her Twitter account that she would not go to jail because she is blond and has white skin.

RELATED: Mitch McConnell’s moment of truth: For many whites, Black people aren’t real “Americans

“Free, white, and over 21” sought to overturn an election, to deny the majority of American voters their will. They failed.  Their state-level elected adherents are now legislating restrictions calculated to diminish ballot access to minority voters.  This is not a new assault on a multi-racial democracy; it is just the latest chapter.

The slogan “Free, white, and 21” was reportedly popularized in the 1820s during the movement to extend the vote to men who were not property owners. Including “white” in their chant was a pledge to white supremacy. In several states, free African American men who met the property requirements had the right to vote during the nation’s early years. However, even as the white proletariat was gaining the franchise, it was being stripped from people of color in some of those states — New Jersey in 1807, Maryland in 1810, North Carolina in 1835 and Pennsylvania in 1838.


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


New York’s original state constitution did not prohibit suffrage to free people of color. The Democratic-Republican party was concerned that free Negros overwhelmingly voted for the Federalist party. In 1811, an act to prevent fraud at elections was passed. Section III specified onerous and costly documentation requirements specifically for Negros. Ten years later, in 1821, New York State reduced the property requirement for White males, but increased it for African Americans.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1870, prohibited the denial or abridgment of any citizen’s right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude. Nevertheless, those who were “free, white, and over 21” in the Southern states quickly established repugnant clauses that did not mention race or servitude, but used other text to precisely deny African Americans their right to vote. 

Judicial and legislative initiatives failed to overcome the Southern insistence on preserving white supremacy through voter suppression, fierce segregation and mob violence. The infamous white supremacist, South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, hypocritically argued against federal laws to outlaw discrimination at the polls and elsewhere, saying that it was not the government’s place to regulate human behavior. Thurmond knew well that the South was firmly in the business of policing human behavior through thousands of racially oppressive Jim Crow laws.

It took a brilliant organizer, thousands of activists, the martyrdom of too many, and the mettle of one president to finally achieve the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. The VRA was Dr. Martin Luther King’s great legislative accomplishment. Its impact has been monumental. Dr. King famously said that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. But justice’s opponents sometimes manage to twist the arc. We must not let it bend back in the direction of injustice.

“Black Americans vote at the same rate as Americans.” When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made this Freudian slip on January 19, 2022, his mouth may have been speaking before his mind caught up. Who does McConnell view as Americans? Besides, the rising African American voting rate appears to be the “problem” many of Senator McConnell’s GOP colleagues across our nation are trying to “solve.” That was the finding of the federal appeals court in 2016 when it struck down the North Carolina voter identification law. The court’s decision stated that provisions of the North Carolina law deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in order to suppress Black voter turnout.

McConnell’s impolitic reasoning was his justification for opposing the John Lewis Voting Rights bill.  But his claim is incorrect. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 62.6% of the Black American electorate voted in 2020, compared to 70.9% of White Americans. The eight percentage point gap is the widest difference between White and Black voter turn-out in a presidential election since 1996. The gap is even wider when the 70.9% White voter turn-out is compared to the 58.4% for all non-white voters (Black, Latino and Asian).

Black voter turnout swelled in 2008 when Barack Obama was elected. A surge of restrictive legislation and electoral changes were introduced by many states in response. The 1965 Voting Rights Act included a formidable provision requiring that electoral changes in states with a history of discouraging African American suffrage be cleared by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) before implementation. Shelby County, Alabama, did not want its desired changes subject to clearance, thus sued the U.S. Justice Department.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v Holder struck down the 1965 Act’s essential preclearance requirement. Following the removal of that DOJ review, the surge became a storm. For example, over 1,000 polling sites have been selectively closed in the states once subject to oversight.

Who deserves to vote? Everyone who is eligible. How should elections be administered? By making it as easy as possible for every eligible citizen who wants a voice in the nation’s future to vote. What do you think? Honest and accurate information should be widely available to help each of us make our decisions. What is not democracy is the effort to limit the franchise to only those who agree with you — or look like you.

