Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trader Joe’s pizza bread cheese is as delicious as I feared

Maybe you’ve never heard of bread cheese, let alone pizza bread cheese. Maybe before you saw the package in Trader Joe’s you assumed it might mean cheese on top of bread, or bread stuffed with cheese, or maybe bread that has been somehow transmogrified into cheese. But no: Bread cheese, also known as juustoleipä, a Finnish delicacy, is a mild, buttery cheese.

What makes bread cheese really special is its texture. Like Halloumi or paneer, it’s a cheese that you can griddle without melting. That means you can get a delicious crispy crust on the cheese before you eat it.

Last year, Trader Joe’s made its first foray into bread cheese territory by launching a garlic bread cheese, one that was meant to taste like garlic bread without the bread. This month, they dropped another version: a pizza bread cheese that, yes, compresses that pizza flavor — that is, oregano and other dried Italian herbs and spices — into a block of cheese. The internet, predictably, went wild.

Listen: I do not need more cheese in my life. I have an entire shelf in my fridge that my partner and I affectionately call “cheese Jenga.” I currently have no fewer than five kinds of cheese, not including the string cheese I eat as a snack or the grated pecorino for cacio e pepe or the sliced cheddar for tuna melts. But I am powerless to resist the clarion call of Big Dairy. And so I went to my local Trader Joe’s to pick up a few blocks of pizza bread cheese. Per the instructions, I microwaved the block for 30 seconds, cut it into chunky slices, and ate it, dipping it into tomato sauce. It tastes like mozzarella sticks, minus the breaded outside, and with a pleasing firmness inside rather than the gooey melt of mozzarella. The squeaky texture reminded me of fresh cheese curds.

A block of it, split with my partner, made a perfect afternoon snack, but I could see using pizza bread cheese in all kinds of ways. Cut it into cubes and griddle it, for example, and you have gluten-free pizza croutons for a big bowl of tomato soup, or a fun addition to a salad. Sliver it and air-fry it for a mozzarella stick-ish snack. Eat it with a little soppressata for a sophisticated Lunchables vibe. Why not? What January needs is more cheese.

DeSantis to “investigate” GoFundMe for withholding money from anti-vax Canadian trucker protest

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Saturday threatened to investigate GoFundMe over apparent “fraud” after the crowdfunding platform vowed to refund money donated to the Freedom Convoy, a protest against pandemic restrictions led by Canadian truckers that has virtually shut down Ottawa, that nation’s capital city.

The demonstration, which has amassed roughly 50,000 truckers and thousands of tagalong supporters, gained steam late last month after the Canadian government passed a law mandating that all truckers who cross the U.S.-Canada border be vaccinated. Members of the protest have converged just outside Canada’s Parliament building, clogging the city’s traffic flow, blasting loud music and even assaulting local residents. On Sunday, Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson declared a state of emergency as authorities began making arrests and seizing vehicles. (Salon’s Kathryn Joyce interviewed a Canadian expert in hate groups on the various forces converging in the convoy protest.)

Over the past two weeks, supporters of the Freedom Convoy have managed to raise roughly $10 million for the movement through GoFundMe, much of it apparently coming from conservative donors in the U.S. On Friday, the fundraising platform announced that it would prevent participants of the demonstration from receiving any of the funds, instead vowing to refund donors and redirect any remaining funds to various charities. 

“GoFundMe supports peaceful protests and we believe that was the intention of the Freedom Convoy 2022 fundraiser when it was first created,” the platform said. “However, as a result of multiple discussions with local law enforcement and police reports of violence and other unlawful activity, the Freedom Convoy fundraiser has been removed from the GoFundMe platform.”

“We will work with organizers to send all remaining funds to credible and established charities chosen by the Freedom Convoy 2022 organizers and verified by GoFundMe,” it added. 

Shortly after that announcement, the company announced it would automatically refunding all donations to the original donors, instead of requiring them to submit refund requests. But that nuance did not stop conservative politicians and pundits from pouncing on opportunity to accuse the company of exploiting its users.

RELATED: Canada’s “Freedom Convoy”: Is this Jan. 6 for the Great White North?

DeSantis, a longtime critic of COVID-related public health mandates, called it “fraud for @gofundme to commandeer $9M in donations sent to support truckers and give it to causes of their own choosing,” tweeting on Saturday: “I will work with [Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody] to investigate these deceptive practices — these donors should be given a refund.” 


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


Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general — who has himself been indicted on charges of securities fraud — also issued a stern rebuke against the platform, saying that GoFundMe “went woke, froze the funds, [and] failed to deliver Texans’ money.”

“Today I assembled a team to investigate their potential fraud & deception. Texas donors will get Justice!” he added. 

“All GOP Attorney Generals should be looking at this & helping to get people their $$$ back so it can be redirected to the truckers. Don’t let @gofundme scam you,” echoed Donald Trump Jr. “Call your AGs & let them know. [GoFundMe] seems to have no problem finding BLM riots … peaceful truckers should be fine too.”

While the move rankled conservatives, Ottawa Police thanked the company for “listening to our concerns as a City and a police service.” City authorities issued at least 550 tickets on Sunday and have launched more than 60 criminal investigations into the demonstration, according to The Washington Post,  

Ottawa Police Chief Peter Sloly has speculated that “there may not be a policing solution” to the protest, given its size. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that using the military to disperse demonstrators was “not in the cards.” 

Evan Balgord, the executive director of Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), told Salon a week ago that the protest is not likely to lead to large-scale violence, but said, “There are people in this convoy who want to do violence to others.”

“Every single hate group, far-right group we monitor is involved in this in some way, shape or form, pretty vocally,” said Balgord. “So it does create a volatile situation. I don’t think we’re quite at critical mass. We don’t have all the right ingredients, I think, to make this a Jan. 6. But the point is, there’s people here who want it to be.”

Read more on the fight over vaccine mandates:

Trump’s “love letters” from Kim Jong-un spirited from White House, seized at Mar-a-Lago: report

Former President Donald Trump improperly removed boxes of documents from the White House that were seized last month by the National Archives And Records Administration, according to the Washington Post.

Trump has repeatedly run afoul of the Presidential Records Act, which requires all official documents and gifts to be preserved. Trump repeatedly tore up documents in violation of the law and White House staffers routinely put documents in “burn bags” to be destroyed, the Post reported last week. The National Archives said that some of the documents it has turned over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot were torn up and had to be taped back together.

The National Archives also retrieved boxes of documents that had not been turned over at Mar-a-Lago in January, according to the Post. Trump advisers denied any “nefarious intent” to the outlet, which noted that the boxes contained gifts and letters from world leaders, including a letter from former President Barack Obama and letters from North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, which Trump once described as “love letters.”

“There is a very good chance that at least some of this material was classified – diplomatic confidential or otherwise,” tweeted Jon Wolfsthal, a former national security adviser to Obama. “It is not just about Presidential Records act, but also protecting national security.”

RELATED: Trump documents were torn up, taped together before reaching Jan. 6 committee

Though presidential administrations frequently run afoul of record preservation rules, a source familiar with the document transfer told the Post that the scale of records retrieved from Mar-a-Lago was “out of the ordinary.”

“NARA has never had that kind of volume transfer after the fact like this,” the source said.

Experts say that document preservation is critical for national security purposes. Presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky told the Post that undisclosed records “could pose a real concern if the next administration is flying blind without that information.”

“The only way that a president can really be held accountable long term is to preserve a record about who said what, who did what, what policies were encouraged or adopted, and that is such an important part of the long-term scope of accountability — beyond just elections and campaigns,” Chervinsky said.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a member of the Jan. 6 committee, told the outlet she was unaware that the documents were found at Mar-a-Lago.

“That they didn’t follow rules is not a shock,” she said. “As for how this development relates to the committee’s work, we have different sources and methods for obtaining documents and information that we are seeking.”

Former advisers told the Post that Trump was “unconcerned” with the record preservation law.

“Things that are national security sensitive or very clearly government documents should have been a part of a first sweep — so the fact that it’s been this long doesn’t reflect well on [Trump],” a former Obama-era White House lawyer told the outlet. “Why has it taken for a year for these boxes to get there? And are there more boxes?”


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


Though the National Archives have limited ability to enforce the law, legal experts doubt that the Mar-a-Lago documents could lead to legal action.

“There is a high bar for bringing such cases,” Charles Tiefer, a former counsel to the House of Representatives, told the outlet, though things are different when “there is willful and unlawful intent.”

“You can’t prosecute for just tearing up papers,” he said. “You would have to show him being highly selective and have evidence that he wanted to behave unlawfully.”

Trump, of course, rose to power by maligning former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, which also ran afoul of record-keeping rules.

“The government record retention scorecard between Trump and Clinton is not particularly close at this juncture,” tweeted Politico editor Sam Stein.

The National Archives said last week that some of the records it has turned over to the Jan. 6 committee “had been torn up by former President Trump,” some of which were taped back together while others “had not been reconstructed by the White House.”

Former Trump staffers told the Post last week that the former president’s habit of shredding documents was “far more widespread and indiscriminate than previously known.” Though the administration tasked an entire team with reconstructing torn up documents to comply with federal law, “it’s unclear how many records were lost or permanently destroyed” by Trump, according to the report.

But it wasn’t just Trump. Staffers at the National Archives described the flow of destroyed papers from the White House as “unprecedented.”

A senior former White House official told the outlet that he and other White House staffers frequently put documents into “burn bags” to be destroyed and would themselves decide what documents would be preserved.

When the Jan. 6 committee requested documents related to Trump’s pressure on former Vice President Mike Pence ahead of Jan. 6, some of the files were unavailable because they had been destroyed, according to the report.

“He didn’t want a record of anything,” a former senior Trump official told the Post. “He never stopped ripping things up. Do you really think Trump is going to care about the records act? Come on.”

Read more on the ex-president and the Jan. 6 aftermath:

Mike Pence finally speaks up — too late! Trump’s takeover of GOP is virtually complete

Last Friday, appearing before the Federalist Society in Florida, former Vice President Mike Pence said the words that dare not be uttered in the Republican Party: “President Trump was wrong.” He was referring to Trump’s recent assertion that Pence had the right to “overturn” the election. While Trump’s original statement and Pence’s mild rebuke both sent shock waves through the media, they really shouldn’t have. Of course Trump thinks Pence had the right to overturn the election. He couldn’t have been any clearer in the 5,789 times he’s mentioned it.

No one should be surprised that Pence came out and said Trump was wrong, either. He has stayed pretty quiet about the whole thing, but the fact that Pence didn’t actually try to throw out electoral votes, under tremendous pressure, proved long ago that he thought it was impossible and unjustified. He just didn’t have the guts to come out and say it directly until now, which is typical.

I doubt Pence’s comments would have caused the stir they did if it weren’t for the fact that earlier in the day the Republican National Committee had voted to censure Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., at the RNC’s winter meeting in Utah. The committee statement said, among other things, that the party would “immediately cease any and all support of them as members of the Republican Party for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the Conference,” and described Cheney and Kinzinger’s roles on the House Jan. 6 committee as helping the “Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

RELATED: At last the Republican Party comes clean: It stands for terrorism and Trump, against democracy

Once it was pointed out that the Republican Party’s governing body appeared to be saying were saying that the Capitol rioters were “engaged in legitimate political discourse” the statement was rapidly amended to read “legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.” RNC leaders claimed they meant to refer to people like those fraudulent “electors” from various states, whom they characterized as being just regular folks. (One of them has close ties to RNC chair Ronna McDaniel.) According to the New York Times, however, the language of the resolution had been carefully negotiated over several days, and was voted on first by the executive committee and later by the full conference. So unless the Republican leadership has reading comprehension problems (which they might!) if they hadn’t mean to embrace the insurrectionists surely someone would have raised an objection before the whole thing went public.

According to reports from the conference, there was quite a bit of back-and-forth among members, some of whom thought it wasn’t a good look for the party to cater to Trump’s revenge fantasies. But the true believers won out, led by one of Trump’s top henchmen, David Bossie. I have written about Bossie before. He’s a notorious right-wing operative, going all the way back to the 1990s when he made his bones as an anti-Clinton character assassin working with the notorious Floyd Brown, who was famous for producing the racist “Willie Horton” ad in the 1988 presidential campaign. Brown’s group was called Citizens United, which Bossie later took over, and which brought the infamous lawsuit to the Supreme Court that opened up unlimited big money in politics. (The suit was over Bossie’s film “Hillary: The Movie,” one of his patented hit jobs.)

Bossie quickly became a media go-to source for dirt on the Clintons and his career was off and running. He soon became a congressional Whitewater “investigator” (and was later fired by Newt Gingrich for doctoring tapes and releasing them to the public.) He produced films with Steve Bannon long before Bannon was a household name or had hooked up with Trump, and wrote several crude smear jobs on Democratic politicians.


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


Naturally enough, Bossie jumped on the Trump train back in 2016 and soon teamed up with Trump’s first campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. The two of them made quite a pair. At one point during Trump’s term he even discussed bringing them into the White House as a “crisis team,” although no one was quite sure whether they’d be tasked with creating crises or fixing them. The dynamic duo wrote a book together called “Let Trump Be Trump,” a memoir of the glory days of the 2016 campaign.

In 2019, Bossie was exiled from TrumpWorld over accusations that his misleadingly-named fundraising outfit, the Presidential Coalition, had bilked Republican donors out of millions of dollars that was supposed to go to support conservative candidates and somehow never got there. Trump does not like it when someone uses his name to run a grift without giving him a taste, and was reportedly “apoplectic.” But Bossie has been slowly but surely worming his back into the fold ever since. Trump assigned him to challenge ballot-counting in swing states after the 2020 election and Bossie recently took on the important task of destroying the presidential debates for 2024, so Trump can skip them if he wants to. (Debates don’t tend to work to his advantage.)

As the Washington Post’s Philip Bump has pointed out, this appears to be yet another piece of the plan Trump is setting in motion for 2024. Aside from all the legal shenanigans going on with election officials in battleground states, Trump will almost certainly try to clear the primary field, as he did in 2020, when he strong-armed states into canceling their Republican primaries altogether. But Bossie’s latest task, shepherding the censure of Cheney and Kinzinger, has to have him fully back in Trump’s good graces. Nothing is more important to the ex-president than that and Bossie handled it smoothly, including the inflammatory language that McDaniel was forced to amend, but no doubt had delighted Trump, who is now fully supportive of the Jan. 6  insurrectionists. He probably wasn’t too happy with McDaniel’s forced “clarification.”

Considering Bossie’s very special set of skills, it’s not unrealistic to suspect he may be setting up McDaniel for a fall. According to Vanity Fair, he wants the RNC chair for himself. That would be the zenith of his career as a right wing operative and would signal the final and total takeover of the party by Donald Trump (as if that hasn’t happened already). When you think about it, in Trump’s Republican Party, David Bossie is the only man for the job. 

Read more on Trump, the Republican Party and the insurrection:

At last the Republican Party comes clean: It stands for terrorism and Trump, against democracy

In the year-plus since the events of Jan. 6, 2021, the Republican Party has morphed, like an evil insect emerging from a chrysalis, into its final form: a terrorist organization. Rather than purging from its ranks those Republicans who supported, endorsed and participated in Donald Trump’s coup attempt, the party and its leaders have rallied around them, and remade the party in their image. Rather than voting to impeach and convict Donald Trump, and therefore drive him out of the party, Republican leaders, along with the bulk of their voters and their mouthpieces in the media, have chosen to support him.

Republicans are so loyal to Donald Trump that even after the attack on the Capitol, where Republican members of Congress could easily have been killed — 147 of them voted to nullify the results of the 2020 presidential election. In essence, they were completing the “legal” part of Trump’s coup, even after the illegal part had failed (at least in that moment).

In the year since then, the scale of Donald Trump and his cabal’s conspiracy and coup attempt has only become clearer and more obvious. There is no longer room for plausible deniability; the evidence is overwhelming. The United States was perhaps hours or days away from the overthrow of democracy, and at least an attempt at autocratic or dictatorial rule. Although that coup attempt was not successful, the campaign against American democracy continues and is escalating, largely undeterred.

RELATED: Donald Trump’s lackeys failed him — and saved democracy

In dozens of states across the country, Republicans are passing laws that will make it difficult or impossible for Democrats to win elections. Emulating the systems of authoritarian pseudo-democracies like Russia, Hungary and Turkey, the Republicans want to replace a system of “free and fair” elections (however imperfect those have been in practice) with what experts describe as “competitive authoritarianism” or “managed democracy.”

Ultimately, Jan. 6, 2021, was a trial run and a preview of the future, in a country where if Republicans lose the popular vote they clearly intend to resort to illegal and quasi-legal means to obtain, keep and maximize power.

