Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Our go-to methods for storing fresh ginger

From tummy troubles to baked goods, fresh ginger has many uses in the kitchen. It’s packed with flavor, and a little bit goes a long way. If you’ve ever bought fresh ginger root, you know that you can spend 50 cents on a 2-inch piece of ginger that will last for weeks — but how do you store ginger to make sure that it stays as fresh as possible?

How to store fresh ginger

Before you pick up any piece of ginger from the grocery store, choose one carefully. Look for a piece of ginger that is quite firm to the touch and has smooth skin; any soft spots or slightly wrinkly skin is a sign that it’s already past its peak.

There are a few ways to go about storing pieces of ginger, and fortunately, they’re all pretty easy! You can store unpeeled ginger at room temperature or in the refrigerator in an airtight zip-top bag or container and tuck it in the crisper drawer; if stored properly, fresh ginger can last for weeks. If you have already peeled the ginger, it must be stored in the fridge to prevent oxidation. Blot the peeled side of the ginger on a paper towel to remove any excess moisture before sticking it in the fridge.

For even longer-lasting fresh ginger, pop it in the freezer! The same method applies for storing ginger root in the freezer; just make sure to use a freezer-safe bag. But bonus: Like cheese, frozen ginger is actually easier to grate for recipes. Win-win!

How to pickle ginger

Another way to make use of fresh ginger is to pickle it! Molly Yeh shared her recipe with us, and it’s about as easy as pickling gets. All you need is a large knob of ginger, sugar, water, rice vinegar, and salt. Peel the skin of the ginger root with the back of a spoon or a Y-shaped vegetable peeler (my personal favorite kitchen tool!) and thinly slice it on a mandoline. Place in a sterilized jar. Now all you have to do is cook the pickling liquid! Combine all of the ingredients in a small saucepan and bring to a boil; as soon as it boils, pour the mixture into the jar over the sliced ginger. Let it cool slightly before covering, then refrigerate. Serve it as soon as 24 hours later or keep it in the fridge for up to two weeks.

***

Recipe: Pickled Ginger

Makes
3/4 cups

Ingredients

  • 1 large knob of ginger (about 6 inches long)
  • 1/2 cup sugar
  • 1/2 cup water
  • 1/2 cup rice vinegar
  • 1 teaspoon kosher salt

Directions

  1. Rinse the ginger and then use a spoon to gently scrape off the skin. Slice it very thinly, ideally with a mandolin or vegetable peeler to get the slices extra thin, but a sharp knife will work, too. You should have around 1 cup of sliced ginger. Place it in a sterilized jar.
  2. In a small saucepan, stir together the sugar, water, rice vinegar, and salt, so that the sugar dissolves. Bring to a boil over medium high heat and then pour the mixture over the ginger. Let cool slightly and then cover and refrigerate overnight before serving. It will keep in the fridge for up to two weeks.

 

Donald Trump’s having an awful week — and it’s only Wednesday

Generally speaking, the Washington press corps and, in particular, the political reporters at the New York Times (NYT) are not ones to engage in hyperbole when it comes to Donald Trump. If anything, the paper of record has been downplaying the ongoing saga of Trump’s Big Lie and all the evidence that’s been piling up about what happened in the lead-up to January 6th recently. But this week’s Trump news seems to have shaken even their jaded attitude.

For instance, the Times’ Peter Baker tweeted on Tuesday, “Even for Trump it’s quite a week — first dangling pardons for capitol attackers, then admitting his goal was to have ‘overturned the election’ and now calling on the House to investigate Pence for not throwing out votes of multiple states so a president who lost could keep power.” Then the Times’ Maggie Haberman, appearing on CNN on Tuesday night, said, “it’s been a breathtaking couple of days.” This NYT piece by Shane Goldmacher headlined “Trump’s Words, and Deeds, Reveal Depths of His Drive to Retain Power” says it all.

Earlier this week, I wrote about Trump’s scripted comments at the rally in Texas over the weekend in which he promised pardons for the January 6th insurrectionists who were “treated unfairly” and called for protests against prosecutors who are investigating him. But that was just the beginning. On Monday, Trump put out a truly revealing statement (which some might call an admission of guilt.)

Republican leaders have picked a side and it appears to be Trump’s. As usual, there hasn’t been much of an outcry about any of this. Oh sure, a few have said it’s “inappropriate” to talk about pardoning the January 6th rioters and there has been some tut-tutting about how “the process worked” but that’s about it.

Trump followed up his confession that he wanted to overturn the election by suggesting that the January 6th Committee should investigate Mike Pence if they believe he could have overturned the election and ask him why he didn’t do it. I would guess that’s Trump’s pathetic attempt at trying to clean up his earlier comment but it’s incredibly lame and self-defeating. He shouldn’t be pushing Mike Pence toward the committee — Pence’s closest aide and his lawyer both testified for hours this week.

RELATED: Trump is feeling the heat from investigations — and wants his mob to save him

It couldn’t have helped his agitated mood to see new details emerge about those crazy meetings in the White House after the election when he and his lawyers were trying to find ways to do exactly what he wanted Mike Pence to do on January 6th: overturn the election. I’ve been intrigued by the one that took place on December 18th ever since it was reported and I wrote about it just the other day. What we knew was already so nuts that it’s hard to believe it could be any loonier — but it is.

Recall that General Michael Flynn, Trump lawyer Sidney “Kraken” Powell and the former CEO of Overstock.com somehow got into the White House and proposed to Trump that he sign an Executive Order naming Powell as Special Counsel to investigate the alleged election fraud and order the military to seize the voting machines. What we didn’t know until the NY Times and CNN reported it this week is that Trump had earlier tried to get former Attorney General William Barr to have the Justice Department seize machines and Barr told him he could not do it because it would require probable cause and there wasn’t any. (Barr resigned not long after.)


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


We also learned that when the idea of an Executive Order to the Penatagon was shot down by Rudy Giuliani and others, Trump directed Giuliani to see if the Department of Homeland Security could do it. And there was reportedly yet another draft Executive Order drawn up to that effect. In the end, none of the Executive Orders were signed and no one agreed to seize the voting machines. (Just imagine if they had actually tried to do that …)

Until now, Trump has been portrayed as sort of passive in all this, simply receiving proposals from his minions and henchmen and not directing any of the action. It was never particularly believable except to the extent that he played the role of the mob boss who only has to quirk an eyebrow and his lieutenants know what to do. Fortunately for the country, as Salon’s Amanda Marcotte points out, Trump was saved by his lackeys and accomplices, either because they were too inept to carry out the coup or because even they had reached the end of the line with his lunacy.

