Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

S.F. police used rape victim’s DNA to arrest her for an unrelated crime, says DA

San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin on Monday accused his city’s police department of using DNA collected from rape kits to “incriminate” victims in unrelated crimes.

Boudin said that the San Francisco Police Department crime lab had entered DNA obtained from likely victims of sexual assault into a crime database in an “attempt to subsequently incriminate” them in other cases entirely unconnected to the alleged rapes.

“I am disturbed that victims who have the courage to undergo an invasive examination to help identify their perpetrators are being treated like criminals rather than supported as crime victims,” he said in a statement. “We should encourage survivors to come forward — not collect evidence to use against them in the future. This practice treats victims like evidence, not human beings. This is legally and ethically wrong.”

Boudin said the practice may violate the California state constitution and called on police to immediately stop the practice, urging lawmakers to introduce legislation banning such tactics.

RELATED: Police reform by another name: COVID mandates causing cops to complain — and quit

Boudin did not provide details, and did not say how many such cases there may be. He said he learned of the practice a week ago when a woman was arrested on suspicion of an unrelated property crime based on DNA collected years earlier in a domestic violence and sexual abuse investigation, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The department’s report said that “during a routine search of the SFPD Crime Lab Forensic Biology Unit Internal Quality Database, a match was detected and verified. Direct comparisons with the samples listed below were performed,” listing the sample from the victim’s 2016 rape kit, according to the Washington Post.

Boudin told the outlet that the language suggested that the practice was “routine and not an isolated incident,” and the head of the crime lab confirmed to his office that such searches are “done regularly.”

Boudin said that the waivers signed by alleged victims of sexual assault before their DNA is collected do not disclose that the DNA may be entered into other databases.

“Even if it were mentioned somewhere in the fine print, is that an appropriate waiver to seek from a victim who’s just come in and reported a sex assault?” he told the Chronicle. “Absolutely not.”


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


San Francisco Police Chief Bill Scott said in a statement that the woman may have been identified as a suspect “through a DNA hit in a non-victim DNA database.”He said his office would review the matter and the department’s DNA collection practices and policies. Scott said that the department’s policies have been “legally vetted and conform with state and national forensic standards” but added that his office will work with community and legal groups to “pursue any changes necessary.”

“We must never create disincentives for crime victims to cooperate with police, and if it’s true that DNA collected from a rape or sexual assault victim has been used by SFPD to identify and apprehend that person as a suspect in another crime, I’m committed to ending the practice,” Scott said.

San Francisco Supervisor Hillary Ronen said she is working with the city attorney’s office to draft legislation to prevent DNA evidence or any other evidence from a victim’s rape kit to be used for anything other than investigating the rape.

“There are already enormous barriers for victims of rape to come forward to report the crime,” Ronen said in a statement. “Any DNA evidence collected from victims of rape must not be used for any other purpose than investigating the rape itself and of course must never be used against the victim herself.”

State Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, said he would work with Boudin’s office on any necessary legislation.

“Sexual assault is one of the most traumatic experiences anyone can undergo,” Wiener said in a statement. “Coming forward after a sexual assault to provide a rape kit can be re-traumatizing. Too many people decide not to take that step, given the trauma. Yet survivors can at least be assured — or so they thought — that the sample they provide for a rape kit will only be used for the sexual assault investigation and not misused for other purposes.”

Boudin, a progressive prosecutor who has focused on reducing the jail population and holding police more accountable, currently faces a recall campaign led by critics who accuse him of implementing policies that have led to an increase in crime.

Tensions have mounted between Boudin and the police department. Scott earlier this month announced that the department would no longer cooperate with Boudin’s office on investigations of officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths and other “use of force” incidents as laid out in a 2019 agreement between the DA’s office and the department. The move came after Scott accused Boudin’s office of withholding exculpatory evidence against an officer charged with beating a suspect, though one such withholding came before Boudin took office and a judge found that none of the information was unknown to police, according to SF Gate.

“It is disappointing but no coincidence that SFPD chose to withdraw from this agreement during the first-ever trial against an on-duty San Francisco police officer for an unlawful beating,” Boudin’s office told the outlet. “SFPD’s decision comes a week after an SFPD fatal police shooting in which police falsely characterized the decedent as being in possession of a firearm and weeks after a criminal case was dismissed after officer excessive force came to light. San Franciscans deserve to be safe — including from unwarranted police violence.”

Scott vowed that the tensions with Boudin would not affect the department’s handling of the rape kit allegations.

“Whatever disagreements District Attorney Boudin and I may have, we agree that this issue needs to be addressed,” he said. “At the end of the day, our respective departments exist to do justice for victims of crime. The last thing we should ever do is discourage their cooperation with us to accomplish that.”

Read more:

“Return to Jim Crow”: AOC says in new interview she fears end of democracy in U.S.

During her three years in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has seen first-hand how ugly American politics can be — from death threats to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. The progressive congresswoman and Bernie Sanders ally hasn’t been intimidated, however; she isn’t shy about using Twitter to mercilessly troll far-right MAGA Republicans.

Ocasio-Cortez discussed the state of U.S. politics during an interview with the New Yorker conducted on Feb. 1 and published on Feb. 14. And she warned that the assault on democracy from the far right is relentless.

When asked what she sees “in the room” as a member of Congress, AOC responded, “Honestly, it is a shit show. It’s scandalizing, every single day. What is surprising to me is how it never stops being scandalizing. Some folks perhaps get used to it, or desensitized to the many different things that may be broken, but there is so much reliance on this idea that there are adults in the room, and, in some respect, there are. But sometimes, to be in a room with some of the most powerful people in the country and see the ways that they make decisions — sometimes, they’re just susceptible to groupthink, susceptible to self-delusion.”

RELATED: Mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s trauma is really about covering for Trump’s violent coup

During the interview, Ocasio-Cortez expressed fears that the U.S. may not be a democracy 10 years from now.

The congresswoman told The New Yorker, “What we risk is having a government that perhaps postures as a democracy, and may try to pretend that it is, but isn’t…. We’re never beyond hope, but we’ve already seen the opening salvos of this, where you have a very targeted, specific attack on the right to vote across the United States — particularly in areas where Republican power is threatened by changing electorates and demographics. You have white nationalist, reactionary politics starting to grow into a critical mass. What we have is the continued sophisticated takeover of our democratic systems in order to turn them into undemocratic systems, all in order to overturn results that a party in power may not like.”


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


Ocasio-Cortez added that the U.S. will “return to Jim Crow” if the GOP assault on voting rights continues.

“You have it already happening in Texas, where Jim Crow-style disenfranchisement laws have already been proposed,” she warned. “You had members of the state legislature, just a few months ago, flee the state in order to prevent such voting laws from being passed. In Florida, where you had the entire state vote to allow people who were released from prison to be re-enfranchised after they have served their debt to society, that’s essentially being replaced with poll taxes and intimidation at the polls. You have the complete erasure and attack on our own understanding of history, to replace teaching history with institutionalized propaganda from white nationalist perspectives in our schools. This is what the scaffolding of Jim Crow was.”

Read more on imperiled American democracy:

How Kyrsten Sinema lost Joe Manchin

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., is attempting to revisit conversations about a corporate tax hike with Democrats – but he’s likely to face steep opposition from Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who has fashioned herself as a stalwart guardian of corporate interests. 

Last year, Manchin proved an insurmountable roadblock in negotiations over President Biden’s $2.2 trillion social spending plan, also known as “Build Back Better.” The House-passed bill, arguably the centerpiece of Biden’s agenda, was officially torpedoed by Manchin back in December after Manchin and Biden met privately to hash out their differences but could not come to any agreement. 

RELATED: “This is a no”: Joe Manchin effectively kills Build Back Better during Fox News appearance

Now, Manchin is attempting to revive the issue of raising the corporate rate – a move that was designed to finance the provisions contained in Build Back Better. 

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Manchin suggested that the Democrats should discuss a revised version of the bill, hiking corporate taxes to combat inflation, reduce the national deficit, and pay for its own provisions. 

“Why can’t we just get a good solid tax plan that works?” Mr. Manchin told the Journal last week. “That’s the first thing to do.”


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


Specifically, Manchin has proposed raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25% and raising the top capital-gains rate to 23.8% to 28%. 

But last year, Sinema, along with a number of conservative and corporate-funded Democrats, dashed any hopes of imposing such hikes, opposing progressive proposals to pare back Donald Trump’s corporate tax cuts from 2017.

RELATED: Key Democrats want to keep most of Trump’s corporate tax cut — and slash more taxes for the rich

“I respect [Sinema] and what her concerns may be, but I think basically our financial situation is getting worse, not better, so maybe we can take another look at it,” Manchin told the Journal. “I would hope so.”

It remains unclear whether Sinema shares Manchin’s newfound willingness to come to the table. A spokesperson for her office told the Journal that “there are many ways to pay for [social spending plans] that do not include tax-rate increases that hurt small businesses and our economic competitiveness while we continue to emerge from a pandemic and economic downturn.”

Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, said in October that negotiating with Sinema is like playing a “guessing game.”

“We’re all supposed to be on the same team. And that means transparency, communication and collaboration,” she told Politico. “I don’t know what the red lines are for one U.S. senator who has an amazing amount of power.”

How to peel hard boiled eggs perfectly, every single time

The best kitchen tips are usually passed along from friends, or parents, or — if you work in an office with an always-bustling test kitchen — from colleagues.

And such is the case with perfectly cooked hard-boiled eggs. We all learned to cook them from someone, somewhere; they’re personal, they’re nostalgic, and also pretty genius. But make no mistakes — they can be finicky, and, when hard-boiled, a real pain to peel.

Enter one of our own, Blake, with his trick for the perfect way to peel perfect hard boiled egg, gleaned from the kitchen of Blue Hill where he used to work. We tried his method immediately, and tested it a whole bunch of times, and we’ve never looked back. What followed was a whole new world — and some massively upgraded deviled eggs, egg salad, and protein-packed snacks.

So, here, without delay, is the absolute cleanest, most pain-free way to peel a hard boiled egg, no blowing or wooden cane required.

How to peel hard boiled eggs

Peeling the perfect hard boiled egg starts with cooking eggs, of course. Cook your eggs however you like — in a pot of boiling water with a splash of vinegar, a squeeze of lemon juice, a teaspoon of baking soda, or a pinch of salt. All of these additions help make it easier to peel boiled eggs. Slightly older eggs will make it easier to peel, but using them is not necessary. After all, we have to work with what we have. Another pro tip? Start with water that’s already boiling. I know it seems treacherous, but it will make it much easier to peel hard-boiled eggs. “I have noticed the egg white sticks to the shell when I start from cold [water],” says Jason Hua, executive chef at The Dutch. J. Kenji López-Alt explains this phenomenon on Serious Eats: “Slow-cooked egg whites bond more strongly with the membrane on the inside of an eggshell.”

Once the eggs are fully cooked (set a time for 10 to 12 minutes), the next step is to cool the eggs down in an ice bath or a bowl of very chilly water, where they should stay for a full five minutes or so. Set a timer. Do not disturb. I know you’re hungry and anxious, but the eggs will be better off if you just leave them alone.

Once they are cool enough to handle, fill another clean bowl with room temperature water, and submerge the eggs, one at a time. Using the edge of the bowl to knock them, you can now start cracking the shell. Do this gently, so as to not break the freshly boiled egg entirely in half.

Once cracked, the water helps to gently separate both the membrane — that attaches itself with a vice-like grip to the egg — and the shell from the egg white, making it so much easier to peel.

From here, discard the eggshells or, better yet, compost them — they’ll turn into fantastic fertilizer. Then slice the boiled eggs and add a sprinkle of flaky salt for a sneaky snack, dice them for potato salad, or slice them for a Niçoise salad.

Presto! The world’s shiniest, smoothest, pearliest eggs to impress your friends with. Just don’t forget to pass on the tip to the next generation.

Ready for another pandemic malady? It’s called ‘decision fatigue’

Most all of us have felt the exhaustion of pandemic-era decision-making.

Should I travel to see an elderly relative? Can I see my friends and, if so, is inside OK? Mask or no mask? Test or no test? What day? Which brand? Is it safe to send my child to day care?

Questions that once felt trivial have come to bear the moral weight of a life-or-death choice. So it might help to know (as you’re tossing and turning over whether to cancel your non-refundable vacation) that your struggle has a name: decision fatigue.

In 2004, psychologist Barry Schwartz wrote an influential book, “The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.” The basic premise is this: Whether picking your favorite ice cream or a new pair of sneakers or a family physician, choice can be a wonderful thing. But too many choices can leave us feeling paralyzed and less satisfied with our decisions in the long run.

And that’s just for the little things.

Faced with a stream of difficult choices about health and safety during a global pandemic, Schwartz suggests, we may experience a unique kind of burnout that could deeply affect our brains and our mental health.

Schwartz, an emeritus professor of psychology at Swarthmore College and a visiting professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California-Berkeley, has been studying the interactions among psychology, morality, and economics for 50 years. He spoke with KHN’s Jenny Gold about the decision fatigue that so many Americans are feeling two years into the pandemic, and how we can cope. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What is decision fatigue?