Last Friday, the Republican National Committee finally, and in almost an anti-climactic way, announced who and what it really is. The party’s governing body officially censured Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois for daring to condemn Trump’s coup attempt, and for serving the public interest by sitting on the House committee tasked with investigating those traitorous events. The RNC’s official statement described Trump’s Jan. 6 attack force as “ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

The Washington Post offered this editorial comment:

Since Jan. 6, 2021, senior party officials have gone from acknowledging Mr. Trump’s guilt to punishing those, such as Ms. Cheney, who continue to speak up about a tragedy that no American should forget. It remains to be seen what punishment former vice president Mike Pence will endure following a Friday speech in which he rebuked Mr. Trump’s claims that he could have overturned the election on Jan. 6. Republicans assailing Ms. Cheney and siding with Mr. Trump and his lies about the 2020 election are the ones who imperil the republic. By asserting, as their censure resolution did Friday, that truth is fiction and patriots are turncoats, they have exposed the dark, festering core of what their party is becoming: an unruly revolt against fact and reason that betrays the principles leaders, such as former president Ronald Reagan, championed.

The Republican Party has now given its official endorsement for more right-wing political violence, such as we saw last January at the Capitol and since then in various smaller-scale incidents across the country. Predictably, Republican leaders and  spokespeople are now deflecting, obfuscating, lying and seeking to deny reality as they claim that their words were taken out of context and they did not exactly mean what they plainly said.


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


This is a common strategy among extremist political organizations as they pretend to be legitimate partners in the very system of democratic governance they are working to destroy.

At important moments in history, people often do not realize what has taken place and how their collective destinies have been altered. In the middle of such events, it is difficult to see the bigger picture and its true implications. In America, this blindness is amplified by a naïve cultural belief in the country’s narrative of inexorable progress, in which history inevitably follows an upward trajectory, rather than meandering, lurching and then falling backward before moving forward again at some point in the future.

Because America’s democracy crisis is a type of interregnum, and a collective crisis of meaning the American people are still muddling through it all, desperately trying to search out some kind of clarity or meaning. Those people who are supposed to be the guides — the news media, political elites, “experts”, and other public voices — are just as lost because they too are vulnerable to the same forces.

We will look back on last Friday, Feb. 4, 2022, as one such moment — one when things changed even more for the worse in an already broken America, and most Americans were not aware it had happened. On that same day, Donald Trump’s fundraising operation sent out this email:

When will it end, Friend?

AT&T, a majority owner of DirecTV, is banning the very popular One America News Network (OAN) because too many people are watching.

I’m calling on all Conservatives to steer clear of DirecTV, and while you’re at it, the same goes for “Concast’s” [sic] Xfinity as well.

The Liberals have gone too far, and it’s time we do something about it. My team is putting together a petition to show the Left that Americans want to hear REAL NEWS, not FAKE NEWS.

I want to get over 1,000,000 signatures from Patriots who are committing to NOT use DirecTV again, which is why I need your help.

Please add your name IMMEDIATELY to commit to NOT using DirecTV and to stand against the Left-wing MOB.

These Radical Left Lunatics are destroying our Nation, and we are better off without them.

I’ve requested to see the list of Patriots who proudly stand me, and I’ll be looking for your name. Don’t let me down.

Under the cover of hysterical and imaginary claims of censorship — DirecTV in all probability made a business decision unrelated to ideology — Trump and his spokespeople are encouraging eliminationist violence against their perceived enemies, the imaginary “Left-wing MOB” that is “destroying our Nation.”

These are not isolated or random threats. In two recent political rallies Trump has hinted at the possibility of widespread racist violence, directed in particular against Black people. Last Saturday in Conroe, Texas, he called for mass demonstrations in Atlanta, New York and Washington if he is indicted or prosecuted for his many apparent crimes.

Fox News and the larger right-wing propaganda echo chamber have been circulating the white supremacist “Great Replacement” fantasy, which argues that white people are being supplanted in Western society by Black and brown people. These claims are an encouragement to preemptive violence against Black and brown people, Muslims and other perceived undesirables.

For at least the last six years, Donald Trump and the larger neofascist movement behind him have been using the propaganda technique known as stochastic terrorism, in which “dog-whistle” and other coded appeals are used to encourage political violence. In itself, this is nothing new: Stochastic terrorism has been a key feature of right-wing media and the “conservative” movement for several decades.

Emboldened by the events of Jan. 6, 2021, Republican fascists and the larger white right are becoming bolder and less restrained. Their use of stochastic terrorism has now transitioned toward direct threats, and acts, of political violence. As public opinion polls and other research have shown, millions of Republicans and Trump supporters are prepared to support political violence in order to return Trump to power and to protect what they understand as America’s “traditional values” (meaning white privilege and white power). An unknown proportion of those people are willing to engage in such violence personally.

Many Trumpists and other neofascists are flying all-black U.S. flags at rallies or outside their homes to signal that they will offer no mercy in a future armed battle against Democrats, liberals, progressives and others deemed to be “un-American.”

RELATED: Black flag: Understanding the Trumpists’ latest threatening symbol

White supremacist and other neofascist paramilitaries are marching in the streets of major American cities in a campaign of intimidation (and recruitment). Historically Black colleges and universities have been targeted by bomb threats. In an eerie repeat of one of the worst chapters in human history, Republicans and their followers are endorsing book bans — and even staging public book burnings.

Writing at Mother Jones, Mark Follman previewed these developments last year:

Trump has made freshly evident, in other words, that he is serving as the inspirational leader for a domestic terrorism movement. His role as such was first openly described by a handful of leading national security experts in the season of his reelection defeat and tumultuous final months in office. Back then, the discussion centered on Trump using tactics of stochastic terrorism, a method of inciting violence veiled in plausible deniability that those experts (and this journalist) recognized from Trump in the run-up to January 6. … A third longtime Republican, a former senior national security official in the George W. Bush administration, described Trump as “an arsonist of radicalization.” …

As the former president further seeks to rewrite January 6 and stoke incendiary far-right grievances, veiled tactics and plausible deniability are no longer in the equation, according to another expert among those last fall who called out Trump’s tactics. “So much commentary still seems uncomfortable or coy about stating what Trump is doing,” says Juliette Kayyem, who served as an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security under President Obama and currently directs national security research at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. “He’s not hinting, whistling, or luring these extremists anymore. He’s providing an owner’s manual. I will never understand why we are being so polite about describing this.”

In a recent essay at Salon about Trump’s threats of race war, I explored some parallels:

Donald Trump is an entrepreneur of racial and ethnic violence. In that sense, he is not dissimilar to leaders in places like Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia, who used fear, lies, stereotypes and other dehumanizing and eliminationist rhetoric and threats of violence to encourage ethnic genocide. Trump has made it clear that he wants a “race war,” in which Black and brown people are targeted for wide-scale violence by white people. There may be thousands, or tens of thousands (or even more) of white people willing to follow his orders. The danger is extreme.

When people reach out to me for advice about how to manage their fears about America in this moment of crisis and impending disaster, I suggest that they should read Chinua Achebe’s novel “Things Fall Apart”. I also encourage them to consider Achebe’s wisdom that: “When suffering knocks at your door and you say there is no seat for him, he tells you not to worry because he has brought his own stool.”

In the end, if the current behavior of the American people at large is any indication, they may soon find themselves on the street outside their own house, evicted by suffering as he moves in his friends and family and pretends it was his house all along.

Read more from Chauncey DeVega on America’s crisis of democracy:

More than 80 pro-Trump election deniers are running for key state offices

More than 80 candidates who have made false claims about the 2020 election or supported Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” are running for state offices that run, oversee or protect elections, according to a new report.

Trump has targeted numerous state-level races after Republicans like Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey refused to help him try to overturn his loss and election officials like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (a Republican) and Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (a Democrat) repeatedly discredited his baseless claims of fraud. But the trend is not limited to the handful of battleground states that decided the 2020 election.

At least 51 Republican candidates who have falsely claimed that Trump won the election, spread lies about the election’s legitimacy, backed “forensic” audits, promoted conspiracy theories or took other actions to undermine election integrity are running for governor in 24 states, according to States United Action, a nonpartisan group tracking election deniers running for office. In some states, multiple election deniers are running in the same primary.

At least 21 election deniers are running for secretary of state in 18 states, an office that would put them in power to oversee voting in their states. Another 11 election deniers are running for attorney general, which would position them to get involved in election litigation and law enforcement matters.

“We are seeing Democrat and Republican statewide officials who defended the will of the people in 2020 being challenged or primaried by Election Deniers in red and blue states alike,” former Republican New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, the co-chair of States United Action, said in a statement. “Elections are national events run by the states, so these positions are critical to a government of, by, and for the people. It’s important that we pay attention, and early, to the rhetoric about our election system happening in these down-ballot races.”

RELATED: Trump endorses Arizona conspiracy theorist who wants to “decertify” election after sham “audit”

Secretaries of state in particular proved to be key in undermining Trump’s post-election crusade. Secretaries of state from both parties certified election results and fended off lawsuits from Trump and his allies. Raffensperger, for example, also resisted a barrage of calls from Trump asking him to “find” enough votes to overturn the election. He and many other top election officials endured months of death threats for their efforts.

Trump has thrown his endorsement behind Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., who is mounting a primary challenge to Raffensperger. After the 2020 election, Hice backed multiple lawsuits seeking to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, saying he was “not convinced at all” that President Biden won the state even after three recounts confirmed the results. Hice has also spread conspiracy theories that voting machines flipped votes from Trump to Biden. Hice objected to the certification of Biden’s victory in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, which he called “our 1776 moment,” even after hundreds of Trump supporters assaulted Capitol Police officers and hunted lawmakers through the halls of Congress.

Trump is also backing state Rep. Mark Finchem in his campaign against Hobbs as secretary of state in Arizona, which Trump lost to Biden by fewer than 11,000 votes. Finchem attended the “Stop the Steal” rally ahead of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and has acknowledged his ties to the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia whose leader and other members have been charged with seditious conspiracy in the riot. Finchem has repeatedly insisted that Trump won the 2020 race, was a key supporter of the failed Maricopa County “audit” and has since introduced legislation that would require all voters’ ballots to be published online and require all ballots to be counted by hand — a nod to the numerous conspiracy theories around Arizona’s so-called audit. Finchem is also co-sponsoring a bill that would allow the state legislature to “accept or reject” the results of a presidential election, without establishing clear criteria for such a rejection.

Trump is also targeting Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who fended off multiple legal challenges to the state’s election. Trump has endorsed Kristina Karamo, a community college professor who gained a following in conservative circles after claiming she had seen fraudulent ballots counted in Detroit while acting as a poll challenger, assertions that have been rejected in court and by local election officials. Karamo later pushed conspiracy theories that voting machines had switched votes from Trump to Biden and that antifa, not Trump supporters, were behind the Capitol riot.

More than a dozen other election deniers are running in many other states, according to States United Action, including such swing states like Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio. (Biden won the first four and Trump carried Ohio, all by relatively narrow margins.)

Benson warned that these election deniers are vying for positions that could potentially allow them to “change election results.”

Misinformation spread by Trump supporters and threats against election officials are all part of a “multi-tier effort designed to, in some ways, create a ripe environment that could accept the results of an election being overturned because there’s been so much confusion and chaos and instances of illegitimacy suggested through various means,” Benson told reporters on Wednesday. “This misinformation campaign is also a critical component of enabling these individuals … to be poised to block or overturn election results that they don’t support.”


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


The nearly two dozen election deniers running for secretary of state represent only a small number of the election conspiracists seeking power over elections at multiple levels. Trump allies are also working to place supporters in key local election positions at the county and municipal levels.

“Sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate,” Trump said earlier this month.

“There are local efforts to place individuals on local canvassing boards who also play a role in certifying our elections,” Benson said. “You have a clear line for election subversion in the future if these individuals are elected with his support.”

Trump is also recruiting candidates to challenge governors that opposed his post-election efforts. He recently convinced former Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., to challenge Kemp in this year’s GOP primary, much to the chagrin of many Georgia Republicans who are still reeling from losing both U.S. Senate seats in a January 2021 runoff election after Trump stoked conspiracies about the November election.

Perdue has said he would not have certified the 2020 election and filed a baseless lawsuit in December, nearly a year after his loss to Democrat Jon Ossoff, claiming that election officials in Fulton County, a Democratic stronghold, had “circumvented the majority vote” and echoing other debunked conspiracy theories about the results. He recently proposed the idea of an election police force, an idea also pushed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Trump is also aiming to replace Ducey, the Arizona governor — who is leaving office due to term limits — with former TV news anchor Kari Lake, who has called for “decertification” of the 2020 election, which is not legally possible. Lake was a key supporter of the Maricopa County audit and has repeatedly claimed that the election was “stolen.” Last fall called for Hobbs, the Democratic secretary of state who is herself also running for governor, to be imprisoned for unspecified crimes, and similarly suggested that journalists should be “locked up” for failing to support pro-Trump election lies.

Election deniers are running for governor in about two-thirds of the states with gubernatorial elections this year, including in such swing states as Florida, Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada and Pennsylvania. (In 2020, Biden carried all those states except Florida.)

“All of these people are running in the very same election system that they’re criticizing,” Republican Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer said on a press call. “The irony is, there’s no greater sign of approval that you’re willing to spend a year of your life, some of your money, some of your friends’ money running for the system. Nobody runs against Vladimir Putin. You know what the outcome’s going to be in a truly rigged election. So why would you waste your time and money? The reality is, these people are revealing their true opinion that they don’t think that the system is wholly corrupt, that they have so much confidence in the system that they’re willing to invest their political future and professional future in that very system. … I think that’s truly revealing.”

The effort to install election deniers in key state offices comes as Republican-led legislatures across the country impose new voting restrictions that opponents worry will suppress voter turnout, especially in urban areas and communities of color that tend to vote Democratic. State legislatures last year introduced more than 260 bills that would “interfere with the nonpartisan administration of elections,” according to States United Action, and 32 were signed into law in 17 states. Republicans have already kicked off this year’s legislative sessions with a flurry of new proposed voting restrictions, even in states that already passed sweeping new laws in response to Trump’s conspiracy theories last year.

 “The anti-democracy playbook is simple: change the rules and change the referees, in order to change the results,” Joanna Lydgate, CEO of States United Action, said in a statement. “With extreme candidates running on election lies as a campaign issue up and down the ballot, it’s never been more important to elect leaders from both sides of the aisle who respect the rule of law and the will of the voters.”

Read more on the voting-rights battle and the 2022 midterms:

Joe Manchin has dumb new reason for why he torpedoed Build Back Better

As progressive activists continue to push for the stalled social and climate spending package, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., claimed Sunday that his biggest opposition to his party’s Build Back Better legislation was that it didn’t go through committee.

Manchin’s remark came in an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” in which he endorsed Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and brushed off the idea that he wouldn’t get the backing of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer if he faces a future primary challenge. 

Murkowski, who joined Manchin for the interview, also endorsed the West Virginia Democrat in his Senate reelection bid.

As CNN’s Manu Raju noted, the objection to BBB Manchin cited comes despite the fact that the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which he and Murkowski helped craft, also bypassed committee review in the Senate and went straight to the floor.

RELATED: The center cannot hold: Manchin and Sinema are wrecking America — here’s how to beat them

“The Build Back Better Better as has been presented,” said Manchin, “that bill will no longer exist.”

“My biggest concern and my biggest opposition — it did not go through the process,” he said. “It should have gone through the committee.”

“These are major changes. It’s going to change society as we know it,” said Manchin. “There should be a hearing, there should be a markup, then you’re going to have a better product.”

Manchin has previously called the House-passed BBB “dead.”

Just after his December announcement on Fox News that he wouldn’t support the legislation, a billionaire GOP mega-donor and his wife each gave the maximum possible $5,000 to Manchin’s political action committee, as CNBC first reported.


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


Directing their ire at both Schumer and Manchin over the Senate’s failure to pass BBB, as well as key voting rights protections, activists with the Poor People’s Campaign last week told the senators: “It is time to publicly answer: Which side are you on?”

“It is time to go back, overcome the regressive filibuster, and pass the full $3 trillion Build Back Better Agenda (not reduced down to $1.7 trillion or what is being compromised now),” the group wrote.

In a message specifically directed to Manchin, they added: “We are suffering because the Senate could find trillions in less than two years for corporations, but can’t protect voting rights and invest a few trillion over 10 years in the people.”

Read more on the gentleman from West Virginia:

Spotify removes more than 70 Joe Rogan episodes — but not over COVID misinformation

Spotify has opted to remove 70 podcast episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience from the platform’s archive.

While the deletion comes amid controversy Rogan has faced for his spread of misinformation on COVID-19, Consequence.net reports that the now-deleted episodes date back to 2019 and are unrelated to what initially caused the problem.

The discovery of the latest podcast episodes in question has opened the door to even more criticism of Rogan, as they contain repeated use of the N-word. Earlier this week, soul singer India.Arie took to social media to raise awareness about the episodes as she announced she’d be pulling her music from the platform over Rogan being allowed to use the N-word in multiple podcast episodes.