But Trump can no longer hide behind his henchmen. We now know that Bill Barr told him that seizing the voting machines was illegal without a court order which requires probable cause and there was none. Yet he still entertained the proposal that he issue executive orders to the Pentagon and DHS to do it anyway. And according to the Times, Trump also made overtures to state officials in Michigan and Pennsylvania to have law enforcement agencies take control of voting machines, which were rebuffed. He was clearly convinced that if he could get someone to seize those machines it could turn the tide and somehow overturn the election.

Was it that he believed Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn’s inane conspiracy theories that said the machines were rigged by the very dead Hugo Chavez or had been surreptitiously sent to Italy to have the votes changed? Or did he just think that making such a dramatic move would change the dynamic and make the state actors take action to change the electoral count? It’s hard to know. Trump believes that he can change reality simply be saying things over and over again (and it works on about 35% of the population.) Maybe he just thought he could will it to be true.

These latest revelations do show us just how different these days are than 48 years ago when it was revealed that Richard Nixon had tried to get the CIA to block the FBI’s investigation into Watergate. That was known as the “smoking gun” in that case and it made dozens of Republicans and conservative Democrats turn against him. He resigned days later.

What Trump did was worse.


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


He tried to use the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security (and for all we know the CIA and the Department of Education too) to overturn a legal election that he lost. And his party shrugs. Worse than that he is the front runner for the nomination in the next presidential election. If, for some reason, he is actually held to account for any of this — or anything at all — it won’t be because the Republican Party lifted a finger to make it happen. 

The EPA is tackling pollution in “Cancer Alley”

Residents of Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley,” an industrial corridor along the Mississippi River, have long been saddled with pollution from chemical plants and oil and gas refineries. 

Two months after visiting the area on a “Journey for Justice” tour, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan announced plans on Wednesday to better monitor air pollution along the 80-mile stretch in Louisiana. Of the 10 census tracts with the highest cancer risk in the country, according to the EPA, seven of them are located in this corridor.

The agency plans to install “mobile” air monitoring units in hot spots like Calcasieu Parish, St. James Parish, and St. John the Baptist Parish to “dramatically improve EPA’s ability to measure pollution quickly and assess situations in real-time,” according to a statement. It’s part of a larger Biden administration effort to protect public health in low-income, marginalized communities in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

The EPA’s efforts won’t stop with data collection. The agency also announced the creation of a pollution accountability team of “boots-on-the-ground inspectors” that will enforce environmental regulation in the South. Meanwhile, a pollution-tracking airplane will identify places that need investigating. 

Regan traveled the Gulf region from Mississippi to Texas in November to see how pollution was affecting people’s health firsthand. “When I was in Louisiana, nearly everyone I spoke with had a family member or neighbor who’s been impacted by a serious illness,” he told reporters. “We’re talking about generations of people living just a stone throw away from industrial facilities who may be sickened by the air that they breathe.” 

In St. John the Baptist Parish, for example, a chemical plant in LaPlace once owned by Dupont called Denka Performance Elastomer sits just over a quarter-mile from an elementary school. The EPA required the Denka plant, which produces the suspected carcinogen chloroprene, to install monitors along its fence after reports of a chemical smell in the air, and Denka complied this month.

The EPA also took action on drinking water this week. On Tuesday, it ordered the city of Jackson, Mississippi, to come up with a plan after failing to provide residents with reliably safe drinking water. Residents have seen discolored water coming from their taps and were told to boil their water this week after winter weather caused old equipment to malfunction. Last February, cold weather froze water mains and pipes, and 70 percent of Jackson’s water customers went a month without safe drinking water. 

“The pollution concerns have been impacting these communities for decades,” Regan said in a statement. “Our actions will begin to help not only the communities I visited on this tour, but also others across the country who have suffered from environmental injustices.”

21 very wonderful vegan dinners from WoonHeng Chia

What’s for dinner? Let our resident WoonHeng Chia help out. If you have yet to try her recipes — what in the world are you waiting for? — they are all simple, savory, and totally vegan. Not that you’d miss the meat, what with the truckload of umami packed into each dish.

1. Curry Laksa Ramen

“I’ve made this a few times with different variations on the ingredients based on what I have available, and it’s wonderful every time,” writes Food52er kellyhere.

2. Tofu, Napa Cabbage, and Delicata Squash Stew

A deeply cozy dish, perfect for the brisk weather. And it comes together in under an hour.

3. Vegan Pho with Tofu and Herbs

Pho is traditionally not vegan, but this thoughtful broth is still full of flavor, thanks to dried shiitakes, umami seasoning, and warm spices like cinnamon and star anise.

4. Mee Goreng Mamak

“This is a nostalgic dish that I grew up with,” writes WoonHeng. Picture: tofu, plant-based egg, and lots of chewy noodles.

5. Kung Pao Cauliflower

Spicy and sticky, cauliflower has never been happier. Or, if you want to riff, try out broccoli instead.

6. Vegan Gua Bao

Traditional gua bao features braised meat. This just-as-savory vegan take hinges on firm tofu instead.

7. Vegan Khao Soi

“This vegan khao soi brings back many memories from when I visited Chiang Mai a few years ago,” writes WoonHeng.

8. Vegan Tofu Wontons in Chile Oil

Stuffed with tofu and vegetables, then drenched in an ultra-savory sauce made from a mixture of chile oil, black vinegar, and soy sauce.

9. Teriyaki Tofu Balls

“My meat eating husband and daughter liked these better than the carnivorous variety,” Food52er SusanIlene says.

10. Rad Na With Tofu

Wide rice noodles, crunchy gai lan, sweet gravy, bouncy tofu. What more could a weeknight dinner want?

11. Vegan Curry with All the Vegetables

Inspired by WoonHeng’s mom’s ga li chap choi, this brothy bowl is a perfect way to use up whatever vegetables are around.

12. Crispy Tofu Katsu

Freezing then thawing totally changes the texture of tofu, making it even heartier and meatier.

13. Pad See Ew with Tofu

“Similar to other Thai noodle dishes, a wok is highly recommended here,” WoonHeng says, “but a nonstick skillet will work if you don’t have one.

14. Gochujang-Glazed Tofu

If you have an air fryer, meet your new favorite recipe. (And if you don’t, there’s an oven method, too.)

15. Vegan Mee Rebus

Spicy, tangy, slurpy. To save time, WoonHeng opts for curry powder instead of a homemade curry paste.

16. Tofu Char Siu

Instead of pork, this twist on the Cantonese favorite uses tofu, and comes together in two shakes of a lamb’s (pig’s? soybean’s?) tail.

17. Rice Noodles with Mushrooms, Scallions, and Chile Oil

Inspired by kon loh mee, this flavor-packed noodle dish would be dreamy for dinner, lunch, or breakfast.

18. Perfect Vegetable Dumplings

And when we say perfect, we mean perfect.

19. Rice Burgers with Teriyaki Mushrooms and Avocado

Crispy and grainy, rice burgers have been on the menu at MOS Burger, a fast-food chain in Japan, since the 1980s.