We all know that choice is good. That’s part of what it means to be an American. So, if choice is good, then more must be better. It turns out, that’s not true.

Imagine that when you go to the supermarket, not only do you have to choose among 200 kinds of cereal, but you have to choose among 150 kinds of crackers, 300 kinds of soup, 47 kinds of toothpaste, etc. If you really went on your shopping trip with the aim of getting the best of everything, you’d either die of starvation before you finished or die of fatigue. You can’t live your life that way.

When you overwhelm people with options, instead of liberating them, you paralyze them. They can’t pull the trigger. Or, if they do pull the trigger, they are less satisfied, because it’s so easy to imagine that some alternative that they didn’t choose would have been better than the one they did.

Q: How has the pandemic affected our ability to make decisions?

In the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, all the choices that we faced vanished. Restaurants weren’t open, so you didn’t have to decide what to order. Supermarkets weren’t open, or they were too dangerous, so you didn’t have to decide what to buy. All of a sudden your options were restricted.

But, as things eased up, you sort of go back to some version of your previous life, except [with] a whole new set of problems that none of us thought about before.

And the kinds of decisions you’re talking about are extremely high-stakes decisions. Should I see my parents for the holidays and put them at risk? Should I let my kid go to school? Should I have gatherings with friends outside and shiver, or am I willing to risk sitting inside? These are not decisions we’ve had practice with. And having made this decision on Tuesday, you’re faced with it again on Thursday. And, for all you know, everything has changed between Tuesday and Thursday. I think this has created a world that is just impossible for us to negotiate. I don’t know that it’s possible to go to bed with a settled mind.

Q: Can you explain what’s going on in our brains?

When we make choices, we are exercising a muscle. And just as in the gym, when you do reps with weights, your muscles get tired. When this choice-making muscle gets tired, we basically can’t do it anymore.

Q: We’ve heard a lot about more people feeling depressed and anxious during the pandemic. Do you think that decision fatigue is exacerbating mental health issues?

I don’t think you need decision fatigue to explain the explosion of mental health problems. But it puts an additional burden on people.

Imagine that you decided that, starting tomorrow, you are going to be thoughtful about every decision you make. OK, you wake up in the morning: Should I get out of bed? Or should I stay in bed for another 15 minutes? Should I brush my teeth, or skip brushing my teeth? Should I get dressed now, or should I get dressed after I’ve had my coffee?

What the pandemic did for a lot of people is to take routine decisions and make them non-routine. And that puts a kind of pressure on us that accumulates over the course of the day, and then here comes tomorrow, and you’re faced with them all again. I don’t see how it could possibly not contribute to stress and anxiety and depression.

Q: As the pandemic wears on, are we getting better at making these decisions? Or does the compounded exhaustion make us worse at gauging the options?

There are two possibilities. One is that we are strengthening our decision-making muscles, which means that we can tolerate more decisions in the course of a day than we used to. Another possibility is that we just adapt to the state of stress and anxiety, and we’re making all kinds of bad decisions.

In principle, it ought to be the case that when you’re confronted with a dramatically new situation, you learn how to make better decisions than you were able to make when it all started. And I don’t doubt that’s true of some people. But I also doubt that it’s true in general, that people are making better decisions than they were when it started.

Q: So what can people do to avoid burnout?

First, simplify your life and follow some rules. And the rules don’t have to be perfect. [For example:] “I am not going to eat indoors in a restaurant, period.” You will miss out on opportunities that might have been quite pleasant, but you’ve taken one decision off the table. And you can do that with respect to a lot of things the way that, when we do our grocery shopping, we buy Cheerios every week. You know, I’m going to think about a lot of the things I buy at the grocery, but I’m not going to think about breakfast.

The second thing you can do is to stop asking yourself, “What’s the best thing I can do?” Instead, ask yourself, “What’s a good enough thing I can do?” What option will lead to good enough results most of the time? I think that takes an enormous amount of pressure off. There’s no guarantee that you won’t make mistakes. We live in an uncertain world. But it’s a lot easier to find good enough than it is to find best.

Joe Walsh on Trump’s looming “race war” — and why his followers love it

Joe Walsh was elected to Congress as a Republican in the “Tea Party wave” of 2010 and served one term in the House, where he was a vocal and harsh critic of Barack Obama. After losing his re-election campaign in a redrawn district in 2012 (to future U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth), Walsh became a nationally syndicated right-wing radio host and, a few years later, a leading supporter of Donald Trump. 

When Trump was elected president in 2016, Walsh already had doubts: He didn’t love Trump and didn’t hate him, as Walsh told me in the first part of our recent interview. But he was rewarded for his loyalty with access to the highest levels of power in the Trump White House and the MAGAverse, before ultimately deciding that Donald Trump represented an existential threat to American democracy and the future of the country. At significant personal and professional risk, Walsh turned against Trump and his movement, even running against Trump (albeit very briefly) as a 2020 Republican presidential candidate. 

In the first part of his conversation with Salon, Walsh warned that Donald Trump and his followers would “happily burn this country down to get the country they want. They would happily do it. And they tell me that. I don’t think the folks who watch CNN and MSNBC every night really understand that fact.” I may not agree with Walsh on many political or ideological issues, but he’s correct about that. Democratic leaders, and too many liberals and progressives at large, remain in denial about the level of threat despite years of evidence and a mountain of proof that speaks to the true intentions of Trump’s neofascist movement.

RELATED: Joe Walsh on what the left doesn’t get: TrumpWorld “would happily burn this country down”

Walsh also explained how Donald Trump maintains control over the Republican Party and most of its elected officials and voters, and argued that the coup attempt of January 2021 was just one battle in a longer struggle to overthrow American democracy. Speaking of the Trump movement, Walsh said: 

They’re dead-set on what they want to do. Their country, they believe, their 1953 America, has been taken away from them. In the form of Donald Trump, they have somebody who is going to bring it back, step by step. These Trump followers are taking the long view. The MSNBC crowd does not understand that fact at all.

In this second part of our conversation, Walsh warns that Trump is willing to start a “race war” in America in order to return to power and punish his enemies — and says that Republican voters would largely support such white supremacist violence. Walsh also talks about what Republicans know about winning and keeping political power — and what Democrats do not. He says the likelihood of right-wing political violence will only increase as the 2022 midterms approach.

At the end of this conversation, Walsh reflects on what it means to be a patriot in America today. This is a recurring question at the heart of his podcast, “White Flag with Joe Walsh.”

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

You have said that the Republican base needs an intervention so they can be brought back to reality and out of the delusions of TrumpWorld. What would that look like?

Here’s how you teach them: This country that you love, my friends, is never going to be 80% or 90% white again. America is never going to make 90% of the automobiles in the world again. It’s a big, competitive world and America’s going to get browner by the year. There’s nothing wrong with that, and here’s why. But instead of having those conversations, the [Republican] establishment just turned the other way and the base grew angrier and angrier.

What do you do about those Republicans and members of that cult movement who would rather destroy America, through violence if need be, than share power with Black and brown Americans?

I think at this point, it’s too late. I think at this point, all we can do is outvote them. I remember being in Congress eight years ago. Then I said that America was more divided than we’d been at any time since right before the Civil War. That was five or six years before Trump. I think it’s too late. That is a hard thing for me to say, because I spent a lot of my time trying to save people from the cult. The situation is not hopeless. Every day and every week, I save a few of them but the vast majority are lost.


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


What was your moment of realization about the Trump cult? Why did you decide to leave it?

The first moment was when Trump got elected. This may sound strange to some, but when Trump got elected I was on 200 radio station around the country, I’m right in that world and I’m moving up. But even in that position, I’ve got to be honest — and I said this publicly, when I primaried Trump — I messed up, because I didn’t pay attention to him. I never paid attention enough to what a bad person he was. So I voted for him. But the minute Trump won, I started to pay attention to him.

The minute we found out conclusively that Russia had interfered in the 2016 presidential election to help him win, and Trump turned around after learning this and rejected the evidence and facts. Trump did not want his victory tarnished. Trump does not give a damn about the country. Then I realized that every time Trump opens his mouth he lies. I can’t stand that in any politician.

The final straw for me was what happened in Helsinki in the summer of 2018. When he stood in front of the world with Putin and said, “I believe Putin and not my own people,” I went on the radio that night and I said, “This is the greatest act of disloyalty I’ve ever seen in an American president. I’m going to do everything I can to make sure he doesn’t get re-elected.” I began to lose my radio show. I began to lose everything at that moment.

RELATED: Guilty: Donald Trump betrayed his country in Helsinki. It wasn’t the first time

How do we locate Barack Obama’s presidency, relative to the rise of Trumpism and neofascism?

I say this as a white guy: Right now in America we are going through a big old course correction in how we look at and talk about our history. I say this as a white guy: I believe that white people need to feel uncomfortable. That does not work with the Republican Party base.

When it comes to Obama, it’s a combination of a lot of things. The Tea Party began before Obama. The Tea Party formally began with George W. Bush and all the bailouts and the government spending. But I’m telling you what, Chauncey, because I was right there. This was when I ran for office and I was talking to thousands of those people every day: The election of Barack Obama was pouring gas on the fire that was already there. It was like their final straw. A guy named “Barack Obama” became president. A Black man became president. A guy who seems to love Muslim countries more than America became president. A guy who is a socialist became president. A guy who wants to take over our entire health care system became president. So his election inflamed my base.

To clarify, none of what you are saying about Obama is true. You are repeating what others said and believed.  

One hundred percent. I’ve had to apologize for how I inflamed those fears, instead of trying to ease some of these fears.

What does it mean for you to apologize?

It means that I’m still young enough that I want to do something about it. There isn’t anything more humbling than going on with George Stephanopoulos, on national television, and apologizing for things you said about Obama or things you said about Democrats or apologizing for helping to elect Trump, that bigoted, authoritarian traitor. To go on national TV, as I did night after night, and apologize for my role in all this is very humbling. An apology does not mean a thing unless you do something about it. Whenever I apologize — and I apologize a lot, by the way — it’s a call to action. I helped divide the country, now I want to do something to try to bring people together.

What does that look like on the day-to-day?

It means a number of things. For example, I started a podcast called “White Flag.” We’re so tribal in this country right now. Every week I sit down with somebody who does not think like me. We try to figure out if we can find common ground. I’m trying to model how to sit down with people who don’t think like you. The other thing I do every day is I get in the faces of the members of the Trump cult and I try to save them. If I can only save four or five members of the Trump cult each week, then I’m going to do it because that’s my penance. I will do that until I drop.

RELATED: The psychological reason that so many fall for the “Big Lie”

I want no compromise with the Republicans, the Trumpists, the neofascists and their followers. There can be no compromise. They are the enemy. They are a danger to American democracy and society. I want nothing to do with these people, and I have suggested that other people of conscience make the same decision. They are a cult. 

I’m still a proud libertarian Tea Party conservative. This is a unique moment in American history where you and I are going to lock arms to try to save democracy. I have no interest in working legislatively with the other side or trying to compromise with the other side. But I think what’s important is that you have to understand the other side. To defeat them, you have to know what they are thinking.

What do the Republican Party’s leaders understand about politics and power that the Democrats do not?

Mitch McConnell, who I respect immensely for how capable he is — and not for what he does — is fully prepared to burn everything down to get the things he wants. The Republican base, the grassroots Republicans, they will burn down America to get their Judeo-Christian white America. But at the elite decision-maker level, Republicans are prepared to do that too.

I do not believe that the Democrats are. Republicans in state after state this cycle are gerrymandering the hell out of every district they can. What are Democrats doing? Complaining about it. You’re at war. The control of the House is at stake. Republicans will play hardball and Democrats will not.

What is so compelling about Donald Trump? How does he get people to be so loyal to him?

There are two things that make Donald Trump an incredible cult leader. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, most of these guys are cowards. They are just typical politicians who hold their finger up to the wind and then do what they think they have to do to continue to win.

Trump says, “Screw it! I’m going to do whatever I want to do and I’m going to only look out for myself.” To Trump’s credit, he recognized early on how weak these Republican politicians are. How did he take over the party so easily? He was right. These establishment people and elected officials are weak. Trump gave them permission and license to be horrible people just like him. It was alluring to them. Trump is a bully, and he gets away with it. Now you see how many of these Republicans ape him. They imitate him, they emulate him.

The other power that Trump has is that Republican politicians are afraid of him because of how he connects with the base of the party. In private, most of them do not fear Trump. They tell me they fear his symbiotic connection to the base, to the cult, and they don’t want to lose that. Republican politicians fear Republican voters.

Why are Trump’s followers, the base of the Republican Party, so loyal to him? Trump and his regime made decisions about the coronavirus pandemic that are literally killing them by the many tens of thousands. Yet they stay loyal to him and the party even while they are dying.

They don’t believe that. They’ll deny it. They deny that to me. I’m in line at Iowa the night before the Iowa caucuses, where I’m campaigning against Trump. I walk the line of people going into his rally in Des Moines and I ask 40 people in line a simple question: Has Donald Trump ever told a lie? All 40 of them told me, no, Donald Trump has never, ever uttered a lie. Now do all 40 believe that? No. But 34 or 35 believe that. 