“He shouldn’t even be uttering the word. Don’t even say it, under any context. Don’t say it. That’s where I stand. I have always stood there,” said Arie as she condemned Rogan’s “language around race.”


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


Although Spotify has taken initiative to remove some of Rogan’s podcast episodes, there are still deep concerns about him still being allowed to spread misinformation about COVID-19 with his continued use of the platform. The podcast episodes that initially sparked controversy also remain on the platform.

In the wake of this latest controversy, Rogan has responded.

On Saturday, Rogan addressed the removal of his podcast episodes over his use of the N-word and issued a statement of apology for his remarks. “It’s a very unusual word, but it’s not my word to use,” Rogan said. “I’m well aware of that now, but for years I used it in that manner. I never used it to be racist, ’cause I’m not racist.’ But whenever you’re in a situation where you have to say ‘I’m not racist,’ you fucked up, and I clearly have fucked up.”

Read more on Joe Rogan:

11 infamous ’90s school bans

One thing kids can always be certain of: If adults hate something, it must be cool. And if schools don’t allow it, it’s even more irresistible. For whatever reason, hysteria at schools seemed to reach a fever pitch in the 1990s, when cultural trends became contraband in classrooms. Check out 11 fads, toys, and other items from the ’90s that were once banned from schools.

1. Bart Simpson T-Shirts

Shortly after premiering in 1989, “The Simpsons” become a pop-culture juggernaut, with kids and adults quoting lines from the show. Today they’d meme; at the time, they donned a T-shirt. But the wisdom of juvenile delinquent Bart Simpson didn’t go over well with school administrators, who often prohibited kids from sporting a Bart tee with incendiary quotes like “Eat my shorts!” or “Don’t have a cow, man!” (The worst offender: “I’m Bart Simpson — who the hell are you?”)

2. Tech Decks

Despite what Bart Simpson may have you believe, skateboarding through school hallways has never been a thing. But in 1999, kids found a substitute of sorts with Tech Decks, a line of finger-sized skateboards that could do some simple tricks on a table. (Another product, Flick Tricks bikes, were also popular.)

Teachers quickly confiscated the miniature symbols of rebellion. “We require the student to bring a note from home that says, ‘I realize they are a disruption and I will keep them at home,'” Larry Meyer, the dean at George Ellery Hale Middle School in Woodland Hills, California, told the Deseret News. “Then we return it. I’m sure in a couple more months, when it gets hot, it will be squirt guns. These things come and go in cycles.”

3. Pogs

For a brief and beautiful time in 1995, Pogs were the hottest children’s gambling pastime on the market. The coin-shaped discs could be knocked over with a slightly heavier “slammer” disc, with the loser relinquishing their Pogs to the victor. This hard lesson in risk was unwelcome at schools, mostly due to the fact that seizing a kid’s Pogs could lead to child-on-child violence and because the “slammer” Pog might be repurposed as a weapon in retaliation.

“I guess you could liken it to going to Las Vegas and losing your money on the table,” Reilly Elementary School principal Kathy Muelder told The Los Angeles Times. “Adults don’t like that. And children don’t like losing their chips.”

The school even tried to convince students to play for points instead of Pogs, but that didn’t work. Pogs were subsequently shown the door.

4. JNCO jeans

For those of you too young (or too old) to notice the classroom clothing trend of the ’90s, JNCOs were ultra-baggy jeans that could almost completely swallow up a person’s thighs, calves, and feet with cuffs 23 inches in diameter. School officials were alarmed at the potential danger of the jeans, which caused some students to trip; others believed they were baggy enough to hide contraband.

5. Gak

In 1992, Mattel teamed with Nickelodeon to capitalize on the network’s love of slime with Gak, a revolting blob of acrylic and silicone that could be stretched, hung from the nose like a booger, or folded into its container to make flatulent noises. Kids, naturally, loved Gak; adults, naturally, detested it.

“The kids were stretching it from one corner of the room to the other, over each other’s heads,” an exasperated Washington-area teacher named Angie Ashley told The Washington Post. “They were bouncing it and throwing it. Every child was going for it.” Her school, which was run by nuns, banned it.

6. Slap bracelets

Teachers tend to hate anything that can distract students, and Slap Wraps — one of the many brand names of the stainless steel bracelets that could be worn with the flick of a wrist — may have been the most obnoxious of them all. During class, kids around the country would thwack them over and over, leading to repeated scolding. Worse, some knock-off brands could be injurious, with the soft fabric exterior giving way to the sharp steel inside. Administrations didn’t wait for the fad to die out; many just banned them from classrooms.

7. Trapper Keepers

These marvels of academic design were everywhere in the 1980s and 1990s, but not all school officials embraced kids being so organized. Trapper Keepers utilized a Velcro enclosure to keep the binders from spilling out, but that zzzzt noise proved distracting to educators who wanted them kept out of school. Teachers also disliked that some Trapper knock-offs were so big that they either interfered with another student’s desk when fully opened or couldn’t fit inside of one.

8. Crazy bones

Originally introduced as Go-Gos in Spain and based on an ancient game from Greece and Rome that used pieces made of sheep knuckles, Crazy Bones was another pocket-sized diversion. The game consisted of tiny sculpted heads with names like Eggy Bone and Reggae Bone that were used with rules similar to marbles or tiddlywinks. While Toy Craze, which produced the toy, argued that Crazy Bones could help kids learn math, adults weren’t so convinced. Kids would trade pieces during class, prompting teachers to relegate them to a desk drawer.

9. Pokémon

Gotta catch ’em all — unless class is in session. Pokémon, the popular trading card game that led to a decades-long craze, was so pervasive on school grounds in 1999 that districts in Pennsylvania, New York, and elsewhere told kids to keep them at home. The main problem was that older children were preying on their younger peers to grab hot cards.

“They seem to be the latest craze and the children are beginning to become obsessed by them,” principal Gerard Finelli told the Associated Press. “Some of our younger kids were getting suckered out of their more valuable cards.”

10. Magic: The Gathering

Next to Pokémon, Magic: The Gathering may have been the other great cardboard obsession of the 1990s, with players of the trading card game vying for supremacy in a fantasy landscape. That setting bothered some teachers, who may have had flashbacks to the controversy surrounding Dungeons and Dragons in the 1980s. Teacher Galinda Tunney of Illinois told The Chicago Tribune in 1998 that the cards were “scary stuff,” “racy,” and that she “didn’t approve of them at all.” One principal said the cards “bordered on the occult.”

In the Bedford and Central School District in Westchester County, New York, angry parents even filed a lawsuit against the district for allowing the game to be played on school grounds after class, among other charges the school was engaged in “New Age” instruction. (In 2001, a federal appeals court panel cleared the district of the claim they were promoting paganism.)

Wizards of the Coast, which produces the game, actually hired someone to travel to schools and deny accusations it was satanic in nature. Most students, however, were forced to toy with malevolent spirits on their own time.

11. Tamagotchi

The palm-sized virtual animal device was such a hit when it debuted in 1997 that kids everywhere became obsessed with caring for their own Tamagotchi. The game required that players feed and tend to their digital pet, lest it expire. The problem for schools was that Tamagotchis had no pause button: Students were compelled to bring them into class to make sure they didn’t die at home. When schools banned them for being a distraction, kids turned to some replacement caregivers: their parents.

 

 

 

 

 

Taylor Swift v Damon Albarn: Why the idea of the lone songwriter is outdated

Damon Albarn, the lead singer of Blur and Gorillaz, has recently been criticied for his “outdated” views of modern songwriting. In an interview with the LA Times, Albarn explained that U.S. singer-songwriter Taylor Swift’s “co-writing” approach was at odds with his “traditionalist” view of writing songs. He went on to say that co-writing “doesn’t count” as songwriting.

Calling out fellow songwriters for not writing their own material is bad form for musicians, particularly so given that the definition of songwriting has become ever more fluid over time, and depends greatly on the genre of music. Pop music is often written collaboratively, and these teams are becoming larger. Indeed, 2017 analysis by Music Week magazine shows it now takes an average of four and a half writers to create a hit single.

The process of creating songs has both integrated itself within and kicked against the industrialisation of the music industry. And it has developed hand in hand with technological changes both in “manufacture” and distribution.

Authorship is at the heart of debates about songwriting, partly because of the notion of the creative auteur, where the songwriter is seen as the major creative force of the band, or artist. Much of the artists’ income generated from music comes from songwriting royalties, and sharing authorship is one way of rewarding musicians who contribute to the success of a hit song.

The singer-songwriter

The concept of the singer-songwriter, in the more traditionalist way we know today — think Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Paul Simon, Dolly Parton — came into being during the 1960s and early 1970s. This is when folk music crossed over into the development of rock music. And with it came the idea of being authentic.

This was a challenge to “Tin Pan Alley” writing, which involved music publishers effectively employing songwriters to create hits for artists to record and perform. An alternative conveyor belt method, where tracks were built up by sending them from studio to studio, depending on where the best and most appropriate session players worked, was also seen as something to move away from.

This method was used by labels like Motown in the U.S., who transferred recorded tracks between Detroit and the West Coast, building on them between the two locations. This could feel disempowering to musicians, who often had no overview of the track they were contributing to, and only heard the final version of the song when it was released.

This idea of authenticity became important to both black and white musicians. Chuck Berry was regarded as “real,” for instance, and so was Bob Dylan, whereas a lot of music that was considered to be pop was not. The key authentic band in the UK at this time was The Beatles. Although they began by doing covers, they soon developed a style that sounded unique while still paying homage to their influences. Songs were often about their personal feelings or everyday situations. This style of songwriting still thrives in indie and DIY communities today.

Complex collaborations

Modern songwriting has moved on further still, with artists engaging with studio technology very early in the process. Here, a song may be built up from a beat, and the beatmaker is considered to be part of the songwriting team, which may also include producers, arrangers, programmers and chorus specialists. Kanye West, for example, credits 21 musicians on his 2015 track, “All Day.” This can seem remarkably different from the perception of the “traditional way” of writing music.

As I discuss in my recent book on sound engineering and production, each component writer in these complex studio tracks is a specialist in their field. They possess not only the technical skills but are also in the know about the latest underground sounds — so in this way, they actually have a lot in common with the Tin Pan Alley teams or the Motown writers.

Indeed, if we were to define songwriting as the construction of songs where before there were only ideas, then anyone involved in creating a song is a songwriter. Whether they are created by a team on a production line or in a bedroom by a solo artist, they are still skilful combinations of music, rhythms and lyrics.

Taylor Swift began her professional life as a country singer, and to gain any credibility within that very rigorous music scene, she really had to know how to write a song, as well as carry one as a performer. Almost certainly, Damon Albarn knows this. His own skills as a writer have really diversified to incorporate different technologies and musical influences. Both are excellent songwriters, regardless of their preferred ways of working.

Helen Reddington, Senior Lecturer Department of Music, Writing & Performance , School of Arts and Creative Industries, University of East London

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

Why negotiating gives you anxiety — and why it shouldn’t

Does the word “influence” make you clench a little? Does the concept of “negotiation” give you anxiety? It shouldn’t. As author and assistant professor at Yale Zoe Chance explains it, we’ve been influencing and negotiating all our lives. Negotiation in everyday life isn’t like a tense Hollywood drama, with clocks running down and people pounding their fists on desks. It’s just… communication. And better communication makes life better for everybody, whether we’re trying to change the world or just change our jobs.

In “Influence Is Your Superpower: The Science of Winning Hearts, Sparking Change, and Making Good Things Happen,” Chance explores her research on persuasion, showing why our “gator brain” is a powerful decision maker, what saying no can teach us about getting to yes, and how charisma can — and should — be learned. Salon talked to Chance recently about the superpower of influence, and why it “isn’t just for do-gooders.” This conversation has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Tell me what we get wrong about negotiation. As you say in this book, we’ve been doing it from the moment we opened up our mouths and let out our first cry.

A negotiation is nothing more complicated than, we have a conversation before it gets to yes or no. That’s really all it is. Somebody makes a request and then there’s a conversation. That conversation is a negotiation. Most of the time, negotiations are perfectly fine and normal and comfortable.


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


Something that surprised me as I was doing research for this book was when I did a survey to ask people, how do you feel about negotiating? I already knew from teaching and reading and other people’s research that most people don’t like negotiating, especially women. Lots and lots of women hate negotiating. I think only 43% of men like or love negotiating and only 17% of women, according to my research, like or love negotiating. I ask them to use words to describe it, and all the words that they use are painful and about power struggles.

But then I ask them to describe the most recent negotiation that they had and how they felt about their most recent negotiation, and then everything shifts. They start telling me a story of, “I asked my boss to work on this new project that I was interested in,” or, “I’m in grad school, and I negotiated with my professor for this.” And how did it go? “It went great. How do you feel about it? I felt great.”

Most of our negotiations go really well and we feel good about them. We just hate the idea of negotiating. I believe that comes from not our direct experiences — some of which are bad — but more the negotiations that we have observed, which tend to be Hollywood negotiations. Hollywood loves drama. You see these negotiators on the big screen trying to bully each other. That’s just not how life usually goes.

A zero sum game is not what most people want. You’re really looking at relationships.

Most people aren’t looking for to be the bully, or certainly not to be bullied. Most people’s goal in a negotiation is just, don’t be a sucker. Once you let them know, I’m not going to try to bully you, you’re not going to be a sucker, let’s figure this out together, the majority of people are thrilled. Some people are scared, some people are bullied, but those are a minority and they’re hard to deal with. They’re difficult people in the negotiation. The biggest thing  is getting to the negotiation at all.

This is where we fail infinitely more often than failing in the actual negotiation — just not even having it occur to us that we should negotiate this in our lives. Let’s just take a hospital patient who doesn’t want to take a bath, and how easy it is if somebody’s coming in and trying to give you a bath. You feel so powerless in a medical environment, especially if you’re naked and wearing a robe. When we’re at a disadvantage, it’s especially easy to just go along with whatever is the status quo.

There’s the example in your book of you starting a class saying, “I’ll give $20 to somebody who can persuade me to do it.” Talk about that, because I love what the secret is.

It’s so funny because it’s so simple. First of all, you ask, “Who wants to persuade me to give the $20? It’s real life, it’s real money.” Then I just stand there and I wait, because everyone’s like, “What’s happening?” Finally, somebody says okay, and they start trying to persuade me and giving me some rational argument. Maybe it’s something silly. Lots of times it’s an offer — they will give it to some charity that I care about or they will buy me flowers or lunch or do something nice for their classmates. Whatever it is that they’re telling me they’re going to do with the money, I just say, “Okay,” and I’m standing there and I’m holding the $20. They keep talking and they keep waiting.

Then I ask the room, “What is it that this person hasn’t done yet?” The people who are watching in the room, they’ll say, “She hasn’t asked. He hasn’t asked.”

RELATED: Elon Musk doesn’t need to get inside your brain. Big Tech is already there

We don’t tend to actually get to the direct ask. Often we think we’re just letting people know what we want. This is especially true for women. We’re super guilty of wanting people to read our minds. I’ll ask the person who didn’t ask, “Did it feel like you were asking?” And they say yes. By saying, “Here’s the thing that I would do with the money,” they think that they’re asking me. But I forced them to actually close the deal. They get to have a do over. They ask and then I give them the money.  We often have to be more direct than we think that we should be. 

We want to save face, and we fear, what if we ask for something and it gets turned down? You start very early in the book by teaching us to say no. It’s hard to get to yes unless you know how to say no. Why is that so significant?

Not saying no is one of the biggest barriers for anyone who is nice to being influential, because we’re people pleasers and we don’t want people to dislike us or think that we’re greedy or arrogant or entitled. Our default reaction, especially with people we like and know, is to say yes. Anything they ask us for, if we can do it, we’ll just look in our calendar. Especially at work, somebody else’s emergency becomes my emergency just because they walked into my office and they had a problem. We practice saying no so that we can experience, first of all, that the other people are not going to hate us. It actually goes okay, because they weren’t assuming that we’re definitely going to say yes. They’re hoping that we’re going to say yes and they’re going to survive if we say no.

The only way they’re not going to like us is if we’re a jerk when we say no. We don’t have to explain anything complicated. We can just say, “No thank you” or “Sorry, not able to.” They’re going to be fine. Then we also start realizing how our default reaction is yes, but we didn’t even know. We get a lot more time back and we start to realize we can take control of our lives and our attention, which is really the most valuable thing that we have.

Further beneath all of this, once we start to get comfortable saying no, is we get more comfortable hearing no. So when we’re making a request, our requests don’t have that edge of neediness that gets repulsive on the other side. I’m going to ask you for a favor, share an idea, and you get to say yes or no because you have your own life and you have your own priorities. When I just ask you, it’s totally fine. On the other side, when you’re asking someone to make it comfortable for them to say no, they’re more inclined to say yes. It’s like an Aikido sort of move.

Also very often, there is a lot of space between yes and no.

That’s the negotiation.