20. Kabocha Fried Rice

Feel free to swap in your favorite winter squash, like butternut. This fried rice, with fried scallions and fresh scallions, is flexible.

21. Tofu Pad Thai

“The sauce is out of this world — so savory and glossy on the noodles — and alone is worth making the recipe,” raves our Content Director Brinda Ayer.

Fox News could be in big trouble: Dominion’s huge defamation lawsuit makes a strong case

Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit against Fox News is moving forward, despite the cable juggernaut’s efforts to derail it. In mid-December of last year, the Delaware Superior Court ruled that the defamation case against Fox would not be dismissed, despite the channel’s request. What’s in question is Dominion’s allegation that Fox News trafficked in propaganda on behalf of former President Trump, falsely alleging that the election was stolen and that Democratic voters engaged in massive voter fraud. Dominion has also targeted other right-wing media outlets on a similar basis, including Newsmax and One America News, claiming they indulged in a “barrage of lies” against the company by falsely implicating it in participating in voter fraud.

Predictably, Fox News responded to Dominion’s allegations by denying any responsibility. The outlet claimed that “Fox News, along with every single news organization across the country, vigorously covered the breaking news surrounding the unprecedented 2020 election, providing full context of every story with in-depth reporting and clear-cut analysis. We remain committed to defending against this baseless lawsuit and its all-out assault on the First Amendment.”

Despite the channel’s categorical denial of wrongdoing, it’s been clear for some time that Fox News engaged in all types of unfounded speculation about election fraud. I document the various ways the outlet did this in my new book, “Rising Fascism in America: It Can Happen Here.” For example, in the aftermath of the 2020 election, Fox News host Mark Levin hosted Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor who spent years investigating Bill Clinton. Without presenting evidence, Starr accused Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, of engaging in “illegal” and “unconstitutional” acts by counting supposedly fraudulent votes. Lou Dobbs called on Trump to take “drastic action” in relation to the former president’s rhetoric about fraud. For Dobbs, that included the Supreme Court reversing the electoral college votes in swing states that cut toward Biden. (Needless to say, an issue well outside the court’s, or the president’s purview.) Tucker Carlson speculated about voter fraud by claiming that “dead people” voted “in large numbers.” Numerous other Fox hosts, including Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo, linked Dominion to similar claims of fraud. 

RELATED: Mike Lindell claims spreading lies about Dominion Voting Systems is good for business

Judge Eric Davis recognized Fox’s role in stoking Big Lie election propaganda in the Dominion judgment. Davis reflected in his legal decision that “Fox News and its news personnel continued to report Dominion’s purported connection to the election fraud claims without also reporting on Dominion’s emails” to the network in response to those claims, which presented compelling evidence to undermine the fraud narrative. Davis wrote: “Given that Fox apparently refused to report contrary evidence, including evidence from the Department of Justice, the Complaint’s allegations support the reasonable inference that Fox intended to keep Dominion’s side of the story out of the narrative.”

Rather than admitting its role in stoking Trump’s election propaganda, Fox News has doubled down on its deceptions. Reporting from January revealed that the channel is “seeking access” to a report from Georgia that was included in a separate lawsuit, from “election security expert” J. Alex Halderman, which the channel believes may vindicate its reporting on voter fraud. Halderman claims, after spending three months investigating Georgia voting machines, that “multiple severe security flaws” make them susceptible to third-party actors who might install malicious software. As with all of Fox’s election propaganda, the report, if accurate, speaks to speculation about hypothetical voter fraud, with absolutely no evidence that it actually occurred. In other words, Fox is up to its same old tricks in stoking Big Lie propaganda, this time to extricate itself from the Dominion lawsuit.

Dominion is trying to repair its reputation, in order to protect its work in providing voting tabulation systems across more than two dozen states for both in-person and mail-in voting. But what evidence is there that Fox’s election coverage had a significant impact on the channel’s viewers? Is it realistic for Dominion to claim it has suffered serious reputational damage? 

To answer this question, I examined national survey data from the Pew Research Center, which polled Americans on their media consumption habits and beliefs about election fraud in the period just before the November 2020 presidential election. The survey was conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 7 of that year, asking Americans about their news consumption habits and which venues they used as “a source of political and election news.” The survey also queried respondents about their opinions of alleged voter fraud, asking them: “As far as you know, how big of a problem has voter fraud been when it comes to voting by mail in U.S. presidential elections?” 


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


Using a statistical tool called regression analysis, I’m able to measure whether there is a significant relationship between Fox News consumption and opinions about voter fraud, after accounting for other factors, including respondents’ political party identification (Republican, independent or Democratic), ideology (conservative, moderate or liberal), level of formal education, gender, income level, race and age, in addition to looking at other sources people relied on for their information about the 2020 election, including Trump’s campaign, social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, print newspapers and news magazines, broadcast news, National Public Radio and The New York Times. 

My findings add ammunition to Dominion’s claims about the significant role of Fox News in encouraging its viewers to embrace propaganda about voter fraud. Looking at specific media where people got their election information, Fox News viewing, reliance on Trump’s campaign and use of social media (compared to print newspapers and magazines) were all significantly associated with a higher likelihood of accepting that voter fraud was a serious concern related to mail-in voting — controlling for all the other variables in my analysis. In contrast, consumption of the New York Times, National Public Radio and CNN were all significantly associated with being less likely to accept claims about mail-in voter fraud. 

Diving more deeply into the data, 59 percent of those relying on Fox as a “major” source of news thought that mail-in voter fraud was a “major” problem, compared to 35 percent of those who relied on Fox as a “minor” source of news, and 11 percent of those who said Fox was not a source for their information. In total, 93 percent of Fox viewers believed that mail-in fraud was either a major or minor problem, compared to 74 percent of those relying on Fox as a minor source andt only 37 percent of those who said Fox was not a source of information. To put it bluntly, these are really large differences in opinion that can be traced back to Fox consumption.

Since I statistically control for other factors in my analysis, it is not possible to attribute the relationship between Fox consumption and opinions of voter fraud to some other factor, such as partisanship or ideology. One might posit that Republicans and conservatives are disproportionately more likely to watch Fox, and that these individuals are already predisposed to believe Trump’s fraud claims. But by taking these variables into account in my analysis, we can safely rule out these alternative scenarios. And since the relationship between Fox consumption and election opinions is statistically significant, it means there is less than a 0.1 percent chance the relationship is simply due to chance. Rather, the data here suggest that watching Fox News, in itself, as well as consuming social media and Trump campaign information, are each strong independent predictors of people’s opinions of election fraud. 