RELATED: The GOP’s Ayn Rand death cult: Trump’s party is literally killing the American people

Again, it is a cult. Most do not blame him for COVID. Most of them support everything he did with COVID. The vast majority of them don’t even believe that Biden won the election. They believe Trump won. They don’t believe Jan. 6 was a big deal.

They believe everything Trump says. If I had to narrow it down to one thing that Trump’s cult members have said to me every day over the years, they love him because he just fights. They tell me that they know he is a horrible person. They know he may be bad. They say that maybe he cheated on his wife. But they tell me that Trump fights for them. He goes after CNN. He goes after Pelosi. They say things like, “He fights for me.” For these people, that is a hard thing to let go of.

Almost every day there are new “revelations” about Trump and his cabal’s coup plot and how serious it was — and how close it came to succeeding. Yet this reality does not seem to be sinking in. The mainstream media, with a few exceptions, has really failed here.

The country does not understand the threat we’re facing. Democrats and everyone outside of the GOP base are asleep at the switch. “It’s our democracy, stupid” needs to be their rallying cry. Republicans are counting on the fact that most Americans can’t fathom that our democracy is actually in real trouble.

To that point, Donald Trump now seems to be threatening a race war, white-on-Black violence on a massive scale, if he is punished for his crimes or otherwise held accountable. Again, the mainstream media is not reporting on that either.  It is treated as a curiosity or as hyperbole, when the threats are very serious.

Again, there is a general disbelief in the media that Trump is actually doing what he’s doing. Yes, sowing a race war is and always has been part of his strategy. It’s of great appeal to the GOP base. I know, because I hear that every day. The media has done an absolutely horrible job of making clear how unique Trump is. How dangerous Trump is. Trump’s method has always been to throw a bunch of bad shit against the wall every day, to overwhelm and numb people. The goal of that is so that eventually the American people and the media normalize what he is.

RELATED: Trump’s race-war fantasies continue to escalate — while the media pretends not to notice

What do you want to prepare the American people for, as the midterms approach and then the 2024 election? 

The GOP has become anti-democratic. The threat of violence is always there. People need to wake up. As we get closer to the 2022 elections, the threat of real violence will continue to increase. But I will say, from what I hear every day, the GOP base feels really confident about winning in 2022. If they sensed a loss, the threat of violence would be even greater.

There are people who want to trust you and other former Trumpers, or never-Trumpers, the so-called principled conservatives. But they are understandably suspicious. What would you tell liberals and progressives who doubt your sincerity?

I love you Democrats, but I’m not trying to win you over. I really don’t give a damn if you don’t trust me, because I’m going to do the same thing this year and next year that I did last year. I’m going to work my butt off as a Tea Party conservative to help Democrats win.

I don’t care if I do it with you. I don’t care if you do it with me. I don’t care if you put me on MSNBC or you don’t, because I’m crazy Joe Walsh Tea Party guy. I could care less. I’m going to do the same thing regardless of whether I’ve won you over. And by the way, that’s what I tell them. A lot of people didn’t trust me at the beginning of last year after I ended my hopeless campaign against Trump, but a lot more of them trusted me after the 2020 election, when they saw me work my ass off all year to try to help Biden and other Democrats win. Actions, not words. And I’m going to do what I do no matter what.

What does it mean to be a good American right now? To be a patriot?

I love this country. I love our founders. I do think we’re going through an important correction right now. Again, white America needs to feel uncomfortable. I think that’s important. I think of myself as a founder. I taught American history, I taught American government. I think the country is probably irrevocably divided. I don’t believe the pieces can be put back together. Because of that, I feel like a founding father right now. That’s what it means to me to be a patriotic American. No matter how this thing shakes out in the next 10 to 60 years, I want some semblance of democracy to be reborn.

Democrats won’t oppose the war state: Are they the lesser evil — or the more effective one?

When all else fails, when you are clueless about how to halt a 7.5% inflation rate, when your Build Back Better bill is gutted, when you renege on your promise to raise the minimum wage or forgive student debt, when you can’t halt the Republican suppression of voting rights, when you have no idea how to handle the pandemic which has claimed 900,000 lives — 16% of the world’s total deaths, although we are less than 5% of the world’s population — when the stock market fluctuates on wild rollercoaster rides of highs and lows, when what little help the government offered to the labor force — half of whom, 80 million, experienced a period of unemployment last year — sees the termination of the extended unemployment benefits, rental assistance, forbearance for student loans, emergency checks, the moratorium on evictions and expansion of the child tax credits, when you watch passively as the ecocide gathers momentum, then you must make the public afraid of enemies, foreign and domestic.

You must manufacture an existential threat. Terrorists at home. Russians and Chinese abroad. Expand state power in the name of national security. Beat the drums of war. War is the antidote to divert public attention from government corruption and incompetence. No one plays the game better than the Democratic Party. The Democrats, as the late Glen Ford, journalist and co-founder of Black Agenda Report, said, are not the lesser evil, they are the more effective evil.

The U.S., burdened by de facto tax boycotts by the rich and corporations, is sinking in debt, the highest in our history. The U.S. government budget deficit was $2.77 trillion for the 2021 budget year that ended Sept. 30, the second highest annual deficit on record. It was exceeded only by the $3.13 trillion deficit for 2020. Total U.S. national total debt is over $30 trillion. Household debt grew by $1 trillion last year. The total debt balance in our government Ponzi scheme is now $1.4 trillion higher than it was at the end of 2019. Our wars are waged on borrowed money. The Watson Institute at Brown University estimates that interest payments on the military debt could be more than $6.5 trillion by the 2050s. None of this debt is sustainable.

RELATED: Congress loots the Treasury for U.S. war machine — while bickering over Build Back Better

At the same time, the U.S. is facing the ascendancy of China, whose economy is projected to overtake the U.S. economy by the end of the decade. Washington’s slew of desperate financial tricks — flooding the global market with new dollars and lowering interest rates to near-zero — staved off major depressions after the 2000 dot.com crash, 9/11 and the 2008 global financial meltdown. The cheap interest rates led corporations and banks to borrow massively from the Federal Reserve, often to paper over shortfalls and bad investments. The result is that U.S. businesses are deeper in debt than at any time in history. Added to this morass is rising inflation, caused by businesses that have increased prices in a desperate effort to make up for lost revenue from supply chain shortages and rising shipping costs, the economic downturn and the slight wage increases triggered by the pandemic. This inflation has forced the Fed to curtail the growth of the money supply and raise interest rates, which then pushes corporations to further raise prices. The desperate measures to stave off an economic crisis are self-defeating. The bag of tricks is empty. Massive defaults on mortgages, student loans, credit cards, household debt, car debt and other loans in the United States is probably inevitable. With no short-term mechanisms left to paper over the disaster, it will usher in a prolonged depression.

An economic crisis means a political crisis. And a political crisis is traditionally solved by war against enemies inside and outside the nation. The Democrats are as guilty of this as the Republicans. Wars can get started by Democrats, such as Harry S. Truman in Korea or John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam, and perpetuated by Republicans. Or they can get started by Republicans, such as George W. Bush, and perpetuated by Democrats such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Bill Clinton, without declaring war, imposed punishing sanctions on Iraq and authorized the Navy and the Air Force to carry out tens of thousands of sorties against the country, dropping thousands of bombs and launching hundreds of missiles. The war industry, with its $768 billion military budget, along with the expansion of Homeland Security, the FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the National Security Agency, is a bipartisan project. The handful of national political leaders, such as Henry Wallace in 1948 and George McGovern in 1972, who dared to challenge the war machine were ruthlessly hounded into political oblivion by the leaders of both parties.  


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


Biden’s bellicose rhetoric towards China and especially Russia, more strident than that of the Trump administration, has been accompanied by the formation of new security alliances such as those with India, Japan, Australia and Britain in the Indo-Pacific region. U.S. aggression has, ironically, pushed China and Russia into a forced marriage, something the architects of the Cold War, including Nixon and Kissinger with their opening to China in 1971, worked very hard to avoid. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, after meeting recently in Beijing, issued a 5,300-word statement that condemned NATO expansion in eastern Europe, denounced the formation of security blocs in the Asia Pacific region, and criticized the AUKUS trilateral security pact between the U.S., Britain and Australia. They also vowed to thwart “color revolutions” and strengthen “back-to-back” strategic coordination. 

Warmongering by the Democrats always comes wrapped in the mantle of democracy, freedom and human rights, making Democrats the more effective salespeople for war. Democrats eagerly lined up behind George W. Bush during the calls to invade Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of “humanitarian intervention” and “liberating” the women of Afghanistan, who would spend the next two decades living in terror, burying family members, at times their children. Even when Democrats, including Barack Obama, criticized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while running for office, they steadfastly voted to fund the wars to “support our troops” once elected. Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says “an assault on Ukraine is an assault on democracy,” the same argument Democrats clung to a half-century ago while launching and expanding the disastrous war in Vietnam.  

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, is currently crafting legislation he proudly calls “the mother of all sanctions bills.” The bill led in the House by Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., of the House Foreign Affairs Committee demands that the administration “not cede to the demands of the Russian Federation regarding NATO membership or expansion.” NATO expansion to Ukraine along Russia’s borders is the central issue for Moscow. Removing this for discussion obliterates a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Sanctions under the legislation can be imposed for any act, no matter how minor, deemed by Ukraine to be hostile. The sanctions cannot be lifted until an agreement is reached between the government of Ukraine and Russia, meaning Ukraine would be granted the authority to determine when the U.S. sanctions will end. The proposed sanctions, which target Russian banks, the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline, state-owned enterprises and leading members of the government and military, including Putin, also calls for blocking Russia from SWIFT, the international financial transaction system that uses the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. 

RELATED: Where we are now: The dire state of America in 2022

 “The legislation would grant at least $500 million in foreign military assistance to Ukraine, in addition to the $200 million in new assistance sent over the last month,” writes Marcus Stanley. “This makes Ukraine the third leading recipient of U.S. military assistance globally, after Israel and Egypt. While it wouldn’t come close to giving Ukraine the ability to combat Russia on its own, it may come with U.S. military advisers that would increase the danger the U.S. would be drawn into a conflict. The bill also takes steps to directly involve countries bordering Russia in negotiations to end the crisis, which would make it much more difficult to reach an agreement.” 

While cutting Russia off from SWIFT will be catastrophic, at least in the short term, for the Russian economy, pushing Russia into the arms of China to create an alternative global financial system that no longer relies on the U.S. dollar will cripple the American empire. Once the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency it will precipitously drop in value, perhaps as much as by two-thirds, as the pound sterling did when the British currency was abandoned as the world’s reserve currency in the 1950s. Treasury bonds, used to finance America’s military-based balance-of-payments deficit and the ballooning government budget deficit, will no longer be attractive investments for countries such as China. The nearly 800 U.S. military outposts abroad, sustained by debt — the Chinese have lent an estimated $1 trillion to the U.S., on which they collect hefty interest — will dramatically shrink in number. Meanwhile, the massive U.S. interest payments, at least in part, will continue to fund the Chinese military.

 The U.S. domination of the world economy, after 75 years, is over. It is not coming back. We manufacture little, short of weapons. Our economy is a mirage built on unsustainable levels of debt. The pillage orchestrated by the capitalist elites and corporations has hollowed the country out from the inside, leaving the infrastructure decayed, democratic institutions moribund and at least half the population struggling at subsistence level. The two ruling parties, puppets for the ruling oligarchs, refuse to curb the rapacious appetites of the war industry and the rich, accelerating the crisis. That the rage of the dispossessed is legitimate, even if it is expressed in inappropriate ways, is never acknowledged by the Democrats, who were instrumental in pushing through the trade deals, deindustrialization, tax loopholes for the rich, deficit spending, endless wars and austerity programs that have created crisis. Instead, shooting the messenger, the Biden administration is targeting Trump supporters and winning draconian sentences for those who stormed the capital last Jan. 6. Biden’s Justice Department has formed a domestic terrorism unit to focus on extremists and Democrats have been behind a series of moves to de-platform and censor their right-wing critics.

The belief that the Democratic Party offers an alternative to militarism is, as Samuel Johnson said, the triumph of hope over experience. The disputes with Republicans are largely political theater, often centered around the absurd or the trivial. On the substantive issues there is no difference within the ruling class. The Democrats, like the Republicans, embrace the fantasy that, even as the country stands on the brink of insolvency, a war industry that has orchestrated debacle after debacle, from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq, is going to restore lost American global hegemony. Empires, as Reinhold Niebuhr observed, eventually “destroy themselves in the effort to prove that they are indestructible.” The self-delusion of military invincibility is the scourge that brought down the American empire, as it brought down past empires. 

We live in a one-party state. The ideology of national security is sacrosanct. The cult of secrecy, justified in the name of protecting us from our enemies, is a smoke screen to hide from the public the inner workings of power and manipulate public perceptions. The Democratic courtiers and advisers that surround any Democratic presidential candidate — the retired generals and diplomats, the former national security advisers, the Wall Street economists, the lobbyists, and the apparatchiks from past administrations — do not want to curb the power of the imperial presidency. They do not want to restore the system of checks and balances. They do not want to challenge the military or the national security state. They are the system. They want to move back into the White House to wield its awful force. And now, with Joe Biden, that is where they are.