And coming in prepared with that understanding can make a difference in how we conduct our conversations with each other.

Coming in prepared is another place that we miss out so often by just jumping into the discussion, “Do I want a yes, no?” What are all of the possibilities here that could be even better for me, maybe possibilities that could be even better for them, maybe possibilities for other people that aren’t even part of this at the moment? That’s where we get to open up the negotiation to something creative instead of just a binary win, lose, yes, no or let’s scramble over the pie kind of situation.

You talk about the “gator brain.” Talk a little bit about what that metaphor is and how we apply that.

This is my name for what a lot of readers will know as System 1 and System 2. The gator is System 1; this is the unconscious system in our brain that is in control of the vast majority of all of our decisions and all of our behavior. It’s unconscious, intuitive, vast, automatic, emotional. It controls all of our habitual mindless behavior, but we don’t realize it’s happening because it’s unconscious.

System 2, for which I use the analogy of the judge, is slow, conscious, effortful. It’s seemingly objective, it’s seemingly rational, but it’s actually being influenced by the gator. This system, because it’s conscious, is how we think our mind works. Usually when we’re trying to influence someone, especially if we’re a smart, nice person, we just want to give them a good argument and give them the facts. If you think about vaccines or masks, we’ve expected that we just give people accurate health information, and then they’re going to take the obviously correct course of action. But what we haven’t done is gotten past this System 1, gator brain type resistance to the messenger.

You’re definitely not going to get people to wear a mask or be vaccinated by showing them data. We see that now. You look at it from a variety of angles, including the charisma one, and how we cultivate charisma. What does charisma really mean? And what does it mean to cultivate it?

People tend to think that if I don’t have charisma, then I don’t and it sucks for me for the rest of my life. But it really is something that you do much more than something that you are. There are a small number of people who’ve been gifted to be able to do this thing really well since they were tiny. The vast majority of people who seem charismatic to us, weren’t born that way. I share in the book, the story of Prince and getting to go to our first Prince concert.

It was an incredible, incredible experience. I was so excited. We’re waiting there in this tiny little Las Vegas club and he comes out on stage. He looks, I’m sure, directly right into my eyes. He starts to sing, I turn to my friend, and I say, “I think I’m going to faint.” Then beside me, the stranger on the other side just falls to the ground in a dead faint. He’s so freaking charismatic that people lose consciousness in his presence.

The paramedics come in and I say, “Oh my God, has that ever happened before?” They say, “Yeah, it’s not the first time,” which is crazy. I’ve heard the same thing about Bill Clinton, apparently women fainted. The Beatles too. When I got to meet Jimmy Carter, he was already in his eighties, but he was a hero for me because of work that he was doing in The Carter Center. I took a picture with him and he put his arm around my waist, and my vision clouded over. It was the same thing, even though I don’t think of Jimmy Carter as being this particularly super charismatic person. What all we need to do to be charismatic is some very, very simple things.

This is what Prince found out when he was young. He was very shy, very nervous, signed to Warner Brothers. They wouldn’t let him go on tour even when he had a number one hit album on the Billboard chart, “I Wanna Be Your Lover.” They said, “Absolutely no way, because we saw you in concert and you turned and played with your face to the wall and you couldn’t even speak to us above a whisper. There’s no way you’re going to get to do a concert.” But Rick James asks Prince, “Hey, do you want to come and be my opening act on my Super Freak tour?” Prince starts picking up Rick James’ moves and his attitude and his way of interacting with the audience. So it starts out and Prince sucks, and by the end of the tour, Prince is getting the audience excited.

Let’s talk about the dark side of that, because that’s also the secrets of pickup artists. That’s also Bernie Madoff. You can manipulate your charisma in a dark way.

I want to question whether it’s in a dark way, or toward dark ends. It’s not just charisma, but every single thing you could possibly do as an influencer. You could use it for dark ends. Influence is power, and it’s like electricity. You could turn on lights or you could power an electric chair. There are a lot of books out there for the power hungry people. However, even those power hungry people can pick up this book and use tools that I’m sharing and they could make use of them. It’s not that some tools work for like nice people and don’t work for people who are not nice.

What’s happening in the situations you’re talking about with people who are so charismatic that they’re able to manipulate people very well, is they put people into a state of ether. It’s this state where the system two, the judge, all of your faculties of reason are out the of the window and you only have your pure emotional instinctive gator brain responses but you don’t realize it. It’s like a drunk person reaching for the car keys having no idea that they shouldn’t be driving. Any kind of emotional overload can do that for you, and that charismatic connection can do that for people.

The word “influence,” there are so many negative connotations . We’re really talking about so much more than just. You’re talking about real connection and empathy and real common ground and real and real sustainable change.

When I say that influence is your superpower, I really do mean that literally. I absolutely deeply believe this and know it to be true, that understanding and practicing the skills and the science of interpersonal influence is not just the way to make the things happen, that you to happen in the world, but it’s the only way to make those things happen. These are things for yourself, for other people together.

This isn’t just influence for do-gooders and change makers, I absolutely believe that we need to take care of ourselves as well. I don’t believe we need to be always just looking for, “How can I do more good for more people? How can I do something for you?” We need to take care of ourselves, fill up our cup and not get depleted and exhausted. In the health domain, thinking of caregivers in particular. They need to do a lot more negotiating to take care of themselves and set their own boundaries as well as they can.

I think that real negotiation and true influence has to come from a place of hard work. It means deep listening, deep empathy.

Sometimes. But so often, negotiations don’t feel like negotiations at all, because it’s just a collaborative conversation between willing people who want to do something together. When we’re negotiating with our teammates at work, if we have a healthy team and we have psychological safety and we like each other, it doesn’t feel like a negotiation. We’re just figuring out how to get things done. It doesn’t have to be a big deal. So, many of our negotiations, we just don’t notice that they’re negotiations because they’re so simple and easy.

We can have these conversations are very friendly and coming from the same perspective for the most part. You talk about that near the end of the book — so how do we frame that conversation?

The framing is, you’re bringing that person into your in group. We have a very different way that we treat people in our in group from people in our out group. So a big part of the underlying, big picture strategy of influence in this way is that you are bringing the whole entire world into your in group where we’re friends, we’re family, we do favors for each other. We don’t do bean counting and we want each other to succeed. I’m happy if you’re happy, you’re happy if I’m happy, this is great. There is a subtlety in just bringing people and assuming that we’re on the same team. It goes really long way.

More brain science stories: 

Store-bought is (actually) fine: Letting go of the pressures of perfection in the kitchen

I’ve written here before about how I’ve never been a huge fan of New Year’s resolutions. Part of that, I’m sure, is that I would set myself up for failure with outrageous or unwieldy goals, written on a whim on December 31st with no plan in place to actually achieve them. However, this year I set one goal that feels not only achievable, but necessary: Eat more vegan meals. 

Food writers and chefs far more eloquent than I have weighed in on the importance of incorporating more plant-based meals into our diets for both our personal health as well as that of our planet. If you’re interested in learning more, I’d encourage you to read Alicia Kennedy’s great newsletter which, as a  bonus, includes a fair amount of vegan baking recipes. 

Going into 2022, I knew that it was the right decision for me personally and it happened to dovetail with some early planning for an upcoming week of Salon essays and recipes themed around vegan food (more information on that in the next issue of The Bite!). 

And one of the ways I thought that I could really jump into changing how I cook would be by just doing a full week of all-vegan food — “going cold tofurky” as I put it in a text to my sister. I like a challenge and it’s not like I don’t eat vegan meals on a regular basis, though they are admittedly more spread out on the calendar than the dairy-rich casseroles and pasta dishes that have been sustaining me through my first winter back in Chicago. But I mean, I drink my coffee with oat milk these days, so how hard could it be? 

I began by gathering up some of my favorite cookbooks that really focus on plants and legumes — “Veggies and Fish,” “Cool Beans,” “Crossroads: Extraordinary Recipes from the Restaurant That Is Reinventing Vegan Cuisine” and anything by Yotam Ottelenghi

I found myself drifting towards what I would characterize as “project recipes” and by the end of my meal-planning session, I had a pretty impressive list of dishes jotted down: homemade ravioli stuffed with cashew-ricotta and smothered in a mushroom bolognese; black bean arepas with salsa verde; a caramelized root vegetable tartlet; and, just for kicks, a no-bake coconut cream pie. 

Looking at the list, I was both hungry and preemptively exhausted. Instead of feeling enthusiasm for the week ahead, I began calculating how much money I’d need to spend on oddball ingredients I didn’t have (xanthan gum, for the pie, for instance) on hand and started mentally picturing the mountain of dishes with which I’d have to contend day after day. That’s when I realized that I had played myself! In my effort to go all-in, I was doing exactly what I hated about New Year’s resolutions 

In that moment, a phrase made famous by Ina Garten popped to mind: “Store-bought is fine.” 

Garten has used the phrase a fair amount on her longrunning Food Network program “The Barefoot Contessa,” to the point where the internet has turned it into a kind of an ironic meme. Imagine, for instance, an image of Garten dressed in a witch’s hat. The caption below it reads: “If you can’t summon the flames directly from hell, store-bought is fine.” 

Despite the humor, the core of the statement is totally true. I think that people — women, especially — can feel this overwhelming need to make wholesome meals. I wrote about this a bit a few years ago in a piece for which I interviewed Emily Contois, who went on to author the book “Diners, Dudes and Diets: How Gender and Power Collide in Food Media and Culture.” 

“In many ways, cooking continues to be viewed as part of ‘successful’ femininity. The idea that ‘real’ women cook — and cook well — is still a dominant social convention, even as we’ve seen significant social and demographic shifts,” Contois said. “Media, like scripted TV, both shape and reflect these social trends in that they repeat and reinforce these rather antiquated ideas about gender and food.”

I love food incredibly deeply and appreciate all that it’s brought me in my life, including this job, but I definitely feel that pressure often enough. It’s something that I try to erase in the recipes I create (I love, for instance, revamping old-school comfort foods like hamburger helper or loaded baked potatoes) because I know that the pressure for everything to be “gourmet” in order for it to feel domestically worthy deters so many people from trying their hand at cooking. 

The same stuff that I was worried about when embarking on this new way of eating — worries over cost, time and technique — is what holds so many beginners back from getting in the kitchen. 

So, I decided to slim down my list to one “project recipe.” I’m sticking with the ravioli because it sounds straight-up delicious. And for the rest of my meals, I’m going to take it a little easier on myself. The revised menu has some mid-effort stuff — crispy tofu with a coconut curry simmer sauce from the local Asian market and instant rice — and some decidedly “store bought is fine” options, like a Daiya frozen pizza and Annie’s boxed vegan macaroni cheese (I may add some frozen broccoli and peas for, you know, health). 

This essay originally appeared in the most recent issue of “The Bite,” our weekly Salon Food newsletter. Each Saturday, we dive into themed recipes, how-tos and essays from our archives. This week, I pulled some pieces that touch on all these topics — gender roles and cooking, trying new things in the kitchen and, of course, Ina Garten. Haven’t subscribed to The Bite yet? Consider giving it a try! 


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


Essays and Recipes 

Real women are still expected to cook: From sitcoms to the Food Network, the “angel in the kitchen” pressure on women prevails

I haven’t taken the plunge into the “Sex and the City” sequel “And Just Like That…” so I can’t attest to whether or not Carrie ever learned to cook, but she was once one in a long line of TV women who were notoriously bad cooks. From Lucy Ricardo to Lorelai Gilmore, the connection in pop culture between femininity, food and food labor, like cooking, remains strong. The phenomenon continues even now on reality television. 

Vegetables can ragù, too

Writer Maggie Hennessy hooked me in the first paragraph of this beautiful essay-recipe combo when she penned the line: “A few successes cooking down whole cauliflower and broccoli into rich, flavorful pasta sauces got me thinking about the boundless possibilities of slow-cooking earthly delights into concentrated submission.” She goes on to speak with two experts in Italian-inspired plant cooking, Domenica Marchetti and Joe Frillman, about that process of transforming gorgeous onions into a savory ragù. I plan on adapting this recipe, sans parmesan, as part of my plant-based rotation. 

Ina Garten would “happily” eat this salad every day — it’s that good

Speaking of Ina Garten, this salad of hers is also getting looped into the rotation. It starts by simmering pearled farro with fresh apple cider, bay leaves and salt in a saucepan. Once your grains reach the perfect tender texture, transfer them to a large serving bowl. 

“For the vinaigrette, mix some quality olive oil up with lemon juice and salt and pepper,” writes Salon’s Manuela Lopez Restrepo. “Combine with the warm farro and set aside to cool for at least a quarter of an hour. The magic begins to happen as the layers of flavor meld together.” 

Top the bowl with some greens, toasted nuts and (optional of course) cheese. 




 

The enduring legacy of “30 Rock’s” night cheese

“What’s your go-to night cheese?” My fiance’s best friend, Billy, asked us one night when we were hanging out in their small Astoria apartment.

“Night cheese?” I asked.

“Yeah, night cheese. Like what cheese do you eat in the middle of the night?” he asked.

For all you cool cats and kittens who are in the know, you’ve probably guessed that Billy was referencing the scene from 30 Rock, which depicts protagonist Liz Lemon sprawled out on her couch, tucked under a fuzzy blue blanket. Beside her is a medium-sized wooden charcuterie board covered with an assortment of different cheeses. “Working on my night cheese,” Lemon sings to herself, to the tune of “Night Moves” by Bob Seger, before her solo dairy date is interrupted by her boss, Jack Donaghy (played by Alec Baldwin), knocking at the door.

But it’s not just a funny sitcom joke from the mid-2000s. Night cheese is a great idea. When you want something that’s savory before bed, why not cheese? I turned to the experts for their take on the best cheese to snack on as you’re singing to yourself underneath a heated blanket.

For starters, what exactly qualifies as a good night cheese? If you’re snacking post-dinner but pre-bedtime, think of what will go well with your preferred nightcap. “The perfect night cheese is something more spreadable with a hint of funk and strength but not so strong that it will overpower my glass of bubbly,” says Mary Chapman, owner and cheesemonger of The Cheese Shop of Portland. If your preferred nightcap is a responsible glass of water or a cup of sleep-inducing chamomile tea, you have options, but I like to think that a firm cheese with a slightly grassy flavor would nicely complement your wind-down routine.

Night cheese isn’t just about flavor, just like you wouldn’t buy a pair of jeans only because they’re on sale — it has to be both practical and of the moment. Cheddar is easier than a soft, runny cheese, for example. Plus, think about your night context: Are you alone or with a partner? Is it a gossipy girls’ night? Are you entertaining 6 to 8 guests? Are you eating it while sitting on a secondhand leather countertop stool or on your Burrow couch? Are you laying down in bed or standing in front of the fridge with the door sprawled open, one sock on, one sock off? The setting will help you determine what type of night cheese you should snack on.

Gillian Dana, general manager and buyer for Curds & Co, looks for versatility. “I think it has to balance well between the ability to eat without utensils, eat without pairings (if you want), and eat either copious amounts of OR just a little bit of and be equally satisfying,” she says.

Versatility means possibilities, which also means you have many, many options to choose from at the cheese counter. Allow me, or rather Dana, to recommend something like French Brie. “A younger bloomy rind cheese is perfect because you can sneak to the fridge and take a bite without leaving a mess, or you can make a little plate with other snacks and it goes perfectly,” she says.

The lesson here is to not overthink what a night cheese should be. The simpler, the better. “I think night cheese should be easy and snackable. Nothing too intense and adventurous, just a good pairing for a comfy night in and some Netflix,” says Alexandra Horne, manager of events and education at Murray’s Cheese. I couldn’t agree more. My perfect night cheese is also my perfect day cheese, which is to say a snackable cheddar. I love the approachable, slightly nutty flavor of Cabot Clothbound Cheddar. Remember what we talked about earlier: versatility. Night cheese can party on the shuffleboard court just as well as it can help me ease into a horizontal position on my couch after a long week (believe me, I’ve consumed it in both settings). Similarly, I will never turn down Kerrygold’s Reserve Irish Cheddar either. It’s wrapped in dark charcoal packaging, which obviously makes it the Amex Black Card of night cheese.