A sober analysis of this data reveals that Dominion has a serious case against Fox News. Efforts to destroy public trust in the electoral process are nothing to make light of, and Dominion’s lawsuit could have serious consequences for Fox and other right-wing outlets. The voting company is suing the channel for $1.6 billion in damages to its professional reputation — a sum that amounts to almost three times the profits Fox makes in a year. The evidence here suggests that Dominion is validated in its response to Fox’s propaganda. Based on the data reviewed here, Fox News has played a consistent and serious role in amplifying the Trump administration’s propaganda, which threatens to poison the public well by undermining public trust in the state and local institutions of vote counting. 

Those institutions have for decades succeeded in tabulating election results without any systemic evidence of voter fraud. If Trump and his media allies are empowered to promote their propaganda without consequence, there are likely to be serious concerns moving into the 2024 election. Republican state legislatures may seek to nullify state majorities that favor a Democratic candidate, citing unverified and baseless speculation about “mass voter fraud” against the Republican candidate. Barring unforeseen circumstances, that candidate is likely to be Donald Trump, considering his iron grip on the Republican Party. Another election involving Trump raises renewed concerns about potentially disastrous effects, as he endlessly beats the drums of paranoia and fear over unproven and improbable “voter fraud.” The Dominion lawsuit has a chance to beat back much of this hysteria if Trump is at last deprived of the media partners that have previously enabled him in promoting his Big Lie.

Read more on the post-Trump plight of Fox News:

In the rapidly worsening Ukraine fiasco, the U.S. is reaping exactly what it sowed

So what are Americans to believe about the rising tensions over Ukraine? The United States and Russia both claim their escalations are defensive, responding to threats and escalations by the other side, but the resulting spiral of escalation can only make war more likely. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is warning that “panic” by U.S. and Western leaders is already causing economic destabilization in Ukraine.     

American allies do not all support the current U.S. policy. Germany is wisely refusing to funnel more weapons into Ukraine, in keeping with its longstanding policy of not sending weapons into conflict zones. Ralf Stegner, a senior Member of Parliament for Germany’s ruling Social Democrats, told the BBC on Jan. 25 that the Minsk-Normandy process agreed to by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine in 2015 is still the right framework for ending the civil war.

“The Minsk Agreement hasn’t been applied by both sides,” Stegner explained, “and it just doesn’t make any sense to think that forcing up the military possibilities would make it better. Rather, I think it’s the hour of diplomacy.”

By contrast, most American politicians and corporate media have fallen in line with a one-sided narrative that paints Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine, and support sending more and more weapons to Ukrainian government forces. After decades of U.S. military disasters based on such one-sided narratives, Americans should know better by now. But what are our leaders and the corporate media not telling us this time?

RELATED: U.S. hypocrisy on Ukraine paralyzes media, Congress — and even progressive Democrats

The most critical events that have been airbrushed out of the West’s political narrative are the violation of agreements made by Western leaders at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO into Eastern Europe, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014. Western mainstream media accounts date the crisis in Ukraine back to Russia’s 2014 reintegration of Crimea, and the decision by ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to secede from Ukraine as the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics.

But these were not unprovoked actions. They were responses to the U.S.-backed coup, in which an armed mob led by the neo-Nazi Right Sector militia stormed the Ukrainian parliament, forcing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and members of his party to flee for their lives. After the events of Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, that scenario should now be easier for Americans to understand. 

The remaining members of parliament voted to form a new government, subverting the political transition and plans for a new election that Yanukovych had publicly agreed to a day earlier, after meetings with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Poland.

The U.S. role in managing the coup was exposed by a leaked 2014 audio recording of a conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt as they planned to sideline the European Union (“Fuck the EU,” as Nuland put it) and shoehorn in U.S. protégé Arseniy Yatsenyuk (“Yats”) as Ukraine’s prime minister. 

At the end of the call,  Pyatt told Nuland, “We want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing.” 

Nuland replied (verbatim): “So on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, [Biden’s national security advisor Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [very quickly?], saying you need [Vice President] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and to get the deets to stick. So Biden’s willing.”

It has never been explained why two senior State Department officials who were discussing a regime change in Ukraine looked to then-Vice President Biden to “midwife this thing,” instead of their actual boss, Secretary of State John Kerry. 

Now that the crisis over Ukraine has blown up with a vengeance during Biden’s first year as president, the unanswered questions about his role in the 2014 coup have become more urgent and troubling. And why did Biden appoint Nuland to the No. 4 position at the State Department, despite (or because of?) her critical role in triggering the disintegration of Ukraine and an eight-year- civil war that has killed at least 14,000 people?

RELATED: Yes, Putin’s a tyrant — that doesn’t mean his Ukraine demands are unreasonable

Both of Nuland’s hand-picked puppets in Ukraine, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and President Petro Poroshenko, were soon mired in corruption scandals. Yatsenyuk was forced to resign after two years and Poroshenko was outed in a tax evasion scandal revealed in the Panama Papers. Ukraine remains the poorest country in Europe, and one of the most corrupt. 

The Ukrainian military had little enthusiasm for a civil war against its own people in eastern Ukraine, so the post-coup government formed new “National Guard” units to assault the separatist republics. The infamous Azov Battalion drew its first recruits from the Right Sector militia and openly displays neo-Nazi symbols, yet has kept on receiving U.S. arms and training, even after Congress explicitly cut off its U.S. funding in the 2018 defense appropriation bill.  

In 2015, the Minsk and Normandy negotiations led to a ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weapons from a buffer zone around the separatist-held areas. Ukraine agreed to grant greater autonomy to Donetsk, Luhansk and other ethnically Russian areas of Ukraine, but it has failed to follow through on that. 


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


A federal system, with some powers devolved to individual provinces or regions, could help to resolve the all-or-nothing power struggle between Ukrainian nationalists and Ukraine’s traditional ties to Russia that has dogged its politics since independence in 1991.

But the U.S. and NATO’s interest in Ukraine is not really about resolving its regional differences, but about something else altogether. The U.S. coup was calculated to put Russia in an impossible position. If Russia did nothing, post-coup Ukraine would sooner or later join NATO, as NATO members had already agreed in principle in 2008. NATO forces would advance right up to Russia’s border and Russia’s important naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea would fall under NATO control. 

If Russia had responded to the coup by invading Ukraine, on the other hand, there would have been no turning back from a disastrous new Cold War with the West. To Washington’s frustration, Russia found a middle path out of this dilemma, by accepting the result of Crimea’s referendum to rejoin Russia, but only giving covert support to the separatists in the East.

In 2021, with Nuland once again installed in a corner office at the State Department, the Biden administration quickly cooked up a plan to put Russia in a new pickle. The U.S. had already given Ukraine $2 billion in military aid since 2014, and Biden has added another $650 million to that, along with deployments of U.S. and NATO military trainers. 