Read more on rising global tensions and America’s future:

Ottawa residents troll anti-vax truckers by blasting song about gay cowboys

In Ottawa, Canada’s capital city, a convoy of anti-vax truckers have been protesting against the Canadian government’s COVID-19 vaccine requirement for truckers reentering Canada from the United States — and many Ottawa residents have grown impatient with the traffic jams and gridlock they have created. Some of those Ottawa residents, according to LGBTQ Nation’s Bil Browning, have responded by “using an explicit heavy metal song about gay cowboys having sex to overpower the group’s communications and broadcast it to anyone listening.”

The song is “Ram Ranch,” a 2012 recording by Canadian rocker Grant MacDonald. “Ram Ranch,” Browning reports, “is being blasted over several Zellow channels dedicated to the convoy.”

“The right-wing activists would frequently start to sing songs like the Canadian national anthem, and it gave the folks behind #RamRanchResistance the idea of turning patriotic into pornographic,” Browning explains. “Over and over, the activists interrupt the various channels to broadcast the 2012 tune that starts with ’18 naked cowboys in the shower at Ram Ranch.’ And then, signs started popping up all over town telling the truckers, ‘Welcome to Ram Ranch.'”

McDonald was glad to know his song was being used by #RamRanchResistance. The singer told Rolling Stone, “I’m just elated, totally elated that my song could be used to stand up for science.”

On “Bridgerton,” Lady Whistledown intends to take aim and not miss this season – watch

While love is in the air this Valentine’s Day, Netflix felt this was the best time to give another taste of the upcoming season of its Regency rom-com series “Bridgerton.”

The esteemed Bridgerton family returns for another London season of high-class antics and steamy soirées all in the name of marrying off daughters to eligible men. And through it all, the mysterious gossip columnist Lady Whistledown is there to serve and spill the scalding tea.

The upcoming season bids adieu to the Duke of Hastings, who was played by Regé-Jean Page, and welcomes the women of the Sharma family — Kate (Simone Ashley), her younger sister Edwina (Charithra Chandran) and the matriarch Lady Mary Sharma (Shelley Conn). Their addition to the London season continues the Shondaland series’ tradition of race-bending history for a more inclusive storytelling experience.

Kate has caught the eye of Anthony Bridgerton (Jonathan Bailey), the eldest Bridgerton sibling who is following in his sister Daphne’s footsteps and looking to get married soon. He’s not in it for a love match though. Love is for chumps who live in a fantasy world. In his mind, this is purely a necessary transaction that comes with the responsibility of being the heir and needing to perpetuate the Bridgerton name and bloodline.

RELATED: 5 ways to fix “Bridgerton”

Despite this very sensible approach to the awful practice of the marriage mart, it seems as though their relationship will quickly evolve into something more passionate and perhaps, scandalous.

Of course, the drama isn’t complete without Lady Whistledown, who was revealed to be the meek Penelope Featherington (Nicola Coughlan) last season. (A departure from Julia Quinn’s novels, which didn’t unmask her until much later.) While keeping her identity a secret, our favorite informant intends to be ruthless when it comes to her barbed wit. No one in the ton is safe.


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


“Dearest gentle reader, did you miss me?” Julie Andrews’ signature voice as Lady Whistledown coos in the trailer.

Indeed we have.

“Bridgerton” returns Friday, March 25 on Netflix. Watch the trailer for it below via YouTube.

More high-class stories you might like:

How the NFL tried and failed to censor its hip-hop halftime performance

From nostalgic throwbacks to a high-energy set list, this year’s goosebump-inducing Super Bowl halftime show lived up to its hype and delivered more than anticipated. But the biggest highlight was the star-studded lineup — Dr. DreSnoop Dogg50 Cent, Mary J. Blige, Kendrick Lamar and Eminem — who refused to heed guidelines about what they could or couldn’t do on stage. 

A few hours before Sunday’s game, Puck News reported that the NFL had denied Dr. Dre’s request to take a knee – the gesture of protest against racial injustice and police brutality that was popularized by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick  – during his performance. 

While Dre reluctantly complied, Eminem did not. Prior to his performance, the NFL had also advised the rapper not to take a knee. They had good reason to think he would. Eminem had previously expressed solidarity with the cause, once honoring Kaepernick’s efforts in a freesteyle rap during the BET Hip Hop Awards and later, including Kaepernick in the lyrics of his 2017 song “Untouchable.”

Sure enough, after performing his 2002 Oscar-winning hit “Lose Yourself,” Eminem dropped to his knee for several minutes while Dre played piano in the background.

RELATED: The 25 best hip-hop protest songs ever

No wonder Candace Owens faced backlash for supporting the show’s “undeniable hip-hop and R&B excellence.” Hip-hop has a history of protest; that is part of its excellence. It’s likely one of the reasons why rap hasn’t been the central feature of halftime before. 

Of course, kneeling wasn’t the only aspect of the halftime show that the NFL tried to control. The Daily Mail reports that the NFL also attempted to “disgustingly censor” some of the more outspoken lyrics in Dr. Dre’s songs, going back and forth on content for weeks.

In particuar, they objected to the line, “Still f**king with the beats, still not loving police,” in his 1999 hit single “Still D.R.E.” They ordered him to omit the anti-cop lyrics, but Dre, who reportedly contributed more than half of the show’s total budget, took his shot. He unapologetically rapped the lyrics while sharing the stage with Snoop Dogg.   


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


The latest Super Bowl halftime show follows in the footsteps of previous shows that have been used to make a statement. In 2016, Beyonce, performed her hit single “Formation” among a swarm of dancers wearing Black Panther berets to protest police brutality. The following year, Lady Gaga became the first Super Bowl performer to reference the LGBT community with a riveting show masked as a middle finger to Trump. Although Mark Quenzel — the senior vice president of programming and production for the NFL — said that he didn’t discourage Gaga to not discuss politics, a statement from Billboard revealed that Quenzel described the Super Bowl as “a unifying day for people” and claimed that “anything that detracts from that is not something that we should be focusing on.” In 2020, the last major halftime show before the onset of the pandemic, headliners Shakira and J.Lo also delivered an unforgettable performance that celebrated the Latinx diaspora and sided with immigrants.

More stories you might like:

Love is a night in with homemade panna cotta, an easy-to-make and effortlessly elegant dessert

I very strongly believe that Valentine’s Day dinners are best enjoyed at home, or at least away from a restaurant. If you rid yourself of expectations of grand gestures from someone, you’ll enjoy a much nicer evening because of it.

I’ve always tried to be a voice of reason, warning my friends not to make plans to eat out on Feb. 14. As early as my teens, I began to realize that date night at a restaurant on Valentine’s Day was a disaster waiting to happen because restaurants are always over-booked and over-crowded. You arrive to find only a very limited, over-priced, prix-fixe menu. Seating is maxed out, and the wait staff is overwhelmed before you even make it through the door.

It’s a mess, but the fix for a better Valentine’s Day is simple. No matter if you want to cook something easy or go all out, make dinner at home. And whether you’re eating with friends or a special someone, allow me to give you a sexy little suggestion for dessert: panna cotta. It even sounds sexy, right?

Panna cotta is creamy delicious perfection. In addition to having a great name, it’s effortlessly elegant, beyond luscious and plates beautifully. Best of all, it’s really simple to make and you can even make it a day or two ahead of time.

I was introduced to panna cotta at a beautiful little restaurant in the Hotel Emma, a former 19th century brew house located in the Pearl District of San Antonio. It was one of those fortuitous nights where my husband and I just happened to wind up in front of a bartender who just happened to be passionate about food and wine pairings. He also just happened to be able to read my mind in terms of what I think is delicious. 

RELATED: Level up Valentine’s Day by giving whoopie pies a red wine makeover

Thankfully, on that fateful night, I was smart enough (or relaxed enough thanks to the vino) to follow the bartender’s every suggestion when it came to the menu. We went in intending only to have a drink, and we wound up staying right there at the bar not for dinner but a certified feast. 

For his final act that evening, our new friend and bartender-turned-waiter suggested the panna cotta, which I had never had before. Then he suggested pairing it with a Madeira from The Rare Wine Co., which I also had never had before. Basically, it was magic from start to finish. To this day, I still remember it as the best dessert experience of all time.

What is panna cotta? 

Panna cotta is sort of the Italian version of crème brûlée. A key difference between the two is that you use gelatin to make panna cotta. In addition to giving it an amazing mouth feel, this makes serving dessert at exactly the right time easier. When you’re ready to dig in, you simply take it out of the refrigerator.

The perfect topping for panna cotta

Once you’ve prepared the panna cotta and have it in the refrigerator, whip up a berry compote to spoon over it or simply dress it with fresh berries and a sprig of mint. Top it with berries, cherries, mangoes, pomegranate seeds or even a light dusting of cocoa powder and/or a sprinkle of dried coconut — the sky’s the limit with this vanilla version.

The best way to serve panna cotta

Panna cotta looks beautiful presented in coupe glasses, but plain white ramekins are also perfectly fine. If you prefer to serve it on a plate, you can do so once it has thoroughly cooled and set in the refrigerator. First, place an individual panna cotta in a pan of warm water for about 15 seconds. Then run a knife around the edge, put a plate on top of it and turn it over to gently jiggle it out. Voilà!

***

Recipe: The Best Panna Cotta 

Yields
4 servings

Ingredients

  • 1 cup whole cream
  • 1 cup milk
  • 1/2 cup sugar
  • 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
  • 1 package powdered gelatin
  • 1/4 cup water

 

Directions

  1. Combine cream, milk, sugar and vanilla in a saucepan over medium heat. Stir until the sugar dissolves and bring it to just a simmer. Remove from the heat and cover.
  2. In a small bowl, sprinkle the powdered gelatin in the water and stir to combine. Let it sit for 5 minutes.
  3. Reheat the cream mixture to a simmer and stir in the gelatin until completely incorporated. Remove from heat and allow to cool to room temperature.
  4. Pour into four ramekins (or gorgeous glasses) and cover with plastic wrap. Using your fingers, make sure the plastic wrap touches the surface of the panna cotta completely. Place each one in the refrigerator for at least 3 hours to cool and set.

Cook’s Notes

Not familiar with unflavored gelatin? It’s on the baking aisle of any grocery store. A common brand is Knox, and each box has 4 packets inside. This recipe uses only one of those packets, which comes in handy since you’ll want to make more. 


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


More from Bibi’s Southern kitchen: 

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

When love and perfume lead to “a side hustle in murder for hire”

Art. Love. Scent. And murder. Lara Elena Donnelly’s new book has it all.

Set in New York City, Donnelly’s novel “Base Notes” follows Vic Fowler, a perfumer whose specialty is creating bespoke scents: very specific perfumes that evoke emotional memories for clients. Scent is, after all, the sense most closely aligned with memory. Unfortunately, some memories require someone pay the ultimate price: death, in order to be retrieved and recreated for the paying patrons Vic so desperately needs. 

And that’s only the beginning. 

“Base Notes” walks the line between art and obsession — and art and crime. How far will you go to create something? How much are you willing to sacrifice for your art? How can art — and Vic most certainly believes perfume-making is art — pay the bills? What if a patron demands more than you can possibly give?

Donnelly is the author of The Amberlough Dossier, a trilogy that includes the books “Amberlough,” “Armistice” and “Amnesty.” Nominated for the Nebula, Lambda and Locus awards, her writing has also appeared in Strange Horizons, Escape Pod, Nightmare and Uncanny. She teaches in New York.

“Base Notes” is a stand-alone novel that draws upon Donnelly’s father’s fascination with scents, and her own deep research into “scent culture,” famous barbers — and perfumer murders. The title of the novel “Base Notes” refers to the element of a fragrance that lasts the longest. Also known as signature notes, base notes are the most dense and most intense components of a perfume: what you might remember the most.

Vic remembers home as having the smell of cantaloupe, which also smells like the sea: “You won’t understand until someone who knows all the things you want to know tells you why you have felt like a castaway all your life.” The perfumer makes a “clear” scent for someone dear to them, a scent like “an evocation of absence.” And tries to make another perfume for her to understand who Vic is as person, a fragrance to explain themselves.

As Vic’s mentor tells the perfumer: Like love, patrons “never know what they really want … Half the time, they’re afraid to find out.”

Donnelly spoke with Salon about her memories of perfumes, diving into the scent community and the lengths one goes to as an artist.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

First of all, I wanted to ask for somebody who’s maybe not familiar with your work, how would you describe the new book? 

It’s definitely a thriller, which I would say is a new thing for me except my last three novels, which were all technically fantasy novels, were also basically thrillers. So, it’s a new, old genre for me. It’s a thriller about a serial killer who is disguised . . . Vic Fowler is a niche perfumer in New York City trying to get by — like we all are — but failing. The business is operating in the red, and Vic has opted to pick up a side hustle like many people do just to keep everything afloat. And that side hustle involves creating very special perfumes on commission and these perfumes allow people to relive treasured memories – not just remind them, like the smell of fresh-cut grass can remind you of your childhood or your summer vacation. This is really reliving, like being sucked into the reality of the moment as if it is happening to you right now. 