From the mid-1800s through the 1950s, “Free, white, and over 21” was a catchphrase commonly included in books and movie scripts. In the 20th century, white protagonists frequently claimed these three attributes as the evidence of their freedom to do as they please. In the 1959 apocalyptic film, “The World, the Flesh, and the Devil,” Harry Belafonte’s character Ralph and Inger Stevens’ character Sarah found themselves the last survivors of a nuclear blast. At one point, Sarah declared to Ralph “I am free, white, and over 21.” Belafonte’s Ralph replied to his new friend that her carefree toss of that expression “was like an arrow in my guts.”

Although the phrase has gone underground, the sentiment has not. The discriminatory intent of many recently enacted and proposed state laws and directives is transparent. The right to vote must be protected from those who strive to limit it, again. 

More stories on voting rights and democracy: 

New evidence of discrimination against Black coaches in the NFL since 2018

Boldly going where no NFL coach has gone before, recently fired Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores put his future career at stake and filed a class-action lawsuit against the league, the New York Giants, the Denver Broncos and the Dolphins, alleging discriminatory hiring practices among team owners.

Coincidentally, a study I began working on in the spring of 2020 was published online in the Review of Black Political Economy mere hours before Flores’ lawsuit went public. My colleagues and I used data on all NFL offensive and defensive coordinators since the 2003 introduction of the Rooney Rule, which required all NFL teams to interview at least one minority candidate for vacant head-coaching jobs.

We wanted to determine what factors were correlated with a coordinator’s probability of becoming a head coach. Our results identified many factors that have impacted a coordinator’s chances of landing a head-coaching job. One of those factors was the coordinator’s race.

The study pays specific attention to the case of Kansas City Chiefs offensive coordinator Eric Bieniemy, who is Black.

Before Flores’ lawsuit was filed, Bieniemy had largely been the face of the discussion surrounding Black football coaches. What makes his case particularly interesting is the fact that two of his predecessors, who are both white, were quickly promoted to head-coaching gigs.

Many in the media have suggested that Bieniemy’s lack of head-coaching opportunities can be attributed to racism. In our study, we wanted to see if there was any validity to this claim.

A dead branch in Andy Reid’s coaching tree

When Andy Reid became head coach of the Kansas City Chiefs in 2013, his offensive coordinator was former NFL quarterback Doug Pederson, who is white. At the conclusion of the 2015 season, Pederson became head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Pederson’s replacement for the 2016 season was former Minnesota Vikings head coach Brad Childress. In 2017, Childress remained with the Chiefs as assistant head coach, and Matt Nagy, who is white, was promoted from quarterbacks coach to offensive coordinator. After only one season as Chiefs offensive coordinator, Nagy accepted a head-coaching offer from the Chicago Bears.

Nagy’s replacement was Bieniemy. During Bieniemy’s tenure, the Chiefs have reached four straight AFC Championship games and two Super Bowls.

Using the simple rating system metric provided by Pro-Football-Reference.com, the Chiefs’ worst offensive performance under Bieniemy’s tutelage was better than any season for Pederson or Nagy. Yet Bieniemy, who was once again passed over in this year’s hiring cycle, still awaits his first head-coaching opportunity despite reportedly interviewing for 15 such positions as of February 2022.

What NFL owners like in a coach

We collected data on all 267 NFL coordinators between 2003 and 2020.

In addition to race, our model accounts for a coordinator’s age; their years of experience as a coordinator; their years of NFL playing experience; what position they played in college; what positions they coached in the NFL; whether they had NFL or college head-coaching experience; whether they were an offensive or defensive coordinator; whether they were coaching under an offensive- or defensive-minded head coach; and their performance as a coordinator. The model also controls for the number of head-coaching vacancies each offseason.

Our research revealed several potential reasons for why Bieniemy has yet to secure a job as a head coach in the NFL.

One could have to do with the position Bieniemy played and coached prior to becoming Chiefs offensive coordinator: running back. NFL owners seem to devalue experience playing or coaching this position in their head coaches. Of the 32 head coaches to begin the 2021 NFL season, none were former running backs. Excluding special-teams positions, running back was the only position not played by at least one head coach for the 2021 season.

Pederson and Nagy are both former quarterbacks, which is a background NFL owners do value in head coaches. In fact, 12 head coaches in 2021 were former quarterbacks. Our model reveals that having played quarterback in college increases a coordinator’s probability of becoming a head coach by nearly 10%.