Ukraine has still not implemented the constitutional changes called for in the Minsk agreements, and the unconditional military support the U.S. and NATO have provided has encouraged Ukraine’s leaders to effectively abandon the Minsk-Normandy process and simply reassert sovereignty over all of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea. 

In practice, Ukraine could only recover those territories by a major escalation of the civil war, and that was exactly what Ukraine and its NATO backers appeared to be preparing for in March 2021. But that prompted Russia to begin moving troops and conducting military exercises, within its own territory (including the disputed territory of Crimea), but close enough to Ukraine to deter a new offensive by Ukrainian government forces.

In October, Ukraine launched new attacks in Donbass. Russia, which still had about 100,000 troops stationed near the Ukrainian border, responded with new troop movements and military exercises. U.S. officials launched an information warfare campaign to frame Russia’s troop movements as an unprovoked threat to invade Ukraine, concealing their own role in fueling the threatened Ukrainian escalation to which Russia is responding. U.S. propaganda has even preemptively dismissed any actual new Ukrainian assault in the east as a Russian false-flag operation. 

Underlying all these tensions is NATO’s expansion through Eastern Europe to the borders of Russia, in violation of commitments Western officials made at the end of the Cold War. The U.S. and NATO’s refusal to acknowledge that they have violated those commitments or to negotiate a diplomatic resolution with the Russians is a central factor in the breakdown of U.S.-Russian relations.  

While U.S. officials and corporate media are scaring the pants off Americans and Europeans with tales of an impending Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russian officials warn that U.S.-Russian relations are close to the breaking point. If the U.S. and NATO are not prepared to negotiate new disarmament treaties, remove U.S. missiles from countries bordering Russia and dial back NATO expansion, Russian officials say they will have no option but to respond with “appropriate military-technical reciprocal measures.”

This expression may not refer to an invasion of Ukraine, as most Western commentators have assumed, but to a broader strategy that could include actions that hit much closer to home for Western leaders. 

For example, Russia could place short-range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad (a sliver of Russian territory between Lithuania and Poland), within range of European capitals. It could establish military bases in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and other friendly countries. It could deploy submarines armed with hypersonic nuclear missiles to the western Atlantic, where they could destroy Washington in a matter of minutes. 

It has long been a common refrain among American activists to point to the 800 or so U.S. military bases all over the world and ask, “How would Americans like it if Russia or China built military bases in Mexico or Cuba?” Well, we may be about to find out. 

Hypersonic nuclear missiles off the East Coast would put the U.S. in a similar position to that in which NATO has placed the Russians. China could adopt a similar strategy in the Pacific to respond to U.S. military bases and deployments around its coast. 

So the revived Cold War that U.S. officials and corporate media hacks have been mindlessly cheering on could very quickly turn into one in which the U.S. finds itself just as encircled and endangered as its enemies.

Will the prospect of such a 21st-century Cuban Missile Crisis be enough to bring America’s irresponsible leaders to their senses and back to the negotiating table, to start unwinding the suicidal mess they have blundered into? We certainly hope so. 

Read more on rising global tensions around the Ukraine-Russia standoff:

Kyrsten Sinema quietly amasses piles of cash from GOP, fossil fuel donors

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) is amassing a sizable war chest as a result of Republican donors, according to new financial disclosures. But a new analysis explains why money may not even be enough to secure Sinema’s re-election. 

According to new Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, the lawmaker raked in approximately $1.6 million in the 4th quarter of 2021. The New York Times’ Shane Goldmacher recently took to Twitter with details about the donations Sinema has received as he revealed the names of some of her biggest donors.

Per The Rolling Stone, Goldmacher noted that Sinema’s big donors include: “Harlan Crow, a massive GOP donor the Texas Tribune called ‘one of the biggest whales in the country‘; Ken Langone, another massive GOP donor who felt ‘betrayed’ by Trump and switched to Biden; Nelson Peltz, the aforementioned Manchin confidante; and Miguel B. ‘Mike’ Fernandez, a Florida health care billionaire who threw his fortune behind Hillary in 2016 after Jeb Bush fizzled out.”

In addition to the donors Goldmacher listed, Sinema has attracted Republican fossil fuel donors like Continental Resources chairman Harold Hamm and ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance. Republican voters have also applauded Sinema for her adamant support of the Senate filibuster.

But despite raking in the big bucks, Sinema still faces a number of obstacles that could compromise her chances of re-election. According to the analysis written by The Intelligencer’s Ed Kilgore, money from Republican donors won’t necessarily help Sinema win over Democratic voters. In fact, Kilgore explains why Sinema’s war chest likely will not prove to be beneficial on the Republican side either. 

Kilgore argues that Sinema’s moderate stance on key issues and voting record won’t be enough to win unwavering support from Republican voters. 

“Trouble is, smiling upon a pol for screwing up the hated opposition party’s agenda is not the same as voting to reelect her,” Kilgore wrote. “According to FiveThirtyEight’s analysis of Sinema’s voting during her two years in the Senate when Trump was president, she voted with the 45th president half the time. That was about the same as Manchin’s level, but far lower than nearly all Republicans. The GOP is a party with extremely low tolerance for dissidence.”

Voter registration is another barrier. “The Republican voters who give Sinema favorable ratings can’t cross over to support her in a Democratic primary,” Kilgore explained, adding, “and aren’t going to vote for her in a general election against an actual Republican.”

Sinema could also end up splitting the vote with a Democratic opponent that hopes to unseat her. But Kilgore is confident about one thing. He wrote, “Whether you view her as a brave and principled dissident or a scurrilous traitor, Sinema is probably, from a political point of view, toast.”

Trump blows up on Jan. 6 committee

Former President Donald Trump released a statement Tuesday continuing his attacks on the 2020 election that he continues to claim was stolen. This time, however, he turned his eyes toward his former vice president. If Republicans take back the House in November, Trump wants them to focus on investigating Mike Pence and why he refused to overturn the election. 

“So pathetic to watch the Unselect Committee of political hacks, liars, and traitors work so feverishly to alter the Electoral College Act so that a Vice President cannot ensure the honest results of the election, when just one year ago they said that ‘the Vice President has absolutely no right to ensure the true outcome or results of an election,'” Trump said through his spokesperson. 

Trump claims that because Democrats want to put further election protections in place in the event someone wants to steal the election again, it means someone could have changed the election results on Jan. 6. 

“The Vice President did have this right or, more pointedly, could have sent the votes back to various legislators for reassessment after so much fraud and irregularities were found,” said Trump, who failed to find enough fraud and irregularities to get court action from his own appointed judges. “If it were sent back to the legislators, or if Nancy Pelosi, who is in charge of Capitol security, had taken my recommendation and substantially increased security, there would have been no ‘January 6’ as we know it!”