The best night cheeses, according to cheeseheads

  • “Two favorites are Frolic from Orb Weaver Creamery and Walden from Sequatchie Cove Creamery in Tennessee.” — Mary Chapman, owner and cheesemonger of The Cheese Shop of Portland
  • “My go-to night cheese is either Murray’s Estate Gouda or Pepperjack! The Murray’s Estate Gouda tastes like a buttered baked potato, and has the creamiest most luxurious texture that’s easy to curl up on the couch with. Pair it with some super simple crackers or add pretzel chips. Pepperjack needs no introduction, but it’s the perfect snacking cheese because of the easy texture and a little bit of spice.” — Alexandra Horne, manager of events and education at Murray’s Cheese
  • “My number one “night cheese” is Tickler Cheddar from the UK. This is the cheese you want waiting at home for you after a long day. This is a cheese that’s going to leave the light on and have dinner ready. It’s a sharp, block-style, white cheddar so it tastes and feels familiar, but it’s also an artisanal English cheddar — so you feel refined without having to leave your comfort zone (which is exactly where “night cheese” is best enjoyed). The greatest thing about this cheese? It’s called Tickler because it’s sharp and sweet — just like a tickle fight. I didn’t make that up, the cheeky brits behind the cheese did! What could be more “night cheese” than that?” — Michele Molier, manager of education and in-person events Murray’s Cheese
  • “Last night, I was doing some late-night snacking on Jasper Hill’s Harbison alongside a sesame ficelle. I also have been known to down a hunk of my favorite gouda (Fromagerie L’Amuse Wilde Weide) while on an evening stroll.” — Gillian Dana, general manager and buyer for Curds & Co.
  • “My absolute favorite night cheese is an orange block of medium-sharp cheddar from Whole Foods (it has to be the Whole Foods brand, this is very important). There’s absolutely nothing complex about this cheese, so I can eat it mindlessly morning, noon, and night. If I’m in the mood for an indulgent night cheese, something creamy and goaty or sheepy is my vibe — goat’s or sheep’s milk are important here because they’re easier on the digestive system than cow’s milk (it’s a fact!). Night cheese shouldn’t sit too heavy since bedtime is inevitable. For a creamy goat’s milk night cheese, I like Cypress Grove Midnight Moon, and Ewephoria is my go-to sheep’s milk night cheese.” — Madison Trapkin, Food52’s assistant editor, brand partnerships
  • “Some of my favorite soft-ripened goat cheeses include Humboldt Fog, Crottin de Chavignol, Coupole, and Bucheron. Pair with a sweet fig jam or sour cherry jam for a kick of sweetness and serve on a shortbread cookie. Tastes like a true dessert”.” —Marissa Mullen, founder of That Cheese Plate
  • “For me Night Cheese is about comfort and accessibility. It is a cheese that holds up well to long stints in the fridge and is aromatically complex enough to break through a 2am dream fog. Classic alpines like Gruyere, Appenzeller, and Comté usually fit the bill. As a bonus they are pretty easy to clean up should I fall back asleep mid-snack.” — Josh Windsor, caves manager for Murray’ Cheese
  • “My go-to lazy night cheese is going to be Pecorino Wiscono by Wisconsin Sheep Dairy Cooperative with Triscuits. Yes, Triscuits, trust me on this one. This cheese is essentially a Pecorino-style cheese but made with Wisconsin Sheep’s milk. It’s got that gorgeous tanginess that a Pecorino has, but has those beautiful cheese crystals for the ultimate crunch. It’s flavorful and so easy to eat.” — Cortney LaCorte, founder and owner of Cheese Gal
  • “My dream night cheese is Il Nocciolo. Named after the Italian word for “hazelnut,” this cute little mixed milk cheese from Piedmont is a fluffy marshmallow of flavor. Melty, bouncy, buttery, and tangy, Nocciolo is exactly the perfect size for a solo night cheese session. It even comes in its own little box if you’re too lazy to grab a plate! It’s great with whatever jam or honey you have kicking around the house, some leftover pesto, or even plain.” — Sam Glassberg, cheesemonger and beverage buyer for Milkfarm LA

Want big flavor for the Big Game? Try these 20-minute buffalo chicken empanadas for the win

There’s an empanada shop opening at the end of my block sometime this month, which leads me to excitedly check their progress every time I walk by. I’m a sucker for a handheld meal so that I can eat — and eat well — on the run. 

Empanadas have the distinction of being one of the perfect all-day handheld meals: You can grab an egg and chorizo empanada for breakfast with coffee; a mushroom and pepper empanada for a light lunch; a queso-packed empanada on the way to (or from) the bar. 

RELATED: How hot sauce and butter rewrote the chicken wing’s underdog story

In anticipation of the shop’s opening, I bought myself a freezer pack of empanada dough discs and have been using them to help with a refrigerator and pantry clean-out. I’ve made a Hot Pocket-inspired ham and cheese empanada, a few filled with black beans and “soyrizo” and, in a nod to the upcoming Super Bowl, a buffalo chicken stuffed empanada. 

These empanadas were originally going to be a way to use up some leftover chopped rotisserie chicken and some odds and ends in the crisper drawer, however once I surveyed the ingredients I was planning on using — chicken, carrots, scallions, butter — I was leaning in the direction of buffalo chicken. I doubled-down on the inspiration by adding hot sauce, cream cheese for binding and an optional spoonful of blue cheese. 

These bake up in under 15 minutes and are a perfect game day snack or appetizer. 

***

Recipe: Buffalo chicken empanadas 

Yields
10 servings
Prep Time
5 minutes
Cook Time
15 minutes

Ingredients

10 discs (14 ounces) of premade, frozen empanada dough 

Flour, for dusting 

2 cups of cubed or shredded rotisserie chicken 

4 tablespoons of butter, melted 

½ tablespoon to 1 tablespoon of hot sauce of choice 

2 scallions, green and white portions minced

4 tablespoons of shredded carrots 

4 tablespoons of softened cream cheese 

4 tablespoons of mozzarella cheese

Optional: 2 tablespoons of crumbled blue cheese 

1 egg, beaten with 1 tablespoon of water

Salt and pepper to taste

 

Directions

  1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees.
  2. Remove the empanada discs from the freezer and allow them to sit in the packet for about 15 minutes. Once slightly thawed and malleable, remove them from the packaging and set out on a lightly floured surface.
  3. In a large bowl, combine the chicken, butter, hot sauce, scallions, carrots and cheeses. Add salt and pepper to taste.
  4. Divide the mixture among the 10 empanada discs and grab a small bowl of cold water for your workspace. You’re going to want to avoid overfilling them; place a heaping spoonful in the center of each disc. Dip your finger in the cold water and run it around the edge of the disk and then fold it roughly in half, creating a half-moon shape.
  5. Using the back of a fork or your fingers, crimp the edges until completely sealed.
  6. Brush the empanadas in the egg wash and then place them on a parchment-lined baking sheet. Bake them for 10 to 12 minutes until they are golden brown.
  7. Remove from the oven and let sit for five minutes before serving (perhaps with some ranch dressing?) 

 

More stories: 

 

Dem consultants angry about raising money for Kyrsten Sinema: “feel sick about it tbh”

Staffers at a Democratic consulting firm working for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., campaign are protesting their affiliation with the senator because they view her as the “antithesis” of the firm’s progressive values, according to Politico.

Sinema’s re-election campaign has paid nearly $500,000 to Authentic, a digital consulting and fundraising firm that has also worked on Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’ presidential campaigns and for other prominent Democrats like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey. But the firm’s employees have increasingly complained in internal messages that their work for Sinema, who has blocked progress on top Democratic priorities like voting rights and a $15 minimum wage, could undermine their mission.

“I am doing the devils work,” one Authentic employee complained about the firm’s work for Sinema in internal union messages reviewed by Politico.

“I feel sick about it tbh,” another employee responded.

Frustration among the staff grew last month after Sinema refused to back filibuster changes to pass voting rights legislation.

“What’s the point of us supporting a client who is the antithesis of what we claim to stand for,” one employee wrote, according to the report. “Ugh, not a good look. I feel like we have clients who would consider leaving us if they realize we work for her,” the employee added, complaining that she was effectively “letting Jim Crow 2.0 become a reality” and questioning if she might reconsider if “literally no one in democratic politics wants to work with her anymore.”

RELATED: Bernie Sanders, Ro Khanna applaud Arizona Democrats for censure of Kyrsten Sinema

Other staffers worried that they will become known as the team behind Sinema and it “impacts all our reputations regardless if we worked on the account.”

Another employee wrote that “it doesn’t seem like anyone is comfortable working on her account at this point.”

The company’s management has tried to defuse tensions, telling employees that Sinema’s re-election hopes are important to keeping Democratic control of the Senate, but told staffers that they don’t have to work on the Sinema account if they are uncomfortable.

“The Authentic Union views Sen. Sinema’s recent actions to block voting rights legislation as an affront to their company’s values, which they’re proud of and committed to upholding,” Taylor Billings of the Campaign Workers Guild, which represents the Authentic union, told Politico.

Sinema’s team offered to meet with Authentic CEO Mike Nellis and three employees on Sinema’s account to discuss her vote, but the employees reportedly declined.

Despite paying Authentic more than $476,000 since 2020 and $44,500 last quarter, Sinema’s small-donor base has dried up amid her blockade of the party’s legislative agenda. Just over 2% of the $1.6 million Sinema raised last quarter came from donors who gave $200 or less. By comparison, Change for Arizona 2024, a PAC that plans to back a progressive primary challenger to Sinema, raised $180,000 in small-dollar contributions in that same span.


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


Big donors are abandoning her too. EMILY’s List, the reproductive rights PAC that was Sinema’s biggest backer, said it would not continue to support her if she blocked the voting rights legislation, as did another pro-choice group, NARAL. A group of big-dollar donors who spent millions backing Sinema and other Democrats in 2018 sent a letter to the senator demanding that she refund their contributions and threatening to fund a primary challenger. Other prominent progressive groups have also said they would not support her re-election and may back a primary challenger.

While major liberal groups are abandoning Sinema, she has continued to rake in big donations from corporate interests opposed to the Democrats’ agenda, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the main lobbying arm of Big Pharma; the American Petroleum Institute; and ExxonMobil. Sinema recently courted Republican fossil fuel donors at a Texas fundraiser, according to the Guardian, where she reassured them that she would oppose filibuster changes ahead of her vote. She also reported bringing in big donations from major GOP donors like Nelson Peltz and Ken Langone.

A recent OH Predictive Insights poll found that Sinema has higher approval ratings among Republicans than Democrats by a 44-42 margin.

Democrats both in Arizona and in Washington are increasingly sounding off about Sinema’s frequent opposition. The Arizona Democratic Party’s executive board last month voted to censure Sinema over her opposition to Senate rule changes to advance voting rights legislation, a move praised by Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., told CNN that multiple senators have urged him to run against Sinema in 2024. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., urged Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to make Sinema’s life in the Senate “as difficult as possible.”

Schumer refused to say in an interview with CNN this week whether he would support Sinema against a potential primary challenge. But even longtime Democratic centrists who frequently complain about the party’s leftward shift say Sinema has increasingly worn out her welcome in the party.

“She’s not going to win a primary against Rep. Ruben Gallego, I’ll tell you that damn much,” longtime Democratic strategist James Carville told Vox last week. “And I will personally volunteer to help him fundraise because I think we can keep that seat if he runs.”

Read more on the senior senator from the Grand Canyon State:

Is “The Tinder Swindler” one of those true crime tales that might strengthen relationships?

How confident was con man Simon Leviev that Felicity Morris’ documentary “The Tinder Swindler” would not put a dent in his lifestyle? Plenty, if his social media profile tells us anything. A day after it debuted on Netflix, Leviev’s Instagram profile was still active. You could scroll through it and see the same types of photos that lured his victims Cecilie Fjellhøy, Pernilla Sjöholm and Ayleen Charlotte into believing he was who he claimed to be: the son of an Israeli-Russian diamond magnate.

Two days later, it was scrubbed. Tinder, his main fishing hole, released a public statement that he had been banned from the platform. Other dating sites and apps are available, but the larger point is that the world knows his face and his game, which is the justice these three women were seeking.

Actual justice in this case has proven elusive. Leviev is a wanted man in several countries, but was eventually caught and  extradited to Israel in 2019. He received a 15-month sentence for fraud, but only served five. Right now he’s a free man and famous for reasons he’d rather not be.

RELATED: From extreme catfishing to wine fraud, here are 6 documentaries about con artists

Morris, who previously made “Don’t F**k With Cats,” constructs a taut narrative architecture that lays out Cecilie’s love story with the man she believed to be named Simon (born Shimon Hayut) parallel to the friendship Pernilla builds with him. The first woman fell for him entirely; the second didn’t feel a connection but developed what she thought was a true friendship nevertheless.

As we watch Cecilie relive the trauma she experienced while Leviev drained her of more than $200,000, we also watch footage of Pernilla partying at his side, ignorant that all the extravagance and excess she was enjoying was being funded by another woman’s pain.

Cecilie spells out the con: First he sends a photo of his bodyguard bleeding, says he’s been attacked, tells her his credit cards have been frozen as a precaution. Then asks her for tens of thousands of dollars, just to complete business, he’ll get it right back to her he promises. But the business trips drag on, as does the danger. He needs more money, and more, and more. By the time Cecilie realizes what’s happening, Leviev has already sunken his hooks into Pernilla while cozying up to his next victim.

Forget scorn – want to see a woman’s fury? Make her fall in love, and then scam her. The three women featured in “The Tinder Swindler” are still tens of thousands in debt, but they have achieved their goal of putting the man who ruined them on blast worldwide.

This is Morris’ main bragging right. “The Tinder Swindler” is not an extraordinary cinematic work. The main differentiator between it and a sturdy true crime episode on Oxygen or Investigation Discovery is that its featured victims are Scandinavian and Dutch.  Beyond that, its usage of dramatic recreations and audio of Simon’s voicemails messages tell his side of the tale.

Leviev is a singularly baroque scam artist and quite a find, as the journalists who begin to track him discover. His whole entire existence depends on the grift; one of his exes proves that by ripping away the illusion of wealth he built around him and revealing how small and worthless he truly is.

The filmmaker says she reached out to him, and his only response was a threat to sue that, by that point in the story, we understand is empty and baseless.

Besides that, the most compelling part of the movie isn’t the crook or the nature of the scam, whose mechanics work like a well-oiled Ponzi scheme. It is the visible evidence that despite it all, these women – Cecilie specifically – haven’t given up on finding love.

Frequently I’ve joked with my husband about the need for a study on the role documentaries like this, or “Dateline” in strengthening marriages. Often while watching one of these shows he’ll point to the screen, look at me and say, “No matter what, we’re at least better off than that.”

We then both acknowledge that this is a low bar, in that neither of us is dead or bankrupt or juggling aliases. Understand, this isn’t said out of a sense of superiority or smugness but, rather, from a nagging sense that these shows do for monogamy what Scared Straight programs do for wayward children, and make the whole notion of being single and not searching look a lot less tiring.

It’s all a bit reminiscent of a terrific scene in in “When Harry Met Sally” featuring Carrie Fisher’s Marie and Bruno Kirby as her fiance Jess. After waking up to listen to their respective best friends’ romantic agonies, an exhausted Marie turns to Jess and whispers, “God . . . tell me I’ll never have to be out there again.” 

His reply is among one of the most romantic lines in cinematic history: “You will never have to be out there again.”

This is what we wish for Cecilie, who is still bright and smiley when she recalls the heady sensation of falling for Leviev. Her standard for what a dream relationship should look like was set by her favorite movie, Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” And Leviev plays into that vision, contacting her soon after they match and inviting her for a coffee at a five-star hotel, only to persuade her that night to join him for an international trip on his private jet.

Her sunny smile and open gaze doesn’t wane until the steady weight of his grift stacks up against her retelling of his con.

That doesn’t mean she hasn’t learned her lesson, but it does mean she’s willing to be vulnerable again. Good for her. Also, that search seems like a lot of work.


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


“The Tinder Swindler,” like “Love Fraud” before it and other love-’em-and-leave-’em flimflams, have a sense of proximity about them that other scam dramas lack. We love a good hustler tale; if we didn’t, people wouldn’t be excited as the prospect of seeing dramatized versions of Elizabeth Holmes’ downfall, or anticipate the arrival of “Inventing Anna,” Shonda Rhimes’ sashay through the story of the fraudster who went by the name Anna Delvey.

But this one hits the soft places in our armor, since so many people use dating apps like this or know people who do. When Cecilie and Pernilla first go public they’re treated cruelly by trolls who paint them as gold diggers or rubes who got what they deserved, but the public soon sobers up – and so do we – once Leviev’s other victims come forward, including couples and families who trusted him, and from whom he stole.

True love is possible, and findable, but based on what this documentary shows us maybe it’s better to, you know, stick with what we’ve got. Whether that’s a secure single life or a trusty friends-with-benefits arrangement, or your basic sharing dessert on the couch situation, better to enjoy the romantic freefalls of other people pushed out of planes by dating apps at a distance.

Trust that love is out there, but err on the side of disbelieving the swipe.

“The Tinder Swindler” is currently streaming on Netflix.

More stories like this:

2021 was a landmark year for energy efficiency legislation in US states

Last year was rocky – to say the least. But as the coronavirus pandemic maintained its grasp on American society, the U.S. managed to continue charging on its path of energy efficiency, according to a new report by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, or ACEEE. 

The nonprofit research organization’s annual Energy Efficiency Scorecard Progress Report found that in 2021 at least a dozen states passed new clean energy legislation or adopted new energy-saving standards. Notably, the new legislation included incentives for everything from fuel switching and electrification to, encouraging clean heating systems and even strengthening building codes. 