Two strands of racial bias

At the same time, our research suggests that, even when you control for factors like previous playing and coaching experience, Bieniemy’s race may have limited his head-coaching opportunities.

First, we found a statistically significant difference in how NFL playing experience impacts the probability of becoming a head coach for Black and non-Black coordinators.

Both Black and non-Black coordinators benefit from having played in the NFL. However, non-Black coordinators benefit more. Each additional year of NFL playing experience increases a non-Black coordinator’s probability of becoming a head coach more than a Black coordinator’s probability.

Second, our research found that Black coordinators were simply less likely to be promoted to head coach between 2018 and 2020. However, there was no such evidence of this between 2003 and 2017.

These two findings – that Black coordinators have been less likely to be promoted since 2018 and that Black coordinators benefit less from NFL playing experience – are not concrete proof that NFL owners are discriminating against Black coordinators. Concrete proof would require us to know and account for every characteristic that owners consider when deciding who to hire as their head coach. This isn’t possible.

However, the findings are “consistent with discrimination” against Black coordinators. In other words, if owners are discriminating against Black assistants, you would expect results similar to ours.

Using our model, we calculate that Bieniemy’s probability of promotion in 2020 would have increased from 42.5% to 57.2% if his race weren’t Black.

Race matters after controlling for other factors

A common reason given for Bieniemy’s – and other Black coaches’ – lack of head-coaching opportunities is a dearth of Black coaches who have experience playing or coaching the quarterback position. Black quarterbacks are becoming more common in the NFL, but for a long time, that wasn’t the case. In a 2013 study, I found that Black high school quarterbacks were significantly more likely to change positions in college than white high school quarterbacks. It’s likely that this segregation at the QB position has had a ripple effect that extends into the coaching ranks.

Others attribute the Chiefs’ offensive success to Reid, who has a reputation as an offensive guru. Yet this is a belief that former offensive coordinators Pederson and Nagy would have also had to overcome to get their head-coaching gigs.

Our study did reveal that many of the common reasons given for Bieniemy’s lack of head-coaching opportunities are likely true. Being an offensive coordinator under an offensive guru, being a former running back and having only been a running backs coach in the NFL before becoming an offensive coordinator have all contributed to Bieniemy’s struggles in becoming a head coach.

However, in our model, even after controlling for each of these factors, and more, we still find that Black coordinators have been less likely to be promoted since 2018. And while some have suggested that Bieniemy could simply be a poor interviewer, for that to explain our results, all Black coordinators would have to have suddenly become poor interviewers beginning in 2018.

In the case of Bieniemy, our findings suggest his race is not the only reason he has yet to secure a head-coaching job. But it’s likely one of the reasons.

In the wake of Flores’ lawsuit, the accused were quick to describe Flores’ allegations as “disturbing,” “blatantly false” and “malicious.”

Our research is consistent with a different description of Flores’ allegation of discrimination: true.

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

I feel the music in my bones: A new study shows how sound can rebuild bones

Imagine listening to your favorite song and swaying your body uncontrollably to the rhythm. There is an expression for this sensation, and it is fitting: You can feel the music in your bones.

As it turns out, there is an element of truth in the phrase.

According to a new study in the scientific journal Small, a team of researchers at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia used high-frequency sound waves to treat bone injuries and diseases — a potentially revolutionary treatment. The trick is to find stem cells — that is, generalized cells which can be turned into more specialized cells — and then bombard them with those sound waves. When the researchers did this in the right way, those stem cells turned into bone cells. Significantly, they did so even when the stem cells were derived from fat, where they can be extracted much less painfully than through bone marrow. Previous attempts to grow bone with stem cells used bone marrow.

RELATED: Organ harvesting’s troubled past — and complicated present

“The high frequency sound waves generate a pressure, which pushes across the stem cells,” Dr. Amy Gelmi, co-lead researcher and a Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow at RMIT, told Salon by email. “It’s this ‘pushing’ force which triggers the stem cells to begin their journey to turn into bone cells. Stem cells are very responsive to physical forces around them, and we found that the force exerted by our high frequency sound waves was ideal in ‘convincing’ the stem cells to turn into bone quickly and efficiently.”