The only catch is, in order to remember whatever moment you want to remember, the people who are in that moment need to be put into the perfume as ingredients. So, Vic has picked up what is effectively a side hustle in murder for hire. 

Related: V.C. Andrews felt she had “prophetic powers”: Longtime ghostwriter on “Flowers in the Attic” author

What was your past experience with perfumes and with scent? Do you normally wear perfume? Did you know a lot about perfume or did you have to research for the book? It feels like a lot of research went into this.

I did have to do a lot of research, but that’s true of any book even if you’re really familiar with your subject matter. My mom has an allergy to perfume — now we’re sort of thinking it might be an allergy to some ingredients in some cheaper perfumes. But when I was little it was like, “We can’t have perfume in the house. Mom is allergic.” She still had some perfumes, which I guess had been gifted to her that she didn’t really wear. They sat on her vanity and I remember the bottles very clearly — so much so that I was describing to her just last year these bottles that used to sit on her vanity and what they looked like and what they smelled like. She said, “I don’t remember these at all.” She went home and she found them in a drawer.

Oh, wow.

She said, “Oh my God, you’re right. They’re exactly how you describe them.” I remember my dad had a bottle of Geo. F. Trumper Extract of Limes that sat on the back of the toilet. He would talk about his experience with perfumes when he was studying in Oxford and would go into London. He would go into the Geo. F. Trumper  barber shop/cologne store and smell things. He’s the one who told me about the plot of “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” which I guess really stuck with me. But I didn’t really wear perfumes.

Someone gave me as a child a bottle of plumeria perfume that I sprayed all over my stuffed animals. I was probably four or five, so my stuffed animals all smelled like plumeria for a really long time. But I didn’t wear perfume really until probably around the time that I read that article in The Guardian “My quest to find the great American perfume,” and I started getting very fascinated with just the idea of the complexity of scents in general. I find perfumes really fascinating. I love smell as a sense and a sensation. I think it’s tragically, tragically underrepresented or underappreciated. 

When I was researching for this book, it was a great excuse to just go to perfume shops all over New York and order myself sample packs. I got into doing swaps with other perfume people where I’d say, “I have these. I could decant them.” Or, “I have these samplers. They don’t smell good on me. What do you have? Do you want to trade?” And we would send them in the mail back and forth. Now, I have a whole bunch of weird, tiny, hand-labeled bottles of stuff that people have decanted for me, and that’s very fun.

My child got into perfume briefly when he was little. I think I had gotten a sample in the mail, and he just loved to collect the little bottles. Now, he’s really into science. So, I think it was the science of it for him and what you just said about how different it can be. The scent maybe didn’t smell good on you, but it might on somebody else. Like body chemistry and how individual scent is.

Yeah, absolutely. There are perfumes that conceptually, I read about what’s in them and I think, “Oh, the idea of this sounds like it would smell so good.” And then when I put it on, I’m like, “Whoa, not for me, thank you.”

There’s a perception — I think maybe more from people who don’t make art per se — that you have to suffer for your art or that you have to be a “tortured artist.” Do you think your main character Vic would feel that way? The notion that you have to suffer to make good art?

I think Vic really doesn’t want to suffer in the sense of Vic doesn’t like being broke. Vic doesn’t like being a starving artist. I think there are several moments where Vic is talking about this relationship that they had with their mentor, Jonathan Bright, where there are scenes of Jonathan locking himself in his lab and forgetting to eat and just really getting on a creative tear. Which I guess is a form of suffering. But Vic doesn’t think that suffering creates good art. Vic thinks that art comes before all other things, which obviously can lead to suffering. But I don’t think that Vic’s conception of it is that having unpleasant and painful experience makes an artist better at their craft. It’s just sort of like, well, art comes first always. And if that means that you have an uncomfortable or painful experience, then it is what it is. 

You touched on this, but a part of the book is trying to survive as an artist or a perfumer and trying to get by, trying to make enough money to live. How do your characters deal with that? And maybe if you feel comfortable speaking to it, how do you deal with it as a writer? How do you balance being an artist with being a person in the world who has to make money to live?

Well, I have a day job! So, I don’t just subscribe to this belief necessarily that my art should always 100% come first even ahead of things like paying rent and feeding myself or, for instance, health insurance, which I find to be incredibly useful. I think there are some characters in the book who also feel that way. Jane, for instance. There’s an instance in the book where Jane’s fiancé thinks that he is covered by state medical care. Then it turns out that they’ve submitted the wrong paperwork and so he doesn’t have health insurance. And so, he doesn’t go to the doctor for preventative care and then has to go to the emergency room and have emergency surgery and they end up in a lot of medical debt, which is a big driving force behind their willingness to commit murder for Vic. 

This story actually comes straight out of my real life. I didn’t have to seek emergency medical care, but I was unemployed for quite some time before getting my latest day job. And I was on the state health exchange and I thought I had submitted proof of income, which you have to do. I sent them my tax return for the previous year. Then I went to book a doctor’s appointment and the day before I was going to go in, the office called me and said, “We couldn’t find any records of your health insurance. Are you insured?” After a lot of phone calls and frustration, it turned out all that they wanted me to submit was an Excel spreadsheet of my estimated income for the next three months and because I had failed to do that, I had no health insurance. So, my experience being unemployed and an artist in the city definitely fed into this book.

I wouldn’t do it again. Except — I had a lot of time to write. I had a lot of time to have conversations with creative friends. I had a lot of time to just let ideas percolate. I was teaching, which I had never done before and found really, really helpful for my own craft. 

So, it’s definitely a trade off. And I think there are several characters in this book who are on different sides of that trade off. One of the big dynamics that I found really satisfying to work with was, Vic clearly believes that it is worth it to trade everything to pursue your craft. Jane, who ends up romantically entangled with Vic, is really sort of jealous in a way, both disdainful and jealous of the choices that Vic has made because Jane made the opposite choice: To stop pursuing her art entirely in order to get a job as a bartender to make good tips while she’s putting herself through school . . .  She’s just so tired of the struggle that she’s just given up entirely. Watching her want what Vic has, but also to have chosen absolutely the opposite — it was a really fascinating tension to play with.

I think it’s good to hear all that and it’s good to read that in the book too because we do get a spectrum of how to be an artist in the world. A world that isn’t really set up to support artists or doesn’t care to support artists. It’s nice to see how the different characters try to handle that and that there’s no one way to do it, trying to make the artist life work.

Yeah. It’s a lot.

Are you working on a new project now or do you know what’s next for you?

The two projects I’m working on right now include the next novel, which I hope is going to be a loose literary retelling of Tallinn, this old Scottish ballad about a fairy knight or a human knight who’s kidnapped by the fairies and going to be sacrificed to Satan as part of a deal with the devil that the fairy god has. Except it takes place in a multinational media consulting firm that’s based in New York City. And the characters in the ballad have sort of been fast-forwarded to struggling millennials. It’s very in the vein of “Base Notes” in the sense that it’s about people who are just really trying to make it and are making some dubious decisions on some big sacrifices for things like stability or their art . . . But it’s much more like queer 20-somethings in the city making bad choices.

If I had to talk about them in terms of color, which is what I do with my books, I think of them as having a broad color palette for the entire concept. So, “Base Notes” is definitely grays and blacks and a little bit of orange and yellow. It’s very autumn-in-the-city sort of color palette.

Which the cover also has.

Yeah, I was talking to a friend about it who does kind of the same thing and we said it’s like a form of synesthesia almost where you can’t really think about your book without seeing colors associated with it. Not even with words or scenes or anything, just the concept of the book has a color for you . . . If “Base Notes” is gray and orange, this next book is very neon. It’s like the cover of a New Wave album. A lot of neon, a lot of bright white and dark black.

So it’s a fun bubble gum version of “Base Notes” almost. And then the other project is my fun project that I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to sell, but it’s making my life a little bit nicer right now because I just don’t care about it. Sometimes, when you really care about a book or it’s on deadline or under contract, it loses some of the “I’m having a fun time writing that.”


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


Do you have a favorite perfume at the moment? Or do you have a favorite scent? 

So, my favorite perfume right now — this is so hard.

I’m sorry!

Well, it depends on the day. It depends on my mood, but some of my favorites are Nasomatto Nudiflorum, which is this wonderful sort of cinnamon, spicy teddy bear, warm smell. And I like to wear that when it’s very cold outside. And then in the summer, I really like to wear Imaginary Authors, The Cobra and The Canary, which is this sort of dusty lemon. It smells sweaty to me, but in a sexy way. And I think that’s because it has orris root in it, which is very earthy. It smells just like a body in a very sexy way. So my summer perfume is this like sweaty leather, dusty road trip perfume and my winter perfume is Nudiflorum, which really just smells like Christmas to me. Those are my two favorite perfumes.

More stories like this:

Homemade powdered sugar? It’s way easier than you think

As a professional baker, I always have powdered sugar on hand. In my line of work, it’s safe to assume that at a moment’s notice, I’ll need to dust a torte, whip meringue, toss puppy chow together, or make chocolate fudge. It’s not that I regularly make my own powdered sugar (I promise I’m not THAT person) — or that buying some is particularly strenuous or expensive — but it’s handy to know how to make homemade powdered sugar for two big reasons.

Sometimes you find yourself without confectioners’ sugar and the thought of running to the grocery store doesn’t appeal in the slightest. Maybe it’s a snow day and you need some to make homemade marshmallows for a cup of hot cocoa, or it’s hours away from your little one’s birthday and you’re frantically trying to whip buttercream frosting for a birthday cake. Maybe you thought you had enough and then the little bag of sugar had half a cup shy of what you were expecting. Or you want the results of powdered sugar with something other than granulated white sugar (I’ve made it with raw cane sugar and coconut sugar, but you can turn nearly any type of granulated sugar into powdered in minutes). This may be because you’d rather use natural sweeteners or to satisfy a dietary concern or that’s what you have to use up. Either way, the flavor won’t be affected. You can use brown sugar for a richer molasses flavor, but know that you won’t achieve a pure white fluffy frosting; instead, it will have a light brown undertone.

So what exactly is powdered sugar (or confectioners’ sugar or icing sugar) anyway? Whatever you want to call it, powdered sugar is just white sugar that has been finely ground into a powder. When it’s made commercially, it has starch added to prevent caking, but it also plays a role in recipes: Think about royal icing or a basic glaze. They start out fluid and soft, but set up shiny and firm (that’s all thanks to the starch!). To make your own powdered sugar at home, that’s all you’ve got to do — grind up some granulated sugar in a powerful blender like a Vitamix or food processor and add a small amount of starch.

Here’s how to do it:

You can use any one of the following tools: a clean/dry coffee or spice grinder, a high-power blender, or a food processor. The coffee/spice grinder is the most efficient, but obviously can only handle a small amount of sugar at a time, so a high powered blender or a food processor is the next best thing.

Weigh out an amount of sugar, and add it to the blender or food processor (1/2 cup of granulated sugar will make about 1 cup powdered sugar, but that will vary slightly based on the type of sugar you use). Pulse on high speed until the sugar is no longer visibly granulated, but instead resembles a fine powder. This can take 2 to 5 minutes, depending on the amount of sugar and the machine you’re using. Give yourself (and the machine) a break so that neither of you get burnt out.

Transfer your now-powdered sugar to a large sieve and add 3% of the sugar’s original weight in cornstarch. So if you started with 10 ounces of sugar, add 0.30 ounces of cornstarch, and sift the two together 2 to 3 times to combine. Cornstarch is naturally gluten-free, but you can also use arrowroot starch/powder, which will create a super fine, super smooth sugar. You can store the powdered sugar in an airtight container, or use it immediately as you would the store-bought kind. If stored properly, homemade powdered sugar should keep for one to two years. Frosting, anyone?

The good news is that if you want to make whipped cream, you don’t need powdered sugar. You can use regular granulated sugar or vanilla extract for sweetness. But now you’ll never be caught short of powdered sugar again.

This 5-ingredient roasted pepper soup is winter magic

Big Little Recipe has the smallest-possible ingredient list and big everything else: flavor, creativity, wow factor. That means five ingredients or fewer — not including water, salt, black pepper, and certain fats (like oil and butter), since we’re guessing you have those covered. Inspired by the column, the Big Little Recipes cookbook is available now.


I bought a deep freezer for soup. It is 66 pounds, 7 cubic feet, and too wide for me to hug. (I’ve tried.) To finagle it into our basement, it took three people, a borrowed car, and the removal of one door. Was that worth it? Don’t ask my husband, ask me. The answer is yes.

Because when life happens, soup knows how to make it better. Chicken Noodle Soup can nurture you when you catch a cold. Miso Carrot Soup can warm you up on a cold day.  Cheesy Broccoli Soup can help you file your taxes. Cream of Mushroom Soup can find your missing headphones.

And this roasted pepper soup can do — well, what do you want it to do? More vacation days? Less dust along those baseboards? A trip to outer space? Why not?