Trump’s claim that proper security would have stopped Jan. 6 essentially admits that the violence was so powerful that it called for increased security. The National Guard was requested and approved by Trump ahead of Jan. 6 and they were largely in the area of the Ellipse, where Trump held his rally.

“District of Columbia officials knew of the planned protests and had requested some assistance when the ‘First Amendment demonstrations’ were planned for Jan. 5 and 6,” Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said in a call. “Based on this request, officials called up 340 National Guardsmen to help… At the same time, officials were collecting Guardsmen at traffic points and Metro stations and returning them to the D.C. Armory to refit for a crowd control mission, the secretary said. Their mission was to support D.C. Metropolitan Police and Capitol Hill Police.”

It was the Capitol Police who spoke to the Guard and said that they wouldn’t request the Guard at the Capitol, the Military Times reported. It’s the reason that the chief of the Capitol Police resigned after Jan. 6. 

Former chief of staff Mark Meadows wrote in his book that Trump wanted the National Guard to protect his supporters from counter-protesters, who didn’t show up on Jan. 6.

Trump’s comments also claimed that the committee should investigate Pelosi to uncover why she failed to secure the Capitol, effectively admitting that his supporters warranted additional security. One main fear, however, is that if the armed National Guard was standing at the Capitol it could have led to a shootout, as so many members of Trump’s crowd came to Washington with weapons. 

Further problems were caused because of Washington, D.C.’s strange mix of government overlords. There’s the DC city government, the Capitol and the federal park’s service.

“The Capitol’s request for Guard back-up went beyond what Bowser had already gotten approved, so it needed a new sign-off,” the Military Times explained. 

If Trump said that there should have been National Guard troops at the Capitol, it would prove he knew that there was an imminent attack on the building ahead of time. 

See the full statement below:

Anti-BDS law in Texas violates free speech rights, federal judge rules

Progressives welcomed a federal judge’s recent ruling that Texas cannot forbid an engineering firm hired by Houston city officials from boycotting Israel to protest its subjugation of Palestinians — and vowed to keep fighting until the state’s anti-boycott law is thrown out completely.

As The Texas Tribune reported Monday:

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen on Friday stopped short of fully blocking a state law that prohibits government agencies from doing business with certain companies that boycott Israel. But his ruling said the free speech rights of A&R Engineering and Testing Inc. would be violated if its contract with the city included a clause saying the company will refrain from such a boycott. Hanen also said that Texas could not enforce its law against the company or the city.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights organization, filed a lawsuit on behalf of A&R’s Palestinian-American owner Rasmy Hassouna last November after the company was unable to renew its contract with the city of Houston due to Hassouna’s refusal to sign what CAIR called “an anti-BDS loyalty oath to Israel.”

A&R — which had provided more than $2 million worth of services to the city over the past two decades — asked Houston officials to remove the anti-boycott stipulation from the contract. The city refused, however, citing state law.

CAIR senior litigation attorney Gadeir Abbas on Friday hailed Hanen’s injunction as a “major victory of the First Amendment against Texas’ repeated attempts to suppress speech in support of Palestine.”

He provided further praise at a virtual press conference on Monday.

Hanen “acknowledged that [a] pro-Palestinian view is protected by the First Amendment,” said Abbas. “That may sound like little crumbs, but that’s a controversial take, and it’s a blessing.”

At the same time, advocates at CAIR pledged to “continue fighting against unconstitutional bans on free speech.”

“We celebrate this step toward a more just state, where free speech is embraced as it should be,” William White, director of operations at CAIR-Houston, said Monday in a statement. “I look forward to the law being overturned, just as it was in 2019 after the first anti-BDS law came down from the legislature.”

In 2019, CAIR won a landmark victory over an earlier version of the law in a suit filed on behalf of Bahia Amawi, a Texas speech-language pathologist who was fired because she refused to sign a “No Boycott of Israel” clause.

“In that case,” the Tribune reported, “U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled that the statute suppressed ‘unpopular ideas’ and manipulated ‘the public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.'”

The state’s GOP-controlled Legislature responded by enacting a new law that, the newspaper noted, “was rewritten to exclude individual contractors and only pertain to businesses with 10 or more full-time employees and when the contract is for $100,000 or more.”

Texas is one of more than two dozen states with laws that seek to limit the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement in defense of Palestinians’ human rights and against Israeli apartheid.

“State lawmakers should note this decision,” Lena Masri, director of national litigation and civil rights at CAIR, said Friday in a statement responding to Hanen’s ruling. “There’s no place for banning boycotts under the First Amendment.”

Abbas added that “regressive attempts to create a Palestine-exception to the First Amendment betray the central role boycotts have played in our history.”

John Floyd, president and chair of CAIR-Houston’s board of directors, expounded on that point Monday:

The right to boycott has been enshrined in a constitutionally protected free speech right for generations. From the fight for civil rights in this country, overcoming racist Jim Crow era legislation and ordinances, to joining the worldwide struggle to overturn the racist regime in apartheid South Africa, boycotts have consistently been upheld by our judiciary system as a non-violent exercise of free speech. The Texas anti-BDS statute amounts to a requirement that businesses take an oath that they will not boycott Israel. No other foreign government receives this sort of state-sponsored loyalty.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has already appealed the judge’s injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has earned a reputation as one of the most reactionary appeals courts in the nation since former President Donald Trump added several more right-wing jurists.

“We will continue this litigation until we are successful in overturning the statute statewide,” said Floyd. “We expect a long fight against those who would muzzle our voices against the injustice and violence being committed against the Palestinian people.”

“This statute is blatantly unconstitutional,” he added, “and we are committed to the long-term success of this struggle.”

Whoopi Goldberg reportedly suspended from “The View” over harmful Holocaust comments

There are consequences for even the liberal co-hosts on “The View,” despite what one former member believes.

Whoopi Goldberg has reportedly been suspended from the ABC talk show over harmful and erroneous comments she made about the Holocaust, CNN’s Oliver Darcy tweeted out late Tuesday.

“BREAKING: Whoopi Goldberg has been suspended from ‘The View’ for two weeks, I’m told,” reads his first post, quickly followed by, “In a note to staff, ABC News prez Kim Godwin says, ‘While Whoopi has apologized, I’ve asked her to take time to reflect and learn about the impact of her comments. The entire ABC News organization stands in solidarity with our Jewish colleagues, friends, family and communities.'”

The controversy started on Monday, following the show’s discussion on a Tennessee school board’s ban of Art Spiegelman’s award-winning graphic novel “Maus,” which is about the Holocaust.

“Let’s be truthful about it because the Holocaust isn’t about race,” Goldberg said on “The View.” “It’s not about race. It’s not about race. It’s about man’s inhumanity to man. That’s what it’s about . . . these are two white groups of people! You’re missing the point. The minute you turn it into race it goes down this alley. Let’s talk about it for what it is. It’s how people treat each other. It doesn’t matter if you’re Black or white, Jews, it’s each other.”