The research could have many practical applications. One of the main challenges with regenerating lost bone tissue is making sure that it creates a bone with adequate structural soundness. This approach could make that possible.


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


“We plan to start using the device to ‘condition’ stem cells so they are ready to turn into bone cells, and then try a few ways to develop bone tissue implants,” Gelmi explained. “For example, like loading the conditioned stem cells into a ‘bio-ink’ and 3D printing a shape for the stem cells to grow into and create bone tissue.”

This is not the first important work to be done with high-frequency sound waves, meaning those with frequencies above 10 megahertz. In 2020 RMIT researchers detailed a number of potential applications for the technology, from more efficiently delivering drugs to human lungs to helping the body more precisely target infections and tumors. They have already been used to help create tumor selective drug molecules and in ultrasound procedures that provide detailed images of the body. 

Speaking to News Medical Life Sciences at the time, Professor Leslie Yeo explained that “we’ve harnessed the power of these sound waves to develop innovative biomedical technologies and to synthesize advanced materials. But our discoveries have also changed our fundamental understanding of ultrasound-driven chemistry — and revealed how little we really know.”

Yeo added, “Trying to explain the science of what we see and then applying that to solve practical problems is a big and exciting challenge.”

Does that mean that all of the high-frequency sound wave research has implications for people who feel a deep physical connection with certain types of sounds, such as music?

“Perhaps!” Gelmi told Salon. “The stem cells which reside in our bodies (we all have them!) respond just as much to physical sensation as they might to biochemical signals. We’re learning every day about how important it is to use these physical forces in tissue engineering.”

Gelmi added, “Plus, I think lab work always goes more smoothly when you are vibing to a really good playlist.”

For more Salon content on health technology:

Putin sets Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert

In response to what he’s referring to as “aggressive statements” by NATO, Vladimir Putin has put Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert as of Sunday morning. 

“Western countries aren’t only taking unfriendly actions against our country in the economic sphere, but top officials from leading NATO members made aggressive statements regarding our country,” Putin said in televised comments.

This statement from Putin, included in a Sunday morning report by The Washington Post, escalates the already fraught events of the push into Ukraine on behalf of Russian forces that began roughly a week ago. Since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine was put into direct motion by Putin, the looming threat of nuclear possibility has been on everyone’s mind. Now, in the face of Putin’s call to ready nuclear forces, that threat is at its closest. 

Related: This is what would happen to Earth if a nuclear war broke out between the West and Russia

“President Putin is continuing to escalate this war in a manner that is totally unacceptable,” Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said in a quote used by The Washington Post. “And we have to continue to condemn his actions in the most strong, strongest possible way.”

Overnight, Russian attacks in the Ukraine capital of Kyiv advanced to the east into Kharkiv where citizens braced for a full attack. 

“The past night was tough – more shelling, more bombing of residential areas and civilian infrastructure,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. “There is not a single facility in the country that the occupiers wouldn’t consider as admissible targets.”


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


To assist with their defense against Russian attack, Ukraine government has approved the release of prisoners with military experience so that they might help in the fight for their country which grows more dire as the days progress. 

Ukrainian military deputy commander Lt.-Gen. Yevhen Moisiuk issued a statement to Russian troops via a video posted to Facebook saying “Unload your weapons, raise your hands so that our servicemen and civilians can understand that you have heard us. This is your ticket home.” 

Read more:

Montana mice may hold the secret to virus spillover

For the past 20 years, Amy Kuenzi has spent three days of every month traveling to a ranch near Gregson, Montana, and setting out traps that contain peanut butter and oats. Her quarry is deer mice. She takes blood samples, looks for scars and fleas, and attaches ear tags.

“Mice are fairly trap happy and easy to catch,” she said. “But it can be kind of a miserable job in the winter.”

Kuenzi’s goal is to better understand how a type of hantavirus called Sin Nombre spreads through these mouse populations.

Kuenzi, a professor of biology at Montana Technological University, and her colleague Angie Luis, a professor of biology at the University of Montana, are among a growing number of researchers working to predict where viruses may be likely to spill over from animals to humans. Sixty percent of human diseases, including the Sin Nombre hantavirus, originate in animals, and two-thirds of those originate in wildlife.