The weather disasters of 2021 underscored the need for electrification in the face of large-scale power outages and subsequent high death tolls, Weston Berg, lead author of the report, said in a press release. 

“As states emerged from the early months of the pandemic, they turned to electrification and energy-saving standards to help address the growing urgency of the climate crisis,” said Berg.

Seven states – Massachusetts, Illinois, Colorado, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington – passed new energy laws that named electrification as a “growing priority.” At least five states, including the District of Columbia, passed laws requiring energy and water use reductions for appliances. California and New York set goals for all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks to be zero-emission by 2035. 

Many states have also put laws on the books to ensure “equitable benefits” from their electrification push, the ACEEE found. These measures, primarily focused on transit, include the creation of transit-oriented affordable housing projects and the electrification of public transit fleets. In New York, the state’s ramped up efficiency and building electrification programs have a goal of 40 percent of the benefits reaching “disadvantaged communities.” 

States expect their new programs to receive a major funding boost in the form of President Joe Biden’s $1.2 billion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The legislation is expected to shell out more than $12 billion for low-income household weatherization projects, improving building energy codes, installing electric vehicle charging stations, and a new revolving loan fund for commercial and federal building upgrades. 

However, the ACEEE argues more funding could help further ramp up the process and pull the country out of its early pandemic-induced energy efficiency slump. From 2019 to 2020, household energy efficiency actually dipped 1.1 percent nationwide, the scorecard states.Particularly, the report outlines a need for more money to be allocated to rebuild the energy industry’s workforce. Compared to 2019, there are 250,000 fewer industry workers, according to the scorecard. 

The scorecard also outlines a need for uniform adoption of codes being pushed by states like CaliforniaNew Jersey, and Oregon. If more states enacted new clean energy laws, the country would be on a better track to meet its climate goals and support household-level recovery from COVID-19 by lowering “home and business energy bills, generating employment, and lessening the need for imported fuels.” 

While putting these codes and laws on paper are wins, the report argues, implementation is still a huge mountain to climb. States are “adopting promising new laws that can reduce harmful pollution and create thousands of clean energy jobs, but they need to vigilantly implement them,” Berg said. Fighting for electrification, the ACEEE asserts, will help reverse the country’s racial and economic inequalities exacerbated by the pandemic. 

Recognizing the potential for energy savings will not only reduce emissions, the report states, but will also help the country “bring about a just and equitable energy transition inclusive of all communities.”

Enjoying that expensive crab? It might be fake

Like many people from the Chesapeake Bay Area, Dr. Marla Valentine loves eating crabs that have pulled from the cold water by local crabbers. Maryland crab is so famous that people travel from all over the world just to eat it. Oprah Winfrey has it shipped directly to her. By any culinary metric worth heeding, there are no acceptable substitutes to authentic crab.

This, as she told Salon, helps make the issue of fish fraud “very personal” for her.

“I buy blue crabs straight off the boat from my local fishermen,” Valentine told Salon. “It’s a part of the community and the history here. Yet blue swimming crabs from the Philippines are entering the US, and they’re being labeled as the more expensive domestic varieties that we get here in the bay and along the Atlantic Coast.”

The crustacean chicanery is more than a bait-and-switch on unsuspecting customers: “This can be really devastating to our local fishermen, who are relying on people to buy their high valued product but who may be unknowingly buying this cheaper import that is not actually blue crab,” Valentine says.

RELATED: Fish fraud is rampant — and Subway’s tuna scandal is just the tip of the iceberg

This is just one of the many findings included in a new report that Valentine co-authored for Oceana, a nonprofit ocean conservation group that has consistently covered fish fraud for over a decade. In their latest study, they describe how the presence of Filipino blue swimming crab masquerading as American varieties drives overfishing and fools unsuspecting crab aficionados. The imported crab tends to cost less than domestic catches, which is why back in 2015 Oceana found that almost half of the Maryland area crabs labeled as coming from local waters actually derived from the Indo-Pacific region.

“Seafood fraud ultimately deceives consumers who fall victim to a bait and switch, disguises conservation and health risks, and hurts honest fishermen and seafood businesses,” Beth Lowell, acting vice president for the United States at Oceana, told Salon in a statement. “President Biden can implement seafood traceability—from boat to plate—to ensure that all seafood sold in the U.S. is safe, legally caught and honestly labeled.”


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


The report also details examples of seafood industries flouting the law and furthering damaging the ocean’s ecosystems. The problem is what is known as illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which increases profits for those in the seafood industry yet tends to be both unsustainable and extremely harmful to the environment. In their report, Oceana discusses how the Caribbean spiny lobster industry in Belize is threatened by illegal fishing; in Mexico’s Yucatán peninsula the Maya octopus — which is highly valued by locals in dishes like ceviche — is being fished to the point of overexploitation; and a majority of Peruvian squid fishers lack valid permits, with their catches being offloaded to third-party vessels which then misleadingly label it as having been legally caught. This makes it very difficult to monitor whether long-distance vessels (predominantly from China) are overfishing.

“Depleted squid populations could potentially lead to a decline in other fisheries and disruptions in the marine ecosystem, leading to losses of fishing jobs in local communities,” the report pointed out.

To address these and other related issues, Oceana recommends improving methods for documenting every catch and making them traceable from boat to plate, as well as creating mechanisms to protect labor and human rights within the industry.

The issue of fish fraud made headlines last year when a controversial report claimed that Subway, the popular fast food chain, was not using authentic tuna in their tuna sandwiches. Yet fish fraud predates the Subway incident. On an international level, studies released since 2014 have found that Asian catfish, hake and escolar were most likely to be substituted with other types of fish; it also found that, on more than half of the occasions when a different fish was used (58 percent), it came from a species that might get certain consumers sick. 

“On Subway specifically, I would say that they are probably better than average, as far as companies of their size,” John Hocevar, marine biologist and director of Greenpeace’s oceans campaign, told Salon at the time. “There are so many problems with the tuna industry that it is very difficult for companies sourcing as much tuna as Subway to be confident that they know their fish wasn’t caught with forced labor, or in ways that are very harmful to our oceans.” He explained that the underlying issue is that the industry is insufficiently regulated, making illegal fishing very common. Notably, the fraud is not always due to intentional deceit.

“Your average person would assume that a boat goes out, catches fish, and then comes back into port, sells those fish, and then goes back out, catches more fish,” Hocevar explained when discussing the tuna scandal. “Instead, tuna vessels often handover their catch to another boat at sea and just keep fishing.”

As offloading to third-parties and other practices make it easy for accidental mix-ups to occur, reform advocates have argued that this process needs stronger oversight. They also call for stronger enforcement against illegal vessels, which heavily fuel the prevalence of mislabeled fish.

More from Salon on seafood:

Italians avoided pizza for centuries — tourism changed everything

Sometime around the 12th century BCE, Troy fell to the Greeks. As the Roman poet Virgil recounts the story, the mythical hero Aeneas then fled his ravaged city aboard an uncooperative ship with a motley crew. The son of a goddess and a prince, he carried the ancestral burden of begetting a lineage of rulers in a foreign land. After many days at sea, Aeneas and his band disembarked on the shores of Latium (where many generations later, Rome would be founded). Exhausted and famished, they hastily prepared a meal. So hungry, the crew even ate their plates.

Admittedly, these plates would have been like trenchers, sturdy supports made of baked dough. When dry, they still posed a substantial dental challenge — akin to those ornaments made out of salt dough. In theory, they were edible, but eating your dishware was still considered uncouth. Aeneas looked on incredulously, as his men voraciously gnawed on their plates, like dogs with a rawhide bone, when suddenly he remembered the prophecy his father had foretold: When you find yourself in a foreign land and are so driven by hunger that you eat your own plates, that is when you can hope for home. They had found the “Promised Land.”

Tethering this myth to the origin of pizza is audacious to say the least, but some enterprising entrepreneurs have dared to do just that. Why go to such lengths? Pizza does have a long history in Italy, but its dominance on the international gastronomic stage hinges not on a glorious past rooted in antiquity so much as an anthropological phenomenon that has come to be known as the “pizza effect.”

This term was coined by anthropologist Agehananda Bharati in 1970. It captures the pattern that unfolds when an insignificant cultural item or practice is exported to another country, whereupon it achieves a level of success unheard of in the native country. The native country then looks on in befuddled amazement at the value placed on something they took for granted. The object in question is then reassessed and draped in romanticism. From the new perspective, a potentially lucrative tradition is born. The story of Italian pizza is the quintessential example of this phenomenon, but it reaches beyond food into all aspects of culture, from yoga to salsa music.


The word “pizza” appears in medieval Latin, but by the 16th century, throughout the Italian peninsula, the term referred mostly to rich, leavened breads. Often laden with butter and sweetened with dried fruit or compotes, they were not the flattened disks of dough topped with tomato sauce and cheese we’ve come to know (though most culinary traditions in Italy did have some form of focaccia or flatbreads). However, it wasn’t until the late 18th century that we see the first reference to pizza as an established object of trade, in a plea registered with the police by a pizzaiolo, or pizza maker, facing debtor’s prison.

Neapolitan pizza as we know it did not have an inventor, per se. Rather, it was a socioeconomic phenomenon, evolved out of conditions that made the dish not only possible, but necessary. It was originally a street food — though in the 19th century, that term lacked every shred of the romanticism it holds today. For many of the poverty-stricken hordes of Naples, street fare was the only way of procuring a meal. Most dwellings lacked a kitchen, not to mention cutlery, so the ready-to-eat, flat, floppy, foldable disk with some tasty bits on top was ideal. Pizza quickly became associated with those who ate it, branding it from the start with connotations of poverty, filth, and disease.

“Made from a dense dough that burns but does not cook, and is covered with almost-raw tomatoes, garlic, oregano, and pepper: these pizzas, in many pieces that cost one soldo are entrusted to a boy who walks around to sell them on the street, on a movable table,” writes Matilde Serao in 1884’s The Bowels of Naples. “There he stays the whole day, with these slices of pizza which freeze in the cold, turn yellow in the sun, and are eaten by flies.”

According to legend, in 1889, Queen Margherita (consort to Umberto I, the second king of Italy) is said to have granted the request for the royal imprimatur on Neapolitan cheese pizza with basil, and in so doing, she allowed it to bear her name. Thereafter, the tricolored pizza (red, white, and green, the colors of the Italian flag) would be known as “la margherita” — a Cinderella story, ennobling a heretofore ignoble food. State archives, however, hold no record of this. The letter of approval, supposedly issued from the queen’s secretary, Camillo Galli, has recently been declared a forgery in an exacting work of culinary history sleuthing. In fact, it is unlikely that the queen ever saw pizza, let alone tasted it. But like the Aeneas myth, some stories are so good they make reality obsolete. The margherita would go on to become Italy’s go-to pizza. But not quite yet.

The 54 pizzerias registered in Naples in the early 19th century grew to 121 by 1900. By 1905, the word “pizza,” as we now understand it, finally landed in an Italian dictionary as, “the common name of a very popular Neapolitan food. It is, in substance, a sort of leavened sfoglia. Spread with tomato, fresh cheese, anchovies, etc., … and baked in the oven where it puffs up and cooks then and there.” Popular, perhaps, but only in Naples. Even with the fabricated blessing of a queen — considered the personification of grace and health — as well as local enthusiasm, every attempt to open a pizzeria in other parts of Italy ended in failure. Neapolitan pizza timidly started appearing in local cookbooks as a novelty, but it still couldn’t live down its shadowy past.


By the turn of the century, pizza had been exported to the U.S. along with Italian emigrants. It slowly became a thing as word got around in areas with high concentrations of immigrants from southern Italy, most notably New York. Still, even as late as 1931, there were detractors. In New Jersey’s Bergen Evening Record, journalist Simon Stylites writes, “A pizza is manufactured, as far as I can ascertain, by garnishing a slab of reinforced asphalt paving with mucilage, whale-blubber and the skeletons of small fishes, baking same to the consistency of a rubber heel, and serving piping-hot with a dressing of molten lava.”

However, after World War II, Italy witnessed a mass migration from south to north, with many leaving poor rural areas and the cramped conditions of urban settings for the security and promise of industrialized cities. As the flow of tourism started to pick up in Italy, foreigners expected to find pizza everywhere, not realizing that it was a culinary tradition confined to Naples. Suddenly, there was money to be made from the pizza trade. A lot of money, in fact.

The postwar decades in Italy were a time of unprecedented growth, referred to as the “economic miracle.” More and more Italians were able to participate in the leisure economy, and dictates of the dolce vita were often drawn from perceptions of American lifestyles. As tourists from around the world continued to profess their love for pizza, many Italians began to associate the dish with good times and money well spent with family and friends, from going to the beach to date night. Young or old, suddenly, everyone loved pizza.

Indeed, as I interviewed Italian women in their 90s for my book on Italian foodways, none of them had eaten pizza before 1960. For them, it was like a foreign food. Though they clearly still had misconceptions rooted in the classist history of the dish (even expressing concerns about whether those who’d prepared the pizza had washed their hands), once they tried it, they liked it.

Such a journey the once-humble dish has made. The Associazione Verace Pizza Napoletana, founded in 1984, operates with a mission to protect “true” Neapolitan pizza. Authorities from the AVPN travel the world certifying pizzerias with their stamp of approval — if, and only if, the pizza lives up to the gold standard of quality of this great historical tradition. Their rigorous criteria dictate that the pizza must be formed by hand, without the aid of a rolling pin, then quickly baked in a 905°F wood-burning oven for no longer than 90 seconds. In 2010, Neapolitan pizza achieved one of the highest honors: the E.U. and U.K.’s coveted TSG (Traditional Specialty Guaranteed) certification, which protects the right to use the name of the product only if it adheres to the registered production method. In 2017, the art of making the pizza was inscribed on UNESCO’s list of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Neapolitan pizza does not need to be buoyed up by legends of Aeneas and his dish-eating crew: It stands on its own merits with a glorious and colorful past.

Trump illegally ripped up “hundreds” of White House documents, and many went in “burn bags”: report

Former president Donald Trump tore up “hundreds” of White House records during his administration — in clear violation of federal law — despite “multiple admonishments,” the Washington Post reported Saturday.

“The documents included briefings and schedules, articles and letters, memos both sensitive and mundane,” the Post reported. “He ripped paper into quarters with two big, clean strokes — or occasionally more vigorously, into smaller scraps. He left the detritus on his desk in the Oval Office, in the trash can of his private West Wing study and on the floor aboard Air Force One, among many other places. And he did it all in violation of the Presidential Records Act, despite being urged by at least two chiefs of staff and the White House counsel to follow the law on preserving documents.”

Trump’s practice of destroying official documents — which has long since been reported — made headlines again this week after the House Select Committee investigating the Capitol insurrection received records from the National Archives that appeared to have been taped back together.

“Interviews with 11 former Trump staffers, associates and others familiar with the habit reveal that Trump’s shredding of paper was far more widespread and indiscriminate than previously known and — despite multiple admonishments — extended throughout his presidency, resulting in special practices to deal with the torn fragments,” the Post reported Saturday.

Trump’s team reportedly implemented protocols to deal with the torn records, which involved “jigsawing the documents back together with clear tape.”

“It is unclear how many records were lost or permanently destroyed through Trump’s ripping routine, as well as what consequences, if any, he might face. Hundreds of documents, if not more, were likely torn up, those familiar with the practice say,” according to the newspaper.

“One senior Trump White House official said he and other White House staffers frequently put documents into ‘burn bags’ to be destroyed, rather than preserving them, and would decide themselves what should be saved and what should be burned,” the Post reported. “When the Jan. 6 committee asked for certain documents related to Trump’s efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence, for example, some of them no longer existed in this person’s files because they had already been shredded, said someone familiar with the request.”

Read the full story.


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


How the Black-Jewish alliance changed America — and today’s struggle for voting rights

In our research and teaching on African-American and Jewish-American relations, we often find ourselves puncturing misconceptions about their legendary civil rights-era partnership. Our efforts to “keep it real” aren’t meant to diminish the accomplishments of their “Grand Alliance.” Rather, our unsentimental assessment of relations between gentile Blacks and white Jews provides some context to think through today’s challenges, like the battle to re-secure voting rights. 

Let’s start with the accomplishments. At mid-century, Southern states sought to expand Jim Crow, while Northern cities engaged in their own forms of discrimination. Black and Jewish strategists responded by orchestrating a nationwide plan of action. The ensuing  “Fight for Freedom Campaign” of 1953 essentially framed the NAACP’s legal strategy for the civil rights movement. The passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was another triumph, eliminating (albeit temporarily) barriers to voting for African Americans. 

In that same year, the Alliance generated its most iconic image. There isn’t a liberal Jewish institution in the United States that hasn’t posterized America’s greatest visual testament to interfaith, multicultural activism: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel with their arms linked in Selma, Alabama, leis draped around their necks. (That image appears above.)