Bell peppers are obviously nonnegotiable, but the color is up to you. While red is classic, in a string of bad luck — which turned out to be good luck — I could only find orange for my early tests. And who knew? The resulting soup is even prettier, like pumpkin.

Red or orange — or even yellow, if you want to go rogue — there is no peeling involved. A lot of recipes ask you to char whole peppers, then steam them in a bag or bowl, then peel, and peel, and peel off the skin (fussy). Other recipes, in an effort to avoid this, call for jarred roasted bell peppers (not as flavorful). We’re doing neither.

Instead, dice peppers, toss them on a sheet pan with onion hunks and olive oil, and hurl everyone into a hot oven. The charred and wrinkly skins will get puréed with everything else. And here’s a secret — no one will know the difference. If anything, it tastes better.

Now I could tell you about the other ingredients, like the nuts (which get soaked and then turned into an effortless milk-slash-cream) or the feta (roasted until gooey, plus its salty-cheesy brine). But what I want to talk about is paprika.

Which is made from peppers! Which underlines, then circles, then draws stars around the pepperiness of our roasted pepper soup. Using a smoked variety channels the energy of sitting by a fireplace under a throw blanket while knitting another throw blanket.

Deliberately, crucially, this yields more than a meal. Two quarts means dinner tonight plus more to pack in pint containers. Tuck these in the freezer, for whenever a day doesn’t go according to plan.

***

Recipe: Really Easy Roasted Pepper Soup

Yields
2 quarts (scant)
Prep Time
25 minutes
Cook Time
50 minutes

Ingredients

  • 1 cup (4 ounces) chopped walnuts or cashews
  • 6 medium (2 3/4 pounds) red or orange bell peppers
  • 3 medium (1 1/2 pounds) yellow onions
  • Extra-virgin olive oil
  • Kosher salt
  • 4 teaspoons smoked paprika
  • 4 ounces feta, halved, 1/2 cup brine reserved

 

Directions

  1. Heat the oven to 425°F. While that’s heating up, add the walnuts to a blender and cover with 1 cup of hot water. 
  2. Remove the stems and seeds from the bell peppers, then roughly chop. Divide between 2 rimmed sheet pans. Halve and peel the onions, then roughly chop. Divide between the sheet pans. 
  3. On each sheet pan: Generously drizzle with olive oil, lightly season with salt, and sprinkle with the paprika. Use your hands to toss the ingredients on each pan until coated, then evenly spread out. 
  4. Roast for 25 minutes. Remove both sheet pans from the oven and use a spatula to shuffle everything around. On one sheet pan, scooch the vegetables to one side, leaving just enough space to add the feta pieces. Drizzle a little olive oil on the feta, flip it over, and then drizzle a little more. 
  5. Return the sheet pans to the oven and keep roasting for another 20 to 25 minutes, until the peppers are starting to char, the onions are soft, and the feta is tender. Remove from the oven. 
  6. Add 1/2 cup of feta brine to the blender with the walnuts and blend until smooth as possible, like store-bought nut milk. Add all the peppers and onions, plus whatever spiced oil is left on the pans, and the feta. Blend until smooth. Add 1 cup of water and blend again. Taste. More water for a looser soup? More salt or paprika? Adjust as needed.
  7. Heat up however much you want to eat now in the microwave or on the stove. Then divide up the rest into airtight containers to refrigerate or freeze until later.

Wendy Williams denies she’s of “unsound mind” as Wells Fargo freezes her account over mental health

A few days after it was announced that Wendy Williams will not be returning to her talk show for the remainder of season 13, she's is once again making headlines.

Williams is facing off with her bank, Wells Fargo, after they've frozen her accounts for at least two weeks over the state of her mental health, reports Variety.

"On behalf of Wendy Hunter, professionally known as Wendy Williams, as counsel to her and her affairs, Wendy wants the world to know that she strenuously denies all allegations about her mental health and well-being," Williams' attorney, LaShawn Thomas, said in a statement Monday. "During this hiatus from the show, Wendy has employed holistic health professionals to help her reach optimal health during her treatment of Graves' disease and thyroid concerns."

RELATED: Watchdog questions why Wells Fargo reported giving only one large PPP loan to a Black-owned business 

Williams' former financial advisor, Lori Schiller, had initially deemed the talk show host was "of unsound mind"; Schiller had been fired due to alleged "malfeasance" regarding the accounts. Nevertheless, in a recent letter addressed to the New York Supreme Court, Wells Fargo described Williams as an "incapacitated person" and requested that she be placed under temporary guardianship. The bank also allegedly refused to honor Williams' Power of Attorney.

"We are concerned about [Wendy Williams'] situation," the letter disclosed, per Page Six. "It is our hope that the Guardianship Part will imminently appoint a temporary guardian or evaluator to review the situation and ensure that [Williams'] affairs are being properly handled."


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


On Tuesday, a Wells Fargo spokesperson told Variety that the bank's priority is "the financial well-being of Ms. Williams and the preservation of her privacy. . . . As we have expressed to the Court, Wells Fargo is open to working with Ms. Williams' counsel to release funds directly to her creditors for bills historically and regularly paid from her accounts."

Williams, who was diagnosed with the autoimmune condition Grave's disease in 2018, continues to recover from various medical conditions and concerns. At this time, it's unclear when she'll be able to return to "The Wendy Williams Show." Last week, it was announced that former "The View" co-host Sherri Shepherd will take over as a permanent guest host in September.

"Wendy wants you to know she is fine; she is of sound mind and disappointed about falsely circulated statements from an industry she has devoted her life to," Thomas' statement continued. "She thanks everyone who has been patiently awaiting her return and believes that, thanks in large part to the love and support of her son, her family, her new team of doctors and a change of scenery, she is on the mend. Wendy says to all her fans, 'How you doing?' So, please send her positive messages, energy, and affirmations to her social media that she can read daily."

More stories you might like:

Trump Organization quietly dumped by longtime accounting firm

Mazars USA, Donald Trump’s longtime accounting firm, abruptly severed ties with the former president last week amid civil and criminal investigations into the Trump Organization’s finances, saying that the company financial statement could “no longer be relied upon.”

The news came in a letter last Wednesday, in which Mazars alleged that it had not “as a whole” found evidence that Trump artificially inflated or deflated his assets prices for text, lending or insurances. However, the “totality of circumstances,” Mazars added, make Trump’s financial documents unreliable, according to The New York Times.  

Mazars also pledged to no longer “provide any new work product to the Trump Organization,” saying, “We have also reached the point such that there is a non-waivable conflict of interest with the Trump Organization.”

The revelations come as part of new court filings by New York District Attorney Letitia James, who has over the past three years led a sweeping civil probe into Trump’s finances. 

RELATED: New York AG: “Significant evidence” Trump committed fraud

Last month, James announced that her office had found “significant evidence” that Trump “falsely and fraudulently valued multiple assets and misrepresented those values to financial institutions for economic benefit.”

Trump has, for his part, aggressively fought to stamp out the probe, tarring it as a politically-motivated “witch hunt.” Back in December, Trump brought a formal lawsuit against James’ office, claiming that her investigation “is guided solely by political animus and a desire to harass, intimidate, and retaliate against a private citizen who she views as a political opponent.”


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


RELATED: Trump sues to stop New York Attorney General investigating him for fraud

It remains unclear how much of an impact Mazars’ schism with the former president will have on James’ case. However, on Monday, James submitted the letter as part of a court filing to force Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, and Donald Trump Jr. to provide testimony to her office.

James’ team is reportedly working hand-in-hand with the newly-elected Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who is leading a criminal investigation into the Trump Organization – a probe that allows Bragg to press formal charges. 

Last summer, former Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, who was leading the probe at the time, indicted Allen Weisselberg, longtime CFO of the Trump Organization, with running a 15-year tax avoidance scheme that privileged executives with off-the-books company perks. 

Back in December, Vance also impaneled a grand jury to hear testimony from Donald Bender, a Mazars accountant who worked for Trump. 

Judge tosses Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against New York Times

Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) had her case dismissed by a judge in New York on Monday on the basis that Palin and her legal team had failed to provide evidence that the New York Times acted with malice when it published an allegedly defamatory editorial about her in 2017.

Former federal prosecutor and legal commentator Renato Mariotti explained on his Twitter account that it’s extremely difficult for a public figure to prove malicious intent, and the Times was quick to issue a correction to its Palin editorial, which meant that her attorneys had a very high bar to reach.

Mariotti explained that the “high bar is meant to ensure that lawsuits don’t limit or silence media companies like the New York Times.

Among the most difficult claims of defamation is one against a public official. In this case, as an editorial or commentary isn’t a straight report of facts, legal analyst Harry Litman and Joyce White Vance also remarked.

This legal loss is another in a long line of Palin failures, as she hasn’t won anything since her gubernatorial campaign in 2006.

See Mariotti’s full assessment below:

Candace Owens tweeted that she enjoyed the Super Bowl halftime show — and her fans revolted

Candace Owens took to Twitter to praise the Super Bowl halftime show on Sunday, sending several of her fans into disorientation.

“This is an excellent Super Bowl halftime performance. Undeniable hip-hop and R&B excellence.” Owens’ tweet quickly received considerable backlash from her conservative base. 

The halftime show at the SoFi Stadium on Sunday night featured performances from hip-hop stars Eminem, Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Kendrick Lamar and Mary J. Blige with an appearance by 50 Cent. The performance by rap legends was received by many as a spotlight on hip hop’s central role in American pop music as well as a celebration of black artists. Los Angeles Lakers basketball star LeBron James tweeted in all caps, “THE GREATEST HALFTIME SHOW IVE EVER SEEN!!!” 

RELATED: “Let’s Go Brandon” ad airs during Super Bowl

Candace Owens response to the show appeared off brand to many of her followers who had a less than positive reception of the mid game entertainment, claiming the show offensive and lacking in diversity. 

Owens rose in popularity among her conservative base for her pro-Trump sentiments and conservative activism as a black woman. She has openly criticized the Black Lives Matter movement calling protesters “a bunch of whiny toddlers, pretending to be oppressed for attention,” as well as #MeToo and the Democratic Party, labeling them the “party of hate.

RELATED: Charlie Kirk mocked by AOC after calling Super Bowl halftime show “sexual anarchy”

After working for conservative advocacy groups and holding communications positions, Owens has most recently joined conservative media company “The Daily Wire” where she hosts her own talk show. Owens has also founded the BLEXIT Foundation and last February announced that she is considering a 2024 run for president.  

Astronomers discover a tiny planet orbiting our nearest galactic neighbor

A new paper published this month reports that the star nearest to our Sun, Proxima Centauri, is a host star to not two, but three exoplanets (meaning planets circling a star that is not our own). The newly-discovered planet has been dubbed Proxima d.

Astronomers have evidence that a third planet is circling the red dwarf star, which is situated 4.2 light-years from our solar system and is therefore the closest star to Earth after our own Sun. The exoplanet candidate is known as Proxima d, and is estimated to be 25 percent as massive as Earth — which would make it more massive than Mars, but less than Venus.

Researchers estimate that the newly-discovered exoplanet orbits Proxima Centauri at less than a tenth of Mercury’s distance from the Sun. Because Proxima Centauri is cooler and smaller than our Sun, planets that orbit close to it are not necessarily barren, arid worlds; however, Proxima d is too close to its parent star to fall within the habitable zone, meaning liquid water cannot exist on Proxima d’s surface. Astronomers estimate Proxima d orbits its parent star in about five Earth days.

The discovery was made by a team of astronomers who were measuring small shifts in the spectrum of light from Proxima Centauri. At first, the researchers noticed hints of a signal that corresponded to a body with five-day orbit, but the signal was at first too weak to confirm. The team followed up using an instrument called the Echelle Spectrograph for Rocky Exoplanets and Stable Spectroscopic Observations (which has the cute acronym ESPRESSO) at the Very Large Telescope, which is located at the European Southern Observatory in Chile.

RELATED: A dissolving exoplanet prophesies our solar system’s final days

The ESPRESSO instrument detects exoplanets using a method known as the radial velocity method. Stars move slightly in response to the orbits of the planets encircling them, in tiny, corresponding ovals to the larger motion of their planets. Generally, these little motions that stars make are barely noticeable, since stars are so much more massive than planets. (This short article shows, visually, how the sun moves as Jupiter orbits around it.)

Those observations using ESPRESSO confirmed that the changes to the parent star’s spectrum were due to a planet, and not the star itself acting oddly.

The results were published on February 10, 2022 in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

“After obtaining new observations, we were able to confirm this signal as a new planet candidate,” João Faria, a researcher at the Instituto de Astrofísica e Ciências do Espaço, Portugal and lead author of the study, said in a statement. “I was excited by the challenge of detecting such a small signal and, by doing so, discovering an exoplanet so close to Earth.” 


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


Proxima Centauri is famously known to host two other tantalizing exoplanets: Proxima b, which is roughly the size of Earth and is located in the star’s habitable zone, meaning it is at an orbital distance where liquid water could exist on the planet’s surface. Proxima b orbits every 11 Earth days.

The second is Proxima c, which is about seven times Earth’s mass. It orbits its parent star every five years, and thus is much further away.

Due to its proximity to us, the Proxima Centauri solar system will likely be one of the first stars that humanity visits once we start sending out interstellar probes.

“The discovery shows that our closest stellar neighbour seems to be packed with interesting new worlds, within reach of further study and future exploration,” Faria said.

According to the paper, if Proxima d is only a quarter of the mass of Earth, that would make this exoplanet the lightest one ever discovered — even lighter than a tiny planet recently discovered in the L 98-59 planetary system. That would mean that the effect of Proxima d’s gravity is so small that it produces an accompanying motion in its parent star of 40 centimeters per second — tiny compared to the size of stars and the vast distances between us and Proxima Centauri. Researchers made this estimation using the aforementioned radial velocity technique.

“This achievement is extremely important,” says Pedro Figueira, ESPRESSO instrument scientist at ESO in Chile. “It shows that the radial velocity technique has the potential to unveil a population of light planets, like our own, that are expected to be the most abundant in our galaxy and that can potentially host life as we know it.”

Researchers are hopeful that ESPRESSO and radial velocity techniques will assist astronomers to better identify lighter planets in the future.

“This result clearly shows what ESPRESSO is capable of, and makes me wonder about what it will be able to find in the future,” Faria added.

More stories on astronomy:

 

“Let’s Go Brandon” ad airs during Super Bowl

A GOP Senate candidate on Sunday ran a Super Bowl ad repeating the conservative political slogan “Let’s Go Brandon” – a minced oath for “F*ck Joe Biden.”

The 30-second ad, released by David McCormick, a former hedge fund manager running for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania, highlights a number of conservative gripes with the Biden administration, including record inflation, the recent surge in crime, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and illegal border crossings. 

After rattling off these talking points, the ad concludes: “This is so much bigger than Brandon.”

The chant “Let’s go Brandon” was first coined back in October, when a Talladega Superspeedway reporter mistook the crowd’s chant (“F*ck Joe Biden”) for “Let’s Go Brandon” during a televised interview. 

Since then, the phrase has taken hold amongst right-wingers as a way to insult President Biden without naming him directly. 

RELATED: From “OK” to “Let’s Go Brandon”: A short history of insulting presidential nicknames

In an interview announcing his ad, McCormick told Fox News that “the issues we are facing are so much bigger than ‘Brandon.'”

“Whether it’s not being able to afford gas or groceries because of record-high inflation, rampant crime in our cities, a dramatic spike in the trafficking of fentanyl and human exploitation across open borders, or the disgraceful lack of accountability for the death of 13 young service members in Afghanistan – these problems were self-inflicted by Joe Biden and the extreme policies of the left,” the former executive said. “Pennsylvanians have had enough.” 

McCormick, the former CEO of asset management firm Bridgewater Associates, served as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during the Bush administration. He is vying to replace Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Penn., who in 2020 indicated that he would not be running for re-election. 


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


McCormick, a Gulf War veteran, faces a crowded field of contenders on both sides of the aisle, including Republican celebrity surgeon Dr. Mehmet Oz; Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, a Democrat; and Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Conor Lamb.  

On Sunday, Lamb tore into McCormick’s ad over Twitter, writing: “Dave McCormick is too much of a coward to say ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ himself, but pathetic enough to spend millions on a Super Bowl ad to say it for him.”

“I’m not a hedge fund CEO & don’t have my own millions. Help us beat this nonsense,” he added. 

RELATED: Senate Republicans keep bailing out for 2022, opening the door for more Trumpers

While McCormick hails from a bygone era of Republican “respectability,” his latest ad indicates that he is willing to join the fold of Trumpism. 

As Politico reported last month, immediately after the Capitol, McCormick said that Trump bore “a lot of responsibility” for the “divisiveness” of the previous four years and that he “really appreciated Biden’s tone. But since announcing his Senate bid, the former executive has “MAGA-proofed” his campaign, running on an “America First” platform with endorsements from Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and former White House press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. 

Kentucky shooting was aimed at Democratic mayoral candidate, police say

Police in Louisville have arrested a man after a Democratic Party candidate was reportedly targeted in a shooting.

“A person fired a gun at Louisville Democratic mayoral candidate Craig Greenberg in his office on Story Avenue on Monday morning, police say. No one was injured, but an article of Greenberg’s clothing was hit, Louisville Metro Police Chief Erika Shields told media about 12:30 p.m.,” the Louisville “Courier Journal” reports.

Greenberg posted a message to social media stating that everyone was safe.

“Metro Council President David James told WLKY that someone went into Greenberg’s office and fired multiple shots at him. Both James and Chief Erika Shields say they believe Greenberg was the target. James called it an assassination attempt,” WLKY-TV reports.

If elected, Greenberg says public safety would be his number one priority.

“Greenberg launched his campaign for mayor last year and quickly built up a big fundraising lead (which he has since maintained) in the race to succeed outgoing Mayor Greg Fischer,” the “Courier Journal” reported.

The Bundy takeover is now complete: How the GOP has embraced pro-terrorist politics

In the weeks after the January 6 insurrection, the Washington Post published a disturbing piece that hinted at how everyday Republicans had come to embrace the politics of terrorism. In Oklahoma City, the Post noted, the memory of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing has become a flashpoint, as both Republican politicians and ordinary citizens bully anyone who tries to draw a line between Timothy McVeigh’s crime and Donald Trump-incited storming of the Capitol. The link is obvious, however. Both crimes were committed by white nationalists who refuse to accept a multiracial democracy — but woe on those who say as much in Oklahoma. When Oklahoma’s Department of Education shared information from the bombing memorial linking McVeigh’s attack with the domestic terror attack on the Capitol, their Facebook page was flooded with vitriol. 

“How in the world is this even remotely the same as the Oklahoma bombing??!!!” one teacher wrote. Another derided the education department as the “Oklahoma Dept of Socialist Indoctrination.” An angry dad clashed with other parents who argued that McVeigh’s radicalism and the anti-government rhetoric at the Capitol were “the very definition of the same context.”

One angry Oklahoman even shared the right-wing slogan about the “tree of liberty” needing to be “refreshed” with “blood” in the comments, seemingly unaware that the same phrase was on the T-shirt that McVeigh wore the day he murdered 168 people.

RELATED: Republicans have dropped the mask — they openly support fascism. What do we do about it?

This incoherent insistence on treating McVeigh’s insurrectionist violence as somehow different than the Capitol rioters illustrates an ugly shift that’s happened in Republican politics since 1995. Back then, most Republicans rejected the view that a white nationalist is entitled to commit violence to protest democratic outcomes he doesn’t like. Now, McVeigh’s ideology is the mainstream view in GOP politics. Sure, they rarely come right out and say it. But this insistence on minimizing the Capitol riot and continuing support for the man who instigated it — Donald Trump — speaks loudly enough. And ugliness in Oklahoma City in the days after the 2021 insurrection demonstrated that this pro-insurrection view was fixed on the right within days, if not hours, of the event itself. 


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


We see this, as well, in the celebratory attitude that right-wing media — especially Fox News — is taking towards the Ottawa trucker blockade.

As Zack Beauchamp of Vox notes, the uprising that brought that part of the Canada-U.S. border to a standstill and has terrorized the city of Ottawa “is on the fringe, including among Canadian truckers — some 90 percent of whom are vaccinated.” It’s a group of right-wingers who “are angry because they have lost” and are trying to gain by force what they cannot through democratic means. And yet, it’s become a cause célèbre on Fox News, causing comically overwrought claims like it’s “the single most successful human rights protest in a generation.” 

Fox News doesn’t like the blockade despite its widespread unpopularity — they support it because it’s unpopular.

As with the January 6 insurrection, the trucker tantrum is viewed by right-wing media as a model for how the embittered white conservative majority can impose its will without getting public support. Both the insurrection and the trucker tantrum are a far-right minority expressing a belief that they entitled to rule, no matter what. And while the Ottawa demonstration has so far not been as violent as the January 6 insurrection, it is still about using force — by taking the economy hostage and intimidating the residents with the threat of violence — to obtain what conservatives cannot gain fairly. 

This shift from being anti- to pro-terrorism among Republicans can really be traced back to Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s 2014 standoff with the Bureau of Land Management(BLM) and his sons’ subsequent 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. That’s when a group of far-right extremists, led by brothers Ryan and Ammon Bundy, seized control of a visitor’s center at an Oregon national wildlife refuge, spouting a bunch of incoherent demands that amounted to a belief that a democratically elected government had no right to pass laws restricting the right of white men to wreak as much environmental damage as they damn well pleased. The fight quite literally started because the occupiers didn’t believe the government had a right to convict two men who had set fire to federal lands to protest not being allowed to graze their cattle there. 

RELATED: How the fringe ideology of anti-government cranks is becoming the GOP mainstream

The occupiers were domestic terrorists, trying to obtain through violence what they couldn’t through fair engagement in politics. But while Republicans formally condemned the violence, they were also tripping over each other to validate the asinine complaints of the occupiers. Multiple GOP congressmen even drew on arguments that came from fringe authoritarian writers who believe in things like turning the U.S. into a Christian theocracy. Even more troublingly, the occupiers were found “not guilty” at their trial, suggesting that by October of 2016, enough Republicans were pro-terrorism enough to make it impossible to put together a jury to convict in a case that should have been a slam dunk. So that Trump was able to cobble together enough votes the next month to win the electoral college should not, in retrospect, have been a surprise. 


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


The Department of Justice under Barack Obama had been slow and cautious in its response to the occupation, fearing another debacle like the Branch Davidian fire in Waco, TX in 1993. Instead of storming in, they let the occupiers feel safe enough to actually leave the property for a media event, where they were then easily captured on an open highway. It was a decision heavily criticized at the time, with lots of people rightfully pointing out that people of color who commit acts of terrorism don’t get the kid glove treatment. Others, including myself, defended the feds, arguing that the fact that only one person died in the process justified the strategy. Now I’m beginning to doubt that view.

RELATED: Why voters don’t blame Republicans for the Capitol riot — no GOP leaders have been arrested yet

It may be that Democrats just need to get stiffer spines when dealing with right-wing bullies and terrorists, even when doing so means the right will react with violence. As Brian Beutler of Crooked Media argued in his newsletter last week, it’s reasonable to worry that the utter failure of the Department of Justice to arrest Trump or his allies for their many crimes “is driven by fear” of a violent backlash. Certainly, Trump has been using intimidation recently, promising pardons for people who commit violence for him and demanding ugly reactions from his followers if he does face a consequence.

But this failure of nerve on the part of Democratic leadership is going to screw us all over in the long run. As Beutler argues, the system “can’t function if one side gets a hostage-taker’s veto over the rules of fair play,” and without imposing real consequences for crime and violence, “he public will just grow desensitized to right-wing tactics or, worse,” even start to sympathize with the hostage-takers and violent terrorists. 

We see this in the shift in GOP circles from 1995, when McVeigh’s villainy was indisputable, to our modern time, when people who share McVeigh’s views and stormed the Capitol are described by the Republican National Committee as merely engaging in “legitimate political discourse.” The RNC did walk that lie back a little bit, but notably only for the people who got arrested. That only underscores the validity of Beutler’s argument: Consequences matter when it comes to public opinion.

The ongoing failure of Democrats to bring the hammer down on the ringleaders of the coup signals strongly to the public that the coup was no big deal — and indeed, opens the door to arguing that the coup was justified. Republicans are walking right through that door right now. 

Cargo, with a side of hornets, flies, and crabs

In July 2021 federal agents in New Orleans abruptly ordered the 600-foot cargo ship Pan Jasmine to leave U.S. waters. The ship, which had sailed from India, was preparing to offload goods when inspectors noticed fresh sawdust on the cargo deck and discovered non-native beetles and ants boring into wooden packaging materials. The unwelcome insects included an Asian longhorn beetle, a species that was introduced into New York 25 years ago, where it has killed thousands of trees and cost $500 million in control efforts.

The crew of beetles aboard the Pan Jasmine is not an isolated incident. That same month bee experts north of Seattle were scouring forest edges for Asian giant hornet nests. These new arrivals, famously known as “murder hornets,” first turned up in the Pacific Northwest in 2019, also likely via cargo ship. The two-inch hornets threaten crops, bee farms and wild plants by preying on native bees. Officials discovered and destroyed three nests.

And this past autumn Pennsylvania officials urged residents to be on the lookout for spotted lanternflies, handsome, broad-winged natives of Asia discovered in 2014 and now present in at least nine eastern states. Believed to have arrived with a shipment of stone from China, the lanternfly voraciously consumes plants and foliage, threatening everything from oak trees to vineyards.

These are only a few of the more charismatic invasive species that have arrived in the U.S. by cargo ship. But less visible invaders are also coming in and may include pathogens, crabs, seeds, larvae and more — some with the potential to upend ecosystems and agricultural crops.

“Commercial shipping is one the biggest ways invasive species are transported globally,” says Danielle Verna, an environmental monitoring expert who has researched the issue for more than a decade. Her work has taken her to busy ports in Maryland, Alaska and San Francisco Bay, which is considered one of the world’s most biologically invaded estuaries.

Verna, who primarily studies invasive species in marine waters, explains that commercial shipping enables organisms to effortlessly cross geographic boundaries at speeds that cannot occur naturally, which increases their survival rate. And as the volume of shipping increases, so do opportunities for invaders.

“The more shipping we do, and the more connections we make, the more potential we create for the spread of species,” says Verna.

Canadian researchers made the same point in 2019, when they predicted a global surge in invasive species by mid-century, caused by projected increases in overseas commerce. Added to that, climate change and the global shipping glut tied to the pandemic can also benefit new introductions.

By Land and by Sea — The Pathways for Pests

A cargo ship is a mighty thing. It can stretch a fifth of a mile and carry more than 10,000 containers, each holding thousands of items that have already moved by train or truck across great distances.

At any point during these journeys, native species can latch onto items or their packaging and wind up on the deck of a ship headed for another continent.

The ship itself can also be a host, especially for marine species. It’s a daunting array of vectors, but as Verna has learned, some paths are better traveled than others.

“You have to look at the trade partner and the traffic patterns,” she says, pointing out as an example that some Asian habitats resemble ones along the U.S. West Coast. Identifying such similarities can help predict where invasive hotspots may develop.

For marine species, Verna says the type of ship also matters. Research shows tankers and bulk carriers or “bulkers” — those carrying unpackaged commodities such as grains or coal — appear especially prone to species transport. Their hull shape, slower speed and duration in ports allow species to gather on a ship’s underside, in a process called biofouling. It inadvertently moves alga, crustations, invertebrates and others to new habitats, where they can affect both native species and infrastructure such as storm drains or even coastal power plants.

Tankers and bulkers also tend to carry more ballast water, which can be sucked aboard on one side of the ocean and discharged on the other. Along with biofouling, it’s a key way marine species reach new habitats. A particularly costly example is the European green crab, currently competing with native Dungeness crabs along the U.S. and Canadian west coasts.

Research by Verna and others on the effect of tankers and bulkers shows that the type of ship arriving in a port can be a better predictor of biological invasions than the simple volume of ships. It also means seemingly unrelated shifts in trade activity can invite a rise in foreign species. For instance,  the arrival of more tankers and bulkers as coal and natural gas exports increased in Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf Coast drove up ballast discharge in local estuaries.

But while tankers and bulkers may matter most for marine invaders, container ships pose unique opportunities for the plants and insects that, like the lanternfly, can quickly spread across a landscape. In this case, the commodities and their packaging pose the greatest concern. Plants and anything made of wood are especially hazardous.

For example, in 2017 Wisconsin officials warned that log furniture imported from China and sold locally was infested with wood-boring beetles. Officials had been alerted by consumers who found sawdust as they unpacked their new furniture. The beetles and their larvae can survive for two years inside the furniture before emerging as adults, officials warned.

Rima Lucardi, a research ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service in Georgia who has studied invasive species for 20 years, also points to the importance of wood packaging materials, which accompany most ocean-bound goods arriving in the United States. These include crates, pallets, skids and cases — the types of materials that got the Pan Jasmine kicked out of U.S. waters. Lucardi says species like the beetles found aboard that ship commonly stow away in packaging materials and can, if given the chance, disrupt ecosystems and economies in places like the Southeast’s lumber-producing forests.

Research increasingly shows both the outside and inside of containers provide the nooks and seams where parasites, snails, insects and other organisms can lurk or lay eggs. Such surfaces have likely spread the brown marmorated stink bug around the world, which now damages U.S. crops and was even recently blamed for delaying car shipments to Australia.

Lucardi’s work recently led her inside the shipping containers that deliver so many of the goods that surround us. Acting on a request by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture inspects inbound cargo, Lucardi examined the intake grilles of refrigerated containers arriving at the sprawling Garden City Terminal in Savannah, Georgia, the largest container port in the country.

“Refrigerated shipping containers are much like any refrigerator,” says Lucardi, explaining that they need constant air exchange, which means they can suck up insects and plant propagules from anywhere along their routes.

Lucardi’s research found thousands of seeds from roughly 30 species, including wild sugarcane, a federally prohibited noxious weed that has invaded parts of Florida. While conducting the work, Lucardi also experienced the fast-paced port environment that whisks goods — and invasive species — from ports to almost infinite inland locations.

“A container can get put on a truck or train within 24 hours of arriving,” says Lucardi.

That busy port environment is another important piece of the invasive species puzzle. As just one example of a range of possible impacts, at ports across the globe artificial lighting attracts swarms of native insects on a nightly basis, any number of whom may get sucked into a container’s intake grille, fly inside a container or lay eggs on a container’s surfaces.

Lucardi says these and other vectors bring non-native species to U.S. ports every day, although less than 1% become established. But that small fraction has already transformed the landscape — and even human cultures — in regions across the country.

An Old Threat, Compounded by Climate and the Pandemic

Ships have moved species about the world for ages. Researchers believe that in the 1840s a strain of the pathogen Phytophthora infestans, which causes potato blight, followed trade routes from Mexico to Belgium, where it began damaging crops. It quickly reached Ireland, where the Irish Lumper was the spud of choice. With the Lumper offering a veritable monocrop, P. infestansdecimated crops and gardens, leading to famine, death and mass emigration to the United States, where people like my own great-grandmother built new lives in cities like Boston.

But that’s hardly all. In the late 19th century, a fungus that likely arrived with Asian nursery stock began killing American chestnuts. Once known as the “perfect tree” for its quality lumber, superior tannins and abundant nuts, the chestnut was wiped out in just decades. From Maine to Georgia and west to Illinois, 4 billion trees died, forever altering the landscape. In an example of cascading co-extinctions, three species of chestnut-dependent moths also disappeared.

More recently the Asian emerald ash borer, which likely harbored away in wood packaging materials, has destroyed tens of millions of U.S. trees since just 2002. Similarly, millions of hemlock trees in the eastern United States are succumbing to the woolly hemlock adelgid, which likely arrived on Japanese ornamental plants. As the hemlock slowly disappears, the region loses its most common native conifer, a unique habitat niche, and a source of long-term carbon sequestration.

The emerald ash borer and wooly adelgid are also getting a leg up from climate change, which has warmed winters and allowed the insects to expand their North American range. Verna and Lucardi say such climate-induced expansions are expected to continue, and not just in forests. Evidence suggests warming waters are carrying European green crabs north toward Alaska.

Both scientists also acknowledge that shipping delays associated with the pandemic may further aid invasives, whether through ships spending longer times stuck in ports or containers remaining stationary for longer periods in shipyards.

Prevention, Prevention, Prevention

Over decades the United States and other countries have spun an intricate web of regulations meant to reduce the spread of species by cargo ship. The story of the Pan Jasmine shows that in at least some cases the system can work. But governing a global fleet of thousands of ships, moving among hundreds of ports, is slow and tortuous work.

Few know that better than Marcie Merksamer, an environmental biologist and ballast water expert who has studied the issue for two decades and helped shape implementation of an international ballast water-management treaty. The agreement, governed by the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization, was written in 2004 but is only now taking effect.

Merksamer says the gap between writing the rules and implementing them includes a 13-year effort to convince enough countries to sign the treaty for it to be ratified. In that time, governments, industry, intergovernmental agencies and others wrangled over an ocean of details, from the technological to the political.

“It’s very complicated,” says Merksamer. “Regulations that work for an island nation like Fiji don’t necessarily work for a larger country like Norway.”

In the end the new rules require ships to adhere to a discharge standard that, in the interim, requires them to exchange ballast water in deep seas far from coastlines. That will later change to a requirement to equip all ships with high-tech water-treatment systems proven effective at treating organisms in ballast water.

More than 80 countries have signed on — representing 90% of global shipping tonnage — and the treaty is in what the IMO terms an “experience-building phase.” Merksamer describes this as a time for industry and regulators to try the rules, test the new treatment systems, and gather feedback and data. The phase was scheduled to end in 2022, but the IMO is considering delaying that until 2024, when the treaty would become more stringent.

But that’s not all, explains Merksamer. During this same long interval, the United States, which is not party to the IMO treaty, plotted its own course toward ballast-water regulation after years of lawsuits and proposed legislative solutions by industry and conservation groups. In 2018 Congress finally responded with the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, which amended the Clean Water Act to clarify regulatory roles. Rulemaking for that law is ongoing, but it’s expected to eventually create standards for commercial operations.

Similar tales surround other vectors. For instance, in 2011 the IMO finalized international voluntary guidelines to reduce biofouling on commercial vessels. The guidelines lack the force of the ballast-water treaty but are intended to create global consistency. Then in 2014, New Zealand introduced the world’s first mandatory national standards for biofouling. They align with the IMO guidelines but require ships entering the country to meet a “clean” standard or face on-site cleaning.

Regarding the topsides of ships, international rules for wood packaging materials were established by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization in 2002 and have since been amended several times. They mandate a standardized stamp showing materials have been treated with either heat or the highly toxic methyl bromide fumigant. In the United States, Custom and Border Protection agents — like the ones who booted the Pan Jasmine out of New Orleans — inspect for the stamps. And while the story of the Pan Jasmine and other 2021 seizures are encouraging, critics point out that agents only inspect a fraction of the cargo arriving each year.

Regulation of shipping containers is far less developed. The FAO promotes voluntary cleanliness guidelines, but in 2015 it paused movement toward an international standard. Concurrent North American efforts have also only focused on voluntary practices, while a coalition of industry groups recently voiced opposition to development of any international rules. However, Australia and New Zealand now tout a partnership with industry that requires inbound containers to be cleaned inside and out and sprayed with insecticides.

With research by Lucardi and others shining a light on containers as vectors, many observers are hoping for a more anchored global policy. And while the regulatory sphere is convoluted and evolving, a unanimous thread is its focus on prevention.

Prevention is the number-one way to manage invasive species, says Verna. “It presents upfront costs, but they’ll be lower than most follow-up management actions.”

The sentiment resonates as officials across the country scramble after errant hornets, beetles, flies and crabs, and as residents grieve the loss of native denizens like chestnuts and hemlocks.

Charlie Kirk mocked by AOC after calling Super Bowl halftime show “sexual anarchy”

Twitter users put conservative activist Charlie Kirk through the ringer on Sunday after Kirk, known for his bombastic anti-left rhetoric, accused the Super Bowl halftime show of promoting “sexual anarchy.”

The widely-praised halftime performance, held at California’s SoFi Stadium on Sunday evening, featured the likes of hip-hop heavyweights Eminem, Snoop Dogg, Dr. Dre, Mary J. Blige, Kendrick Lamar, and 50 Cent. After the show came to a close, Kirk, apparently rankled by the performers’ bawdy displays, tweeted that “the NFL is now the league of sexual anarchy.”

“This halftime show should not be allowed on television,” he said.

Kirk’s tweet, which he did not care to explain any further, drew all kinds of responses from critics on the left, many of whom derided Kirk over his prudish tendencies. 

“I’ve been trying to figure out what Charlie Kirk means by ‘sexual anarchy,'” tweeted attorney Ron Filipkowski. “I’m not exactly sure, but I think it’s probably better than whatever the opposite is.”


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


“How is charlie kirk 28?,” chimed Hanna Gais, a senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “No one under the age of 45 should be allowed to act like that much of a boomer.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell, R-Ca., likewise called Kirk a “tiny, tiny boy,” asking: “How can we help you?”

Kirk wasn’t the only conservative to opine about the half-time show. 

Sean Spicer, one of Donald Trump’s four White House press secretaries, tweeted: “Dear @NFL / @pepsi. What was the message of the #HalfTimeShow?”

“The Super Bowl halftime show was basically pornography on television. Absolutely disgusting,” conservative activist Brigitte GabrielI echoed. “It shouldn’t have been permitted for cable television.”

RELATED: Charlie Kirk wants student followers to harass TSA employees with no-mask “game”

On a rare note of positivity, Candace Owens, the conservative commentator notorious for “anti-woke” rabble-rousing, heaped praise on the performance, saying, “This is an excellent Super Bowl halftime performance.”

“Undeniable hip-hop and R&B excellence,” she added.

Unsurprisingly, Owens’ remarks drew a wave of backlash from her own followers. 

While it remains unclear what the term “sexual anarchy” means on a precisely, it isn’t the first time Kirk has employed it.

During an October episode of his podcast, Kirk accused the Democrats of working toward a society of “sexual anarchy.” 

“The Democrats want to destroy the country, we know this,” Kirk said at the time. “They want to see America completely obliterated, the Constitution shredded, and remade in their own San Francisco-Brooklyn-Malibu-Manhattan image, where there is no cultural identity, where you live in sexual anarchy, where private property is a thing of the past, and the ruling class controls everything.”

RELATED: How a “diaper protest” imploded a conservative student group

Kirk later doubled down on the remarks in an essay, published by the right-wing Claremont Institute, entitled “On Sexual Anarchy.” In the essay, Kirk revealed that the term was originally coined by a Manhattan pastor who described “sexual anarchy” as “the throwing off of God’s sexual order.”