By understanding hantavirus and the complex ecology that governs it, Kuenzi and Luis also hope to create a model system to better understand the ecology of many other viruses, including coronaviruses.

The researchers have built six large enclosures at the Bandy Ranch, a University of Montana research facility. There, they can study how deer mice behave when they’re the sole occupants and then introduce the mice’s main rodent competitors, voles, to see how mouse populations, mouse behavior, and disease prevalence change.

“We’re asking how competitors affect the transmission of disease,” Luis said of the research, recently funded with a $2.5 million National Science Foundation grant. “We are trying to understand that as we stress animals, as we add or remove competitors, how does that change the transmission?”

The role of biodiversity in zoonotic diseases is complex and can have both positive and negative effects. For example, competition from other rodents can lower deer mice numbers and reduce how often the mice interact, limiting infections. At the same time, the presence of more competitors can stress deer mice, and stress in animals has been shown to lower their immunity and greatly increase their viral load.

Climate change is also a factor. Warmer temperatures and fluctuations in rain and snow are changing habitats, which can affect infection rates. The first recognized outbreak of hantavirus in humans, in 1993, is thought to have been driven by a wet winter that provided more food for mice.

The Montana study area has only two main rodents, making it a simple system for carrying out research. Kuenzi and Luis are also gathering data in the Southwest, where Sin Nombre is far more prevalent — and complicated. “At one site in Arizona, we caught 29 species of rodent-sized small mammals,” Kuenzi said. The larger number of species appears to decrease the prevalence of the disease, Luis said.

Sin Nombre, Spanish for “without a name,” is one of several types of hantavirus. It is transmitted through the inhalation of airborne particles from mouse droppings. The disease is rare in humans but can be deadly. In 1993, the first known outbreak was on the Navajo Nation in the Southwest. It killed 13 people, half of those it infected.

The disease is most prevalent in rural areas, where mice and other rodents are common, and public health officials urge people to take special care when cleaning homes or buildings that have been closed for the winter or when working in areas like crawl spaces or vacant buildings where rodents may be present.

In 2012, Sin Nombre in tent cabins in Yosemite National Park killed three people. In 2004, the deputy superintendent of Glacier National Park died from the disease. From Sin Nombre’s discovery in 1993 through 2019, fewer than 900 infections were reported in the U.S.

The hope for the research in Montana is that it will lead to recommendations on how to manage land in ways that don’t increase the prevalence of the disease.

This is just one thread in the tapestry of disease ecology. The long list of factors that increase the possibility that pathogens will spill over from animals to humans is getting a lot of attention from researchers around the world in response to the pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2. Viral outbreaks are a product of the ways that humans are altering the natural world, though researchers are seeking to determine precisely how.

In the big picture, research from the past 20 years shows that keeping nature intact will help minimize the risk of another pandemic. “Evidence is mounting that biodiversity dilutes out disease,” Luis said. “As we lose biodiversity, we see greater disease prevalence.”

When animals can move to find food when they need to and avoid humans and domestic animals, “we are not going to see spillover events,” said Raina Plowright, a professor at Montana State University, who studies the disease ecology of bats.

Activities that bring people into contact with wildlife — such as farming, logging, and building homes in wild areas, all of which change the ecosystem — may amplify the risk of spillover.

It could, for example, drive the competitors of deer mice out completely. “Deer mice like disturbance,” Luis said. As land is developed, species that compete with deer mice may scatter, and without competitors, deer mice increase in number. With more mice come more encounters between them and the spread of Sin Nombre.

Early studies of biodiversity and disease took place in upstate New York, where the fragmentation of forest habitat by development had led to the loss of foxes, owls, hawks, and other predators. Those changes drove a five-fold surge in the number of white-footed mice, which are potent reservoirs for the bacteria that cause Lyme disease.

But the idea that biodiversity has protective effects is more complicated than first thought. “There are lots of exceptions to this idea that biodiversity dilutes out disease,” Luis said. “You can get both positive and negative effects of biodiversity at the same time. There is an overall dilution effect because competitors lower the density of deer mice,” she said, but there might be amplification from stress caused by competitors.