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

Yet the accomplishments and the optics obscured more complex realities. One popular belief about the Alliance is that from its inception in 1909 (i.e., when the NAACP was founded) it was based on a sense of “fellow feeling” rooted in mutual recognition of common oppression. Certainly there were history buffs in both groups who recognized that their counterparts had endured (and continued to endure) the very worst that Western white Christendom had to offer. Yet in accordance with James Baldwin’s dictum that suffering ennobles nobody, we must recognize that pragmatism, more than empathy, powered their relationship. 

First and second-generation Jewish Americans, escaping Eastern Europe’s iron furnace, looked at the Black experience as a frightening proof of concept. The concept being that this nation too could display unimaginable cruelty towards a minority. To Jews, Black misery was like a crumple zone. It absorbed the impact of white Christian violence while warning of imminent danger. When Jewish leaders advocated for Black civil rights, considerations of self-interest were not inconsequential. 

Likewise, for underfunded but intellectually and tactically spry African American organizations. Jews provided them with financial resources. They also served as a corridor to an arsenal of sophisticated legal and political weaponry — all of it useful in the struggle to combat disenfranchisement, segregation and anti-blackness in general.  


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


This crumple-zone/corridor partnership was maintained by elites — a “talented tenth” of clergy, lawyers, journalists, scholars, artists and the like, almost all of whom were men. This left roughly nine deciles worth of Blacks and Jews, male and female, to forge their own relationships. These encounters among the rank and file were tense and filled with allegations of racism and antisemitism (as well as actual racism and antisemitism). 

We blame it on structural asymmetries. When the Great Migration propelled Blacks northward in the early 20th century, they met Ashkenazi Jews in New York, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago and elsewhere. In these urban enclaves, the Jewish-Black relation was often one of landlord to tenant, grocer to customer, housewife to maid, etc. Such patterned inequality is never likely to foster solidarity. 

That being said, Jews were unusual among white ethnic groups. Whereas the latter violently resisted Black migration to their communities, Jews did not. Even Jews who eventually “white-flighted” from their integrated neighborhoods often remained behind as business owners, teachers, etc. What is striking about Black-Jewish encounters is that there were so many of them on so many different social levels. The result was an infinity of interactions, some of which conduced to empathy.

Behind the scenes, the elites tried to quell those tensions on the ground, even as they bickered among themselves. There were fissures within the groups as well, most notably between a younger generation of radicals and the old guard civil rights leadership.This burst into view after the 1967 Six-Day War. At that momentous historical juncture many in the Black Power movement began to equate Israel with white-settler colonialism. This likely tore the Grand Alliance asunder. 

The next half-century, or what we call the “afterglow” era, witnessed a dismal litany of Black/Jewish scrums. These ranged from the 1968 Ocean-Hill Brownsville teachers’ strike to disputes about affirmative action to the “Andrew Young Affair” of 1979 to the antisemitic provocations of a few Black leaders to dismay about Israel’s diplomatic relations with South Africa’s apartheid regime to the Crown Heights riots of 1991.   

And yet: The Black-Jewish Alliance did a world of good. In terms of impact, it is the liberal equivalent to the union of conservative white evangelicals and Roman Catholics; America is a different country because of their activism. 

Today, as the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act hangs in the balance, the Alliance has a few lessons to impart. The first is that diverse coalitions work. Today’s activists must convince many different groups that failure to pass the act will do more than just disenfranchise Black voters. 

The second is that diverse coalitions work when they season pragmatism with empathy. The late Rep. John Lewis, a bridge to the Alliance, fully understood that recipe when he wrote: “The gay community, women — my connection with them and their issues sprang from that same affinity I felt with Jewish people, the understanding of what it means to be treated unequally.”  

The biggest takeaway is that diverse coalitions work when they are well led. The Alliance had talented, focused, astute and no-nonsense stewards. Today, the ultimate “no-drama” senators, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff of Georgia, work alongside Black and Jewish women to protect voting rights (a corrective to the Alliance’s gender imbalances).  

This Black-Jewish duo notwithstanding, no real effort exists to “bring the band back together.” Perhaps that’s fine. Blacks and Jews performed their heroisms. Those have been chronicled by scholars such as ourselves. Let other combinations of Americans study, innovate upon and refine their messy formula of wedding group-interest to social justice.

Read more on the struggle to save and expand voting rights:

“What are they doing in our town?” Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s new Florida neighbors not happy

Some of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s new neighbors aren’t exactly pleased to have them in the town of Surfside, Florida.

“All but banished from Washington after January 6, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner have been hiding out in a little no-frills town in South Florida,” the Washingtonian reported this week. “Its Trumpy mayor couldn’t be more thrilled, but the former First Kids have had a frostier welcome from another set of locals.”

One Surfside resident, who asked to remain anonymous because she continues to live near the couple, told the magazine she first encountered Ivanka Trump last June. The former White House adviser was walking her little white dog Winter (believed to be a Pomeranian mix) near the couple’s seaside condo building. The resident said she watched as Trump “led the dog off the pathway toward the beach, right past a sign that clearly said dogs weren’t allowed.”

“The resident, a beach activist who finds high purpose in protecting Surfside’s loggerhead sea turtles during nesting season, mobilized,” the Washingtonian reported, adding that Ivanka Trump must have walked past the large beach rules notice saying “no dogs allowed” scores of times before then.

“I was speed-walking at her and yelling at her,” the resident recalled. “I just opened my mouth and said, ‘You can’t go out there with the dog!'”

“Oh-uh, I didn’t realize,” Trump responded.

“You’re standing right next to the sign,” the neighbor told Ivanka. “Look, it says ‘No dogs.'”

The resident encountered Ivanka and Jared again a few months later, on the beach with their five-year-old son, Theodore. “The neighbor reminded Jared, in swim trunks, and Ivanka, in a ‘cute ruffled outfit,’ to watch out for jellyfish,” according to the Washingtonian. After Theodore hurried into the ocean, the neighbor immediately became concerned.

“I’m thinking, Why is this boy in the water alone on a boogie board with this moderate rip current? I’m a mother, and I would never let my child alone in the water like that,” the resident said.

Moments later, Kushner had to run into the water after Theodore, who had started drifting away from the shore. According to the Washingtonian, the neighbor’s encounters with Ivanka only reinforced a long-held impression.

“She seems to be about — ‘I live in this little cocoon where the rules don’t apply to me’ — in her own little world,” the resident said.

The resident referred to Kushner as “slenderman” and took this dig at Ivanka’s appearance: “She’s well put together. She’s had a lot of work done, and it’s good plastic. It’s Miami, and there’s a lot of bad plastic here. She has good plastic.”

Surfside, a town of only 6,000, has largely managed to stay off people’s radar, which is fine with many residents, the Washingtonian reported.

“Eliana Salzhauer, a town commissioner, likens her reaction upon hearing Javanka was arriving to a scene in 1980s ‘The Jerk’ in which Steve Martin’s absurdist character is ecstatic to find his name listed in the phone book while an unhinged killer picks Martin’s name randomly from the same directory,” the magazine reported.

“It was, ‘Oh, good, the town is getting recognition,'” said Salzhauer, a Democrat. “Then it was, ‘Oh, no, the psychos are coming.'”

According to the Washingtonian, “the last thing Salzhauer wants is to become an enabler of the couple’s reinvention act in South Florida, which makes the whole situation rather frustrating.”

“What are they doing in our town?” the commissioner said.

The Washingtonian concluded its deep dive into Kushner and Trump’s new life with an anecdote from Surfside’s Halloween Spooktacular event, where even Salzhauer was impressed with how well the family managed to blend in.

“As the Kushners were leaving the event, Ivanka bent down to pick a large pumpkin off the ground and started to walk off with it. Families were allowed to take one gourd home with them. Ivanka handed hers to Jared, who carried it the rest of the way. Their bodyguard, who followed Ivanka, also walked out with one,” the Washingtonian reported. “The double-pumpkin takeaway may not have fallen strictly within the rules, but what’s a pumpkin or two in the scheme of things? This was Ivanka and Jared attending not some White House event or private-school recital or exclusive soiree in the Hamptons. It was just small-town life in South Florida, where they could easily slip out with their pumpkins and disappear into the night.”

Read the full story.


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


From Salon’s archives: Todd Gitlin on “Back to the civil rights barricades” after the 2000 election

This essay was originally published by Salon on December 4, 2000, part of Todd Gitlin’s coverage of the 2000 Bush-Gore election and its aftermath. Gitlin — a professor, activist and author of nearly 20 books, including 2012’s “Occupy Nation: The Roots, the Spirit and the Promise of Occupy Wall Street,” died on Saturday at 79. In this essay, Gitlin, a former Students for a Democratic Society president, wrote, “We may be tired of the ’60s, but they’re not tired of us, because the collision of principles that took place then is still producing aftershocks.” It should alarm us that so much of what Gitlin wrote more than 20 years ago about the fragility of our democracy and elections is still relevant today. — Erin Keane, editor in chief


What is really driving conservatives wild with selective indignation? Why did Republicans put aside their law-and-order scruples to run riot at the Miami-Dade County Building during the on-again, off-again manual recount the day before Thanksgiving? What drove a Republican Wall Street Journal columnist to commend this “bourgeois riot” (his words) on the grounds that conservatives had belatedly learned from liberals that they had to get tough?

Why does the National Review cover scream, “Thou Shalt Not Steal”? How is it, when the diehard opponents of judicial activism are the ones who took the fast lane to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of George W. Bush, when the opponents of hand recounts in Florida want a hand recount in New Mexico, when the sticklers for election law who demand acceptance of thousands of absentee ballot applications completed by Republican operatives, that Al Gore is cast as the candidate who will do anything and say anything to win? Why do both Democrats and Republican faithful now tremble with rage?

Repeatedly during the endless 2000 campaign we were told that fat and happy Americans were indifferent to these candidates whom prosperity drove helplessly toward the center. We watched rival brands Gore and Bush, forced to differentiate themselves at the margin, showing off their respective woofers and tweeters in the form of rival prescription drug plans and the like. But the core partisans understood that the campaign was not the coded dumb show the candidates were performing.

Hardcore conservatives, especially in the reconstituted Confederacy that is the base of their base, well understood that Dubya was their guy. The press forgot, but they did not, that Bush was the good ole boy who dropped in at Bob Jones University and the fella who supported South Carolina’s right to fly the Confederate flag. On the other side, most of the Democratic base, especially blacks and union voters, however unenthusiastic about Gore, understood him to be the only alternative to Republican indifference, and turned out for him with pragmatic glee.

The campaign took place in front of a curtain, but backstage, behind the masquerade, the center-leaning “positioning” and the closely guarded talk, a muted battle was in progress.

It is muted no longer. It is the latest episode of the social-cultural civil war of the ’60s. It is indeed “a war for the soul of America,” in the 1992 words of one of its most passionate exponents (and the unwitting recipient of thousands of Jewish and black votes in Palm Beach County), Pat Buchanan. It is back in earnest and with a vengeance.

It has a lineage. To the right, Gore is Clinton with the polish stripped away. (No wonder he acts wooden.) To Southern and Western conservatives the vice president is the Big Green Monster in Waiting, ever and always a hardcore environmentalist who is soft on labor and liberals (while the left only wishes that might turn out to be so). The centrist Gore’s left-wing bona fides are confirmed by his association with President Clinton, the walking, talking personification of everything conservatives hated about the ’60s: the smart-mouthed Ivy Leaguer; the draft-dodging, noninhaling, minority-loving, gay-embracing, Hillary-marrying sumbitch who got the girls and had the gall to win the presidency.

They loathed him long before they or anyone else heard of Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky. In the early months of 1993, the first days of Clinton’s first term, a right-wing publisher was already selling a calendar called “365 Reasons to Hate Bill Clinton.” They seized chance after chance to disable him, only to flop. In 1994, Newt Gingrich handed them sweet revenge by taking back Congress for the GOP, only to overreach badly. Enter Lewinsky and Ken Starr, whereupon an unscrupulous gang of the right fought like crazy, scored many points, tied Clinton up in knots, only to lose again.

The right still hates the Clintons — and Gore by extension — with a virulence that, if it came from the left, would be viewed as felonious. Just a few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi was heard wondering darkly whether Hillary Rodham Clinton would make it to the Senate — “she might get hit by lightning” — just as, after the 1994 Gingrich victory, Jesse Helms said that if President Clinton wanted to visit North Carolina, he “better have a bodyguard.”

Right-wingers like Lott and Helms understand, far better than the holdout left, that the Clintons’ centrism was liberalism chastened, liberalism picking itself off the floor after more than a decade of ignominious defeat. The Clintonian Third Way was a moderate means to a radical end — terminating the Republican dominion that kicked in with Richard Nixon and solidified with Ronald Reagan, threatening to mire the country in tax-cutting, deficit-building, anti-government paralysis for decades to come.

Since Reagan’s glory days, of course, it has been downhill for members of the far right. Sure, they held the White House for 12 years, but couldn’t take Congress, or Hollywood, or the networks, or the universities (not to their satisfaction, anyway). In 1994, they captured Congress for a man of the ’60s, Newt Gingrich, but still had no president. The wily Clintons outsmarted them at every turn. Finally, in the affable empty suit of young Bush, they came upon a candidate who for a time seemed like he could be the Clinton of the GOP — sufficiently raffish to make them look like the party of fun, sufficiently mealy-mouthed to reassure the uncommitted center — but in their hearts they knew he was right. They had been thirsting in the desert for a long time, and at long last they were about to taste the elixir of revival. The cup was on its way to the lip …

Then look what happened.

No wonder they’re furious enough to riot over Florida. So far, they have turned to the streets in numbers greater than the Democrats. Whatever they say about the unimportance of Washington, they know perfectly well where the power is. Talk about entitlement.

Thus our current passion play. The issues are legal and technical, but the passions welling up are familiar, fierce, fundamental. We may be tired of the ’60s, but they’re not tired of us, because the collision of principles that took place then is still producing aftershocks.

For the left, the stakes are evident, or should be: Let the people decide. This slogan of Students for a Democratic Society was an abstraction, but in the background was knowledge — knowledge of the terror and oppression that befell huge swaths of America when people were kept from deciding their political fate. What could be more fundamental for a democracy than the right to vote and to see one’s vote count?

Defending idiotic electoral arrangements, smirking at subliterate Florida voters (the Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash called the agitation about the Palm Beach ballot “the dance of the low-sloping foreheads”), the partisans of the right now reveal themselves to be the lovers of oligarchy we always feared they were. Like the John Birchers of yore, they are essentially insisting that this is a republic, not a democracy. Against this hauteur, the left clamors for the right to vote and the right for votes to be counted. Many pent-up passions collide now.

Long overdue. We had become rather casual about civic boilerplate, with roughly half the voting-age population apparently indifferent to the exercise of the franchise. But the issue of the franchise — that it be universally available and authentically tallied — is bedrock. Not so long ago, the country trembled because the civil rights movement properly recognized that the right to vote is a foundation of democratic self-government. This is not ancient history. Within the lifetime of the next president of the United States, people took their lives into their hands for trying to vote. In Florida alone, on Christmas night of 1951, Harry Moore, the head of the state NAACP, and his wife, leaders of a voter registration campaign in Jacksonville, were murdered, their house blown up by a bomb. These murders, along with others throughout the old Confederacy, were never solved.

Since Election Day, the NAACP has conducted lengthy hearings in Miami, mainly out of view of the press, collecting much testimony to the effect that African- and Haitian-Americans had their right to vote systematically infringed. Now the Justice Department is belatedly investigating. Newspaper after newspaper — on Sunday, it was the Washington Post — has shown ways in which the ballot problems that plagued Florida hurt minorities and the poor far more than the white and affluent. It’s clear why the Bush campaign has resisted all efforts to count Florida votes more effectively: A computer model used by the Miami Herald shows that if the many well-documented ballot problems hadn’t plagued the state on Election Day, Gore would have won by 23,000 votes.

And where Democrats defend the hitherto disenfranchised, Republicans stand up only for overseas soldiers, some of whose ballots without postmarks weren’t counted. Invoking the military, the GOP makes it seem as if antiwar demonstrators were once again burning the American flag, all over Florida. Familiar battle lines are being drawn.

Although the 24/7 chat shows obscure it, we have returned to a core and classic political divide between right and left: the question of who decides. But politicians on both sides have largely booted it. For decades, political incumbents threw up obstacles in the way of reforming archaic voter registration laws and procedures. (What, me worry? I’m in office.) Much lip service was paid to the sanctity of the right to vote, while ignoring the declining number of voters who chose to exercise it. Institutions were indifferent. A motor-voter law passed — finally signed by President Clinton after two vetoes by Bush père — but enforcement lagged, most of all at the state and local level much beloved by GOP rhetoricians. This could be the election that confirms what many nonvoters say when asked why they don’t vote: “My vote doesn’t count.” If it turns out the apathetic are right, and dutiful voters are wrong, look out, democracy.