RELATED: Book banning fever heats up in red states 

Goldberg’s comments quickly sparked backlash on Twitter. The official account for the Auschwitz memorial and museum in Poland tagged Goldberg in a tweet with an image of a chart outlining the racial policies of Nazi Germany. The non-profit watchdog organization, StopAntisemitism.org, shot back with a separate tweet: “Newsflash @WhoopiGoldberg 6 million of us were gassed, starved and massacred because we were deemed an inferior race by the Nazis. How dare you minimize our trauma and suffering!”

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt tweeted: “No @WhoopiGoldberg, the #Holocaust was about the Nazi’s systematic annihilation of the Jewish people – who they deemed to be an inferior race. They dehumanized them and used this racist propaganda to justify slaughtering 6 million Jews. Holocaust distortion is dangerous. #ENOUGH.”

A day later, Goldberg issued an on-air apology for her comments and reiterated it on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert.” 

“Yesterday on the show I misspoke,” Goldberg said, per The Hollywood Reporter. “[The Holocaust] is indeed about race, because Hitler and the Nazis considered the Jews to be an inferior race. Now, words matter, and mine are no exception. I regret my comments and I stand corrected. I also stand with the Jewish people.”

While Goldberg was backtracking, her former co-host Meghan McCain made sure to chime in, although she didn’t initially name-check her former co-host but tweeted, “Antisemitism is a cancer and a poison that is increasingly excused in our culture and television – and permeates spaces that should shock us all.”

That restraint was short-lived, because McCain then followed with another tweet: “I hate commenting on my old employer because I have moved [on] in every way a person can move on. That being said I am an activist against antisemitism and it is a big part of my life. The growing threat is real and virulent and everywhere. I am heartbroken about what was said.”

She also helpfully shared on Instagram an award she received for her activism.

McCain was so upset by the whole incident that she even penned a Daily Mail column to refute the harmful comments and misconceptionns about the Holocaust. She makes many important and salient points, especially about the long history of antisemitism and how the horrors and lessons of the Holocaust shouldn’t be buried.

RELATED: How Meghan McCain changed “The View” and how “The View” changed politics on TV

But along with sharing horrifying stats and decrying antisemitism, the column can’t help to show that she’s bitter about her time on “The View.” Despite her protest that, “The show doesn’t define me like it has so many other people who have worked there over the years, and I have found liberation and satisfaction in my career working here at DailyMail.com,” she then continues to go on at length about the double standard about liberals and conservatives on TV, and other errors Goldberg and ABC News has made in the past. 

Instead of half-assed apologies and bringing in experts in the antisemitism space, maybe dedicate an entire ‘Hot Topics’ segment to discussing why what was said was so deeply offensive and dangerous.

In the world of media, there are people who will never face the same ramifications and repercussions that others will.

There’s a double, triple, and even quadruple standard if you are conservative.

Whether McCain’s column had its effect on ABC or not, only the network knows.

Meanwhile, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro called Goldberg’s comments “insidious” and accused her of “downplaying the minority status of Jews in order to uphold bulls**t intersectional arguments that justify anti-Semitism today.”

Race, as Goldberg has learned, is not merely a skin color but a social construct in which identity is assigned to categorize people. While certain physical characteristics can contribute to that concept, social practices like religion are also used to divide and often demonize people.

Goldberg issued a written apology on social media, acknowledging her inflammatory comments and offering support to the Jewish community.

“The Jewish people around the world have always had my support and that will never waiver,” she wrote. “I’m sorry for the hurt that I have caused.”

During her interview on “The Late Show,” Goldberg reiterated her apology, but it’s clear that her concept of race still needs examination.

“It upset a lot of people, which was never ever, ever my intention,” she said. “I feel, being Black, when we talk about race, it’s a very different thing to me. So I said I thought the Holocaust wasn’t about race. And people got very angry and still are angry.

“But I thought it was a salient discussion because as a Black person I think of race as being something that I can see,” Goldberg continued. “So I see you and I know what race you are. I thought it was more about man’s inhumanity to man . . . I felt differently. I respect everything everyone is saying to me.”


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


When Colbert asked if Goldberg understood that the Nazis regarded the genocide of Jews as a racial issue, she responded that “the Nazis lied” and “had issues with ethnicity not with race.” Goldberg once again pointed out that both the Nazis and European Jews were groups of white people.

“Don’t write me anymore, I know how you feel,” she added. “I’ll take your word for it and never bring it up again.”

Watch Goldberg’s full “Late Show” interview below, via YouTube.

More stories you might like:

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

V.C. Andrews, born Cleo Virginia Andrews on a date she liked to keep secret, is “one of the most popular authors of all time,” according to her publisher, Simon & Schuster. Her first and most famous book “Flowers in the Attic” has sold more than 40 million copies, and has been made into multiple film and TV adaptations, including a 2014 Lifetime movie starring Kiernan Shipka, Ellen Burstyn and Heather Graham.

“Flowers in the Attic,” the story of four children imprisoned in the attic of their controlling grandmother’s house, suffering abuse from both her and their duplicitous mother, was published in 1979, when Andrews was in her mid-50s. Her first career had been as a visual artist. According to a new book by Andrew Neiderman, “The Woman Beyond the Attic,” Andrews chose both art and writing purposefully, because it was work she could do from home. 

Andrews lived at home in Virginia with her mother Lillian all of her life. She had a disability — likely, congenital issues such as arthritis and bone spurs — that worsened after a fall at school when she was a child. A series of surgeries did not correct the issues but instead, further limited her mobility. The only way she could write was by standing up. Andrews was never exactly clear about her disability in interviews, but took care, prompted by her mother, to hide it. And she hid herself away, writing.

Related: 10 facts about V.C. Andrews’s “Flowers in the Attic”

She never married and died of cancer in 1986, less than a decade after the publication of her first blockbuster novel, which had come to her in a dream. Upon her death, she had seven novels published, but also left several unfinished manuscripts. Neiderman, a popular writer of thrillers, including “The Devil’s Advocate,” was brought on to finish that work. He did, and since then has published more than 70 books as a ghostwriter while writing and publishing more than one hundred books under his own name.

“The Woman Beyond the Attic” details Andrews’ life before, during and after “Flowers in the Attic.” Salon interviewed Neiderman about the book and V.C. Andrews. 

What was your relationship to V.C. Andrews’ work like before you undertook ghostwriting her later novels? Had you read her before? Why did you decide to take on the role of ghostwriter?

I hadn’t yet read any V.C. Andrews, but my wife and most of the reading public was excited about her and “Flowers in the Attic.” I had been writing thrillers that involved young people like her characters and one of my novels “PIN,” had a very V.C. Andrews family world: obsessive mother and unemotional doctor father, plus incestuous innuendoes between the brother and sister. Another of my novels, “Brainchild,” was actually read and endorsed by V.C. Andrews. It reversed “Flowers in the Attic”: a young brilliant girl traps her parents in their home. V.C. and I, as the biography tells, had the same agent who was responsible for my becoming the ghostwriter and for discovering V.C. Andrews. I actually auditioned with a short piece that won over the agency and publishers. 

I found the taking on of ghostwriting an incredible challenge, and because we had written similar characters and I was teaching creative writing, I felt confident I could do it. Side note: I never met V.C., obviously, but I met her mother whose only comment to me was “You’d better do a good job.”

In one of my favorite passages of “The Woman Beyond the Attic,” you write, “Perhaps visions and dreams were another reason Virginia would eventually be drawn to writing fiction. In a real sense, the author of a novel must see the future for his or her characters.” I know that my best ideas as a writer have come to me in dreams, but Andrews believed herself to be clairvoyant. Could you talk about the role of that belief on her fiction?

V.C. Andrews did believe she had prophetic powers or ESP. She claimed to have predicted her father’s death and after that, every time she started to predict something, her mother told her to stop or ran off. V.C. wrote that she enjoyed the godlike role an author plays with his or her characters. She even talked about living through them since she herself was so restricted, so her belief in her own predictive powers helped her to envision where characters would go in a story . . . That’s a quality every writer must to some extent possess.

You’re the author of over 100 published novels, not to mention a screenplay, libretto and stage adaptation. How did you balance ghostwriting in Andrews’ voice and writing your own books?

I usually say, “That’s a mystery,” but the truth is, I wrote three novels a year for years. In the early days, I actually worked on two different computers, one reserved only for V.C. stories. I think I talked myself into it, but literally, I would turn my chair and get into the V.C. voice. It’s an ability I have and one that has enabled me to be prolific. I’m constantly challenged by characters and what I call the “What if” question. That means I see something in real life and ask myself what if this happened or that and then find a character to carry it forward. It was no different for V.C. novels in that sense. My Neiderman novels were and are more graphic, sexier and more violent, but the line is becoming more and more blurred as time goes on.

Can you talk about genre and V.C. Andrews? You write that she “avoided descriptions of herself as a horror writer in later interviews” but she described “Flowers in the Attic” as “Basically, a horror story.” And she disliked romance, due to the lack of excitement and graphic sex in those books at the time. How would you classify her books?

I think V.C. Andrews is now a genre all to itself. It is a combination of horrific actions, romance and personal tragedy. It is written in a truly innocent’s voice which ironically makes the terror more horrific so whether she intended it or not, she was crossing into horror, just not any supernatural. I believe that true horror, meaning realistic, is more terrifying because readers can identify with it whereas they enjoy ghosts and creatures, but they realize they’re not in real life.


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


How did ghostwriting as Andrews change your writing? 

Ghostwriting made me more cognizant of style and more prolific with my own work, meaning Neiderman titles, because I could now add a layer to them that I hadn’t before, the innocent eyes and the family secrets and madness. I’m someone who just enjoys writing so ghostwriting gave me another opportunity, a very big one.

When I was a child, my mother wouldn’t let me read “Flowers in the Attic” and so it took on this huge power in my mind. I remember looking longingly at the covers of V.C. Andrews paperbacks for sale at the grocery store checkout. It feels as if perhaps it is less taboo now to write about some of the things that Andrews did in the late ’70s and ’80s, like child abuse and sexuality. How do you think Andrews’ work can speak to younger generations today?

It’s universal and timeless, i.e. sibling rivalry, mother-daughter jealousies, father indifference and cruelty and family dysfunction, maybe more today than ever. I’m sure there are more divorces and abuses of children today than when V.C. wrote. The issue is to make it seem contemporary even though it’s ageless. It is said there are only three plots: Man against Man, Man against Nature, and Man against himself — man being both man and woman. V.C. incorporates it all and in that sense, is timeless.

More stores like this:

 

How to stock your pantry for Lunar New Year and everyday Asian cooking

Chef and TikTok sensation Vivian Aronson (Yuan Qian Yi 袁倩祎), who was born raised in Chendgu, China, knows that within the aisles of American Asian markets, there are ingredients that often serve as the the keys to making better, more authentic dishes. However, navigating these markets can come with a steep learning curve, especially for novices who may not know where to begin. 

That’s where her new cookbook comes into play. In “The Asian market Cookbook: How to Find Superior Ingredients to Elevate Your Asian Home Cooking,” Aronson breaks down staple ingredients in Asian cuisine, while also providing recipes that are ideal for home cooks. 

“When I shop at Asian markets in the West, shoppers always approach me and ask me which brand of an item they should buy,” she writes in the introduction to the book. “There are so many different bottles of sauces and packages of noodles lining the shelves, so it can be daunting for someone who doesn’t cook Chinese food frequently to navigate the aisles.” 

RELATED: Lunar New Year: A feast for the gods and family   

She continues, “Have you ever thought about buying fermented tofu or Sichuan fermented broad bean chili paste? What about potato noodles or preserved mushroom stems? I will tell you what they are and how to cook them.” 

Aronson spoke with Salon about the differences between grocery shopping in China and America, what inspired her new cookbook and what will be on her dining room table for the Lunar New Year! 

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

You talk about this some in the opening of your book, but how was grocery shopping in China when you were growing up different from how folks shop in American supermarkets?

Grocery shopping when I grew up in China was so different from how people shop in American supermarkets. There were only open-air farmer’s markets, which sold fresh vegetables and meat directly from the farmers. All of the poultry and fish were alive, and the butcher would kill and clean it for you. The pork or beef butcher had pieces of meat hanging up, and they would cut a piece of your choice off and weigh it. Now, there are modern supermarkets in China, but the farmer’s markets are still popular for fresh groceries.     

What inspired you to tackle the topic of cooking through the lens of what’s on the shelves at Asian markets?

Often, when I go shopping at an Asian market, someone asks my opinion on what to buy, such as what kind of noodles or which condiments. I also get many comments on my videos about what ingredients I use in the recipes and how to find them, so I figured this was a topic area that many people would be interested in. The cookbook will teach people how to shop those local markets to find the best ingredients for authentic Asian recipes.


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


One of the things people have talked about over the last few years amid the pandemic — and cooking from home way more than they used to — is the idea of “pantry staples,” or items that can be used to toss together a quick meal at the end of a long day. What are some of yours?

My Chinese “pantry staples” are Sichuan chili broad bean paste, Chinese soy sauce, Chinese cooking wine, Chinese vinegar, Sichuan peppercorns and Sichuan chili peppers. I use them daily in my cooking. I am from the Sichuan province, and there are over 20 different kinds of flavors in Sichuan cuisine