Kevin Lafferty is an ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Ecological Research Center in Santa Barbara, California, and studies the ecology of parasites. Focusing on the ecology of mice and hantavirus makes sense, he said: “If wild rodents … are going to become more abundant because we disturb the environment, then those particular diseases might be the kind of things we should worry about.”

However, the broad notion of protecting biodiversity to prevent disease is “wishful thinking,” he said. “That’s a vague and ineffective way to solve human health problems,” Lafferty said. Instead, he added, researchers should focus on how the viruses’ hosts respond to the environment.

Luis agreed that more work needs to be done on a complicated topic. “Outbreaks that are moving from animals to humans have only become more common over the last 30 to 40 years,” Luis said. “This is not the last pandemic. We need to understand how what we are doing leads to these outbreaks.”

The dark side of Joel on “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”

For a long time, I considered Nellie Oleson to be the worst person in the world.

I was raised on a steady diet of “Little House on the Prairie.” On summer vacation, when I was in junior high, I would watch one hour of the show at 10 a.m. when I rolled out of bed, then switch to another broadcast network where a whole other hour of the historical drama was on at 11.

The bratty rich girl of “Little House,” Nellie Oleson was the ideal foil for the main character. She had perfect blond ringlets, the finest fancy clothes and frequently a snide expression, mouth turned down and nose turned up. The actor who played Nellie, Alison Arngrim — though by all means, a fine person in real life, one of the first celebrities to support AIDS charities and an advocate for abused children — had difficulty escaping her villain role. Once, someone threw a drink at her head when she was in a Christmas parade. Arngrim’s book about her time playing Nellie is titled “Confessions of a Prairie Bitch: How I Survived Nellie Oleson and Learned to Love Being Hated.”

In recent years, a new character has emerged to de-throne Nellie, a contender for worst person on television, certainly the most mediocre: Joel Maisel.

Related: Susie’s struggle in “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel”

The Amazon prime show “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” follows its titular character, Midge Maisel (Rachel Brosnahan), a former housewife in New York City in the late 1950s, who struggles to establish a career as a standup comic — and to wrest control of her life. One of the reasons for her struggle is her on and off again husband, Joel (Michael Zegen).

In the very first episode of the show, Joel leaves Midge, seemingly out of nowhere, after he bombs onstage at a Village nightclub called the Gaslight, attempting a comedy set, which Midge thought he was doing just for fun. It turns out Joel really believes he can be a famous, professional standup comic (spoiler alert: he cannot). After the couple fight, he packs up his clothes in her suitcase and admits he’s been having an affair for months with his secretary.

A common trait of the mediocre guy? He’s got someone always on deck.

Entering its fourth season, the show finds the characters in completely different places in their lives. Midge has had some success in her own fledging comedy career, which then plummets after she makes a terrible mistake on stage. Joel has his own life, kind of. But while both characters have difficulties, Joel’s are demonstratively less difficult. He slides by. He always has.

In 2021, the New York Times ran a story headlined ” ‘Mediocre’ men get ahead in finance more easily, say women in the industry.” (They put mediocre in quotation marks, possibly to not scare anyone.) In the article, the women interviewed report that men “could survive more easily than women with comparable abilities” in the world of finance. Men belong to clubs, after all. Men are “always around” while women lose years of work to caregiving.

With his ability to fall up, Joel is the quintessential mediocre man. But his lack of care and casual ease through life conceal darker qualities, his ineffectiveness masking toxic behavior that borders on abuse, particularly to the women in his life, whom he believes are beneath him.


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


Joel is not good at his jobs. Yes, jobs plural. A benefiter of nepotism, Joel begins the show employed by his uncle’s plastics company, perhaps having followed the advice given to Benjamin Braddock in “The Graduate.” During a big, important meeting, Joel quits that job in an emotional tantrum. He next works for his parents’ garment business. His own father attempts to fire him, hoping he’ll move on. 

Joel is indecisive and never satisfied. At first, Joel is cheating on his wife with his secretary. Then, he betrays his secretary with his wife. He dates a series of women, including models at his family’s garment factory. He has a one-night stand with Midge, more than once. Midge discovers he’s living with the secretary girlfriend only when she drops the kids off, and sees the arrangement of his apartment is nearly identical to the one she and Joel shared (but with the nice new couch he refused to buy her). A stereotype of the estranged dad, Joel has slipped into the same life as he had with his family, only with a younger woman.

Soon after divorcing her, he drunkenly remarries Midge while he’s seeing someone else at the time: Mei (Stephanie Hsu), who’s been helping Joel navigate Chinatown. “This is my neighborhood now,” he says like a pioneer gentrifier. Joel and Midge are (re)divorcing (I think? it’s very unclear). Meanwhile, Joel and Mei have an argument, break up, then get back together. 

In a Trump move, Joel’s father has given him $60,000, and Joel has opened a Chinatown nightclub. This proximity to access — if I can’t be a comedian, I’ll control who can be on the stage — reminds me of the worst gatekeepers, those who seek power in part to restrict who else may have it. As Refinery29 put it: “This is how he will deal with not being “Midge funny.” “

One wonders when Joel’s comedy dream began. Perhaps he dreamed of being a famous poet first. Perhaps it’s not the art form specifically, but delusions of grandeur, constantly believing he’s better than he is. “I thought my life was going to be something different,” he says when he leaves his wife. He says his dream is to be a comic — but it’s a dream he doesn’t work at, instead stealing his act from Bob Newhart. Midge is the one making copious notes about every show she attends, writing down and revising jokes, honing craft: actually doing the work.

When Midge goes on stage herself — and is really, really good at comedy, a natural — it’s the ultimate betrayal for a man like Joel. He views it as a personal slight against him, an extension of how he views the whole world as out to get him.

Constantly blaming others and seeing oneself as a victim (even though Joel is the one who left Midge — and who introduced her to comedy in the first place) is a trait of a narcissist. So is being controlling. 

Joel is furious when he first discovers Midge is not wearing her wedding ring — even though he uncovers this fact at a restaurant where he’s dining with his live-in girlfriend at another table. He wants it both ways: The freedom to sleep with whoever he wants, and his estranged wife still attached to him, still dependent on him.  

Money-wise, Joel’s control is a clear example of financial abuse. He doesn’t want Midge to work, and tries to buy an apartment for her and the kids—not out of the kindness of his heart, but because he wants her contained. Midge behaves cluelessly about money — in part, no doubt, due to the restrictive gender roles of the time, but also partly due to Joel. 

Such ignorance finds Midge making terrible financial decisions at the start of the show’s fourth season: buying back an apartment she can’t actually afford, trying to buy groceries on credit she doesn’t have, even stealing milk from the neighbors.

If Joel controls the purse strings, he controls his ex-wife.

Joel also seeks to control Midge’s manager Susie (the marvelous Alex Borstein) by lending her money and keeping her indebted to him as well. Susie, as a person who’s lived her whole life in poverty, has her own issues with money. “Don’t you ever — I mean, ever — do something shifty with my wife’s money again,” Joel bullies her. 

“Ex-wife,” Susie reminds him. 

Joel feels threatened by Susie, the person to whom Midge is probably the closest, who believes in her and actually works to make Midge’s dreams come true. Joel is also threatened by what Susie represents as a woman who wears pants, a woman who lives her life outside of men’s approval and who embodies the kind of struggling artist life he can only fantasize about. 

He frequently explodes at her in a kind of queer panic. “What’s going on?” he says immediately when he sees Susie in her pajamas at Midge’s apartment in episode 3 of season 4, after Susie has had particularly rough personal news.

Unlike Nellie Oleson — who has cult, gay icon status now — whose bad behavior still had lovable fun at its heart, over-the-top campiness, the character of Joel is a sneaky villain. There’s nothing fun or funny about his behavior, nor is it childlike and immature like show co-creators Amy Sherman-Palladino and Daniel Palladino’s other deadbeat dad character, Christopher from “Gilmore Girls.” 

Rather, it’s deliberate and insidious, how Joel’s charm conceals, how he seeks to harm.

Joel is the latest character in a long line of mediocre, threatened men drawn to the power of capable, talented women — until he realizes they’re smarter than him, or more accomplished or have more potential. His power comes in squashing a woman like Midge’s — a woman like Mei’s — dreams, not in supporting them, and I hope, though I doubt it, this season shows both women leaving him backstage for good.

More stories like this