If it takes seriously the battle cry of democracy, the left, in other words, has a chance to overcome the pettiness of recent years, the identity-group infighting, the Nader nihilism, and go to the heart of the matter, giving Rush Limbaugh and George Will something truly to worry about. The hand count is the perfect metaphor. The GOP is in the politically tough position of defending the rights of machines, not people, to count ballots; of arguing that the convenience of bureaucrats matters more than the rights of the people when setting election deadlines. But despite their entitlement, choosing our leaders is not their prerogative, no more than it was in 1776, or the 1960s.

Isn’t it clear that the patriots are those who refuse to consign power to either machines or mobs of various descriptions — the ones who smile through congressional lobbies, or the ones storming the Miami-Dade County Building? Isn’t it clear that democracy is no idle piety — that as a nation we are either committed to it or not?

Perhaps we tremble a bit now because we sense what is deeply at stake.

W. Kamau Bell on going up against Bill Cosby in Showtime series: “It is scary”

“He was a ubiquitous part of being Black in America for my whole life through my adulthood, until the narrative started to shift.”

The Bill Cosby conversation is real. It’s very easy for a person like myself to dismiss Cosby because I stand with survivors of sexual assault, no matter the perpetrator. Even before Bill Cosby’s allegations, conviction, and shocking prison release hit the Internet –– I was already known for condemning his infamous Pound Cake speech and saying things like, “I have no interest in Bill Cosby’s legacy, because I grew up Black and poor, and he took it upon himself to go on a tour condemning people like me some years back.”

My argument is often met with strong rebuttals or just straight dismissals from an exploding segment of Black people who were raised middle class and felt like only Cosby was their lone voice in a mainstream cluttered with a white American experience.

Cosby loyalists have attempted to pick apart my stance, by bringing up the disgraced comedian’s early commitment to making Black people look good on film by only taking roles that were seen as intelligent and progressive –– promoting education and creating opportunities for many Black actors and directors, in a time where they were few and far between. When these debates end we are always left with the notion that both things can be true. Cosby can be identified as a creep who ruined lives, while having a history of creating positive opportunities for a lot of people. The complex elements of these exchanges are brilliantly captured in W. Kamau Bell’s latest project.

RELATED: The excellent “We Need to Talk About Cosby” skillfully opens a necessary, uncomfortable conversation

“We Need to Talk About Cosby” is a four-part Showtime documentary series that examines Cosby’s life, career, and accomplishments through the context of his legacy and sexual assault allegations through archival footage and interviews, news stories, and intimate takes from survivors, former co-stars, and Cosby contemporaries. Bell, an Emmy Award-winning director, performer and writer is the perfect person to tell this story because he’s not only a comedian like Cosby, but also represents the demographic of the people that I normally have my Cosby arguments with. His perspective, connection to Cosby’s legacy, and commitment to supporting survivors made for a complete story that will surely shower him with a collection of new fans and new enemies, as great journalism normally does.

Bell joined me on “Salon Talks” to detail the complexities of his personal struggles when analyzing Cosby’s legacy and being a Black middle-class child in a time when Cosby was king. Watch our episode here or read a Q&A of our conversation below.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

How did you decide to get into this project and then to go ahead and create it?

So much of my career is just following my nose and ending up in places where I didn’t expect. I always say that as a kid growing up, I didn’t go, “One day, I hope to have a TV show on CNN.” My career has always worked best when I just followed the opportunities, or followed my curiosity. So first of all, this comes from the fact that as someone who was born in the early ’70s, I grew up with Bill Cosby as just part of the wallpaper of being Black in America.

My mom remembers when Bill Cosby emerged on the scene. When I was growing up, I watched “Super Friends,” “Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids.” I liked “Super Friends” because it’s superheroes and I liked “Fat Albert” because it’s Black. So there was no demarcation. And then because Bill Cosby hosted it, you just would go, “Oh, this guy gets to hang out with Fat Albert. He must be cool too.” And because the show’s about moral messages, and then seeing Bill Cosby on shows like “Picture Pages” and “The Electric Company,” he was a ubiquitous part of being Black in America for my whole life through my adulthood, until the narrative started to shift.

It’s wild because you were born in the ’70s and that was your view. I was born in the ’80s, so when I was coming up, I didn’t understand Bill Cosby. I would say things to my friends, like, “Yo, how are you a doctor, your wife is a lawyer, but you can’t even buy your son a $60 shirt?” And I’m saying this because my mom bought me Gucci sweaters. They was like $300. I had Jordans and all of these clothes. And this is coming up with the flashy kids in the middle of poverty. This is you give your old clothes to your friends, but the materialism is spread so thin. And I’m watching this show and I’m like, “Yo, they could be studying books or something. They’re in the house making their clothes.” But we won’t get into that. And I guess the reason why I asked you the first question was because you’re extremely successful. People love your comedy, they love your work, they love your CNN show and everything. And with this great reputation that you have, you stepped out there and created something extremely controversial. Was that scary?

I mean, first of all, it was scary. It is scary. There were times where I was hoping I’d get a call from Showtime being like, “We’ve decided to stop this.” There’s something about being in entertainment where there’s a cognitive dissonance about what you should be able to do and what you think you can do. And some of that is how you become somebody who’s successful in show business, because you believe you can do more, and that you’re worthy of all this attention, and that you’re this good. And you have to always be your own best cheerleader.

Then once I got into it, I was like, “Oh, I was more naive than I realized.” Once we started to hear from people who I thought would talk and who said no, they wouldn’t talk. Once people were very clear, I thought, “Well, that’s that person who wouldn’t talk. Oh, that person wouldn’t. Oh, that person.” And so you go, “Wait, who’s talking?” It became the stack of no’s versus the stack of yes’s, the no’s dwarfed the yes’s. It became like, “Did I make a mistake by getting involved in this?” And really, this project came together in a natural way, like a lot of my career. I love documentaries. I love documentary filmmaking. I’ve always been a fan of that, separate from being a stand-up comic. “United Shades” is documentary filmmaking. We’re using a documentary lens to make “United Shades.”

At the same time, I’m a Black man in America who’s trying to reckon with who I thought Bill Cosby was and who I believe him to be now. And then you go through the Me Too era, and there’s all this talk about “Can we separate the art from the artist? Should we separate the art from the artist?” And I was like, “There’s nobody who challenges that question more than Bill Cosby.” And so there was always a sense of if you’re going to ask that question, this is the guy you’d ask that question of. Then I ended up in a production office with some producers, Boardwalk Pictures, and we were talking about comedy and talking about how there’s some comics who’d been Me Too’d, and “Well, can you talk about their comedy anymore?” Then we started talking about Bill Cosby.

My whole thing was, if you did it, you’d have to do it the way that Ezra Edelman did “O.J. Simpson: Made in America,” where you talk about America through the lens of Bill Cosby and through what we learned about Bill Cosby. It very quickly became an idea that they were like, “Oh, I think we should do this. We can do this. Oh, we know Vinnie Malhotra from Showtime.” Vinnie from Showtime was who helped me get “United Shades” initially, back when he was at CNN. It all came together incredibly quickly. And then it became about how do we do this?

So many people are canceled because of what they say. And this is a situation where it’s more difficult to cancel him because of some of the things that he’s said, because he’s always been so PC and so family. This guy with this big family brand, but then his actions are the polar opposite. I think you were the perfect person to create this series because you did something that I don’t get a chance to see when a lot of people try to make certain arguments. It’s very nuanced. You go to the beginning and you actually tell the whole Bill Cosby story, and it gives the viewers the ability to be able to understand some of the people who supported him and some of the people who didn’t support him. And I think we need that in telling the story. Do you think that kind of storytelling is going to bring you any type of negative feedback?

Even the idea that I was doing it has already brought negative feedback. I think there will be people who think I’m not going hard enough at Bill Cosby, because I’m not just talking about the rapes and the assaults. But then there’re going to be people, obviously, who think I shouldn’t be talking about that stuff at all because either they think it was a setup or a conspiracy, or they think it was all consensual sex and those women are now telling lies on Bill Cosby. The hardest part for me right now is that it’s not really out in the world yet. Now people are talking about the trailer or a press release. And really I’m like, “At least when it gets out in the world and is available for everybody to see, you can actually take it in and decide for yourself about what the job you think I did. And I ultimately know that there are going to be some people who are never going to watch it, but also won’t stop talking about how wrong it is.

We’re living in a time now where people can’t seem to grasp the idea that two things can be true.

Yes.

Yes, this man has done some amazing things for Black people in his career. Yes, this man has ruined the lives of so many people through his Spanish Flies and his drugging and his Quaaludes and all the other s**t he did. That he said he did in his own deposition. I think people always leave that part out of the argument, but we have to put it in there because this isn’t speculation. This isn’t people just running around, making up s**t. I don’t know if you’ve ever been through a deposition before, but it’s not fun. These guys have no sense of humor.

I think about my kids. Kids have a better sense of right and wrong, and also the fickle nature of being right and being wrong, than adults do. Kids understand that I can do a good thing that my parents like, and then I can do a bad thing that my parents don’t like. And we can discuss all of these things. Whereas adults, we want to put people in categories of you’re a good person or you’re a bad person, as if you’re not capable of both.

Where were you at in your life when you first became aware of the pound cake speech? Were you in the f**k this guy camp or were you caught up in a respectability bubble, like “You know what? Pull your pants up, he’s right! If you pull your pants up, you going to get that $250,000 job.”

I was definitely not the “pull up your pants” guy, as my pants will attest. But yeah, I was not the . . . I was way past that. I wasn’t in the “f**k this guy” camp, I was in the “why are you doing this?” I was really in the camp of “you’re hurting my feelings.” I was really trying to understand why is this man turning on us, is my feeling of it. And at the time I put it in, “He’s older now, he’s disappointed, as a lot of Black people get when they get older, that the promises of the early parts of their lives have not been realized.” And instead of blaming the system he’s blaming the Black people, the younger Black folks behind him, which every generation does to some extent. “You young people don’t know what you’re doing. You’re not as good as we were. You’re ruining it. We did all this hard work for you and you aren’t appreciating it.” Every generation does that in some sense, but it felt especially cruel coming from Bill Cosby who had always been there. He’s always been a symbol of uplift. I was also worried that a lot of Black people agreed with Bill Cosby.

A lot of Black people.

A lot of Black people were like, “Thank you for finally saying this.”


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


It gave a lot of white people, which you point out in the film, especially political figures, the license to blame us for society’s failures.

That was super important. Editors and archival producers are so important in documentary filmmaking. They don’t get the credit and I don’t think there’s awards for archival. When they found that Mitt Romney clip, I was just like, “Oh, thank you Black Jesus.”

Mitt Romney’s like, “Shout out to Bill! I told you! Shout out to my man Bill!”

It felt so perfect for so many way. In the midst of the GOP going so apes**t, we like to cast him as the reasonable one. And I was like, “I even enjoy it more than it’s the quote unquote ‘reasonable guy.’ Then also the fact that I remember, at the time, realizing it wasn’t just one speech. He was turning it into a career. He wrote a book about it. He was on tour about it. And to me, that was . . . he used it as, “Wait a minute. This can be a new way for me to get some more butts in the seats.”

But at the same time, around that time, Bill Cosby came to Oakland and played the Paramount Theater, and me and a friend of mine were like, “I’ve never seen Bill Cosby perform live. Should we go see Bill Cosby perform live?” At the time there’s the pound cake speech, there’s Bill Cosby, still a comedian who’s going to perform at the Paramount, and also there was this woman, Autumn Jackson, who was saying “Bill Cosby is my dad, had an affair with my mom, and I want to prove that he’s my dad. This was swirling around, but again, it was the early 2000s. There was no social media to put it all together. 

I remember going to that Bill Cosby show being like, “Is he going to yell at us? Is he going to tell us to pull our pants up? Is he going to talk about Autumn Jackson? Is somebody in the crowd going to heckle him about Autumn Jackson?” Because hecklers like to attack your weak spots. And instead it was just two hours of classic Bill Cosby. Of just Bill Cosby being America’s dad. And I remember being so amazed at how he was able shut all the other stuff out. And it wasn’t until, as we say in the film, Hannibal Buress added all this together. By then the rape allegations had come out and it became something that many of us couldn’t shut out anymore. We couldn’t silo these conversations off.

 I love “A Different World” more than anything. It taught me more about the world. That was the first show that took me out of my neighborhood. That was my “Illmatic.”

I wish we really had a lot more about “A Different World” in [the series], but we had already pushed Showtime to the limits of “Can we have a little more time?” But we did get to mention that. I love the quote from Michael Jai White that’s like, “‘A Different World’s’ the best show for Black people ever.” Shout out to Debbie Allen.

You had some close Cosby affiliates, people who actually played in the show, that appeared throughout the series. And I wanted to know how did you get them into the studio? 

Joseph C. Phillips has been public about his journey with learning about this stuff, so we reached out to him, knowing that he had talked about it, but didn’t mean he’d want to talk about it some more. And then Doug E. Doug, I felt like we all sort of forgot that that “Cosby” show existed on CBS. It was on for four or five years, but it wasn’t a cultural phenomenon like “The Cosby Show.” And I just thought “I want to talk to somebody from that era.” And Doug E. Doug, we just reached out to him. When he showed up, we had no idea what we were going to get for him. And he ended up being amazing.

It ended up the least we used of him was him talking about his time on the “Cosby” show. We just used him as a cultural commentator about the whole thing. As we got towards the end of production, I realized we didn’t get the interviews we thought we were going to get, because of COVID we didn’t get the kind of footage we thought we were going to get, and then at some point I just had to think in my mind, “This is like that TV show ‘Chopped.’ These are just the ingredients we have, and we got to make a meal out of them. And we can’t complain about it, we just got to make a meal out of it.”

One of the most powerful pieces of the film is that you actually include survivors. It’s a tearjerker. People are going to be choked up. Their stories are horrifying. Do you think those stories, to the people who watch it, are going to be powerful enough to sway any naysayers?

I think there are people who have not ever looked at this stuff directly. I had the privilege of sitting down with these women for hours to talk to them about their whole lives. And then in the film, we try to use as much of them as possible throughout the film to show they’re not just defined by the moments with Bill Cosby they had. For me, I think there is a sense that some people who are still struggling with “How could he have done it? Would he have done it?” Or “I believe he did it, but I don’t know to what extent I want to indict him for it.” I think there are people who are going to be changed by those interviews because of the context in which they’re in.

One of the touchstones of this film for me is dream hampton’s “Surviving R. Kelly.” There’s a sense with that film that that was an active crime craze that dream hampton was like, “I need your help solving this crime. I need your help.” And she enlists us to be involved in the solving of the crime. It’s not active in that same way anymore, but I did take from that, let these women talk. Let these women really tell their stories.

Should we ignore Cosby’s legacy, wipe him out and act like he didn’t happen? And, we know that “The Cosby Show,” and all the other shows that he worked on, wasn’t just Bill Cosby. There’s his costars, the directors, the people who broke their careers, and all of these different people that worked on that. Is it necessary for them to die for his sins? 

To me, this takes us back to critical race theory. All critical race theory is saying is we have to look at all of it. Critical race theory is saying we have to look at America through an honest lens. And one of the key parts of what America is and how it’s defined and how it exists is through racism. We’re going to talk about a lot of good things that Black people did in Black History Month, or a lot of good things that America did for Black people in Black History Month, however you want to put it, but if you don’t talk about the bad stuff, you’re not having an honest conversation about America.

I think the same is true for Bill Cosby. I think if you want to have an honest conversation about Bill Cosby, then you have to reckon with all of it. And I think some of this, I would imagine that if Bill Cosby watches it, he’ll be like, “I like that part of this documentary. I don’t really like this other part over here.” Because I think we’re trying to say we have to reckon with all of it. I don’t believe in throwing any of it away. I believe in having honest conversations and examinations of it.

The other thing I would say is, bigger than [the question of] “should we throw those people away?” which I’m not advocating for that, is that all comedy eventually goes away. When I was a kid, if I turned on the TV, I could find an episode of “I Love Lucy” somewhere on TV because that was the biggest show of its era. It was on reruns when I was a kid. I can’t turn on my TV and find “I Love Lucy” now. I can go search out “I Love Lucy” if I want to find it. So I would say that I think that material is out there. It is out there for you to use it as you see fit. I just think if you then take it out into the world and want to talk about it, be prepared for the whole conversation about it. I think some of the most powerful moments from the doc is the stuff about “The Cosby Show” and we are actually in that moment, celebrating the work of those people on “The Cosby Show.”  We’re also saying, “but it’s more complicated than what you see on screen.”

What’s next for you?

It’s funny, I’m actually still in the middle of production of season 7 of “United Shades of America,” despite everything that’s going on. I still have one more episode to film and then we’re in post to get the season 7 ready by the spring.

More stories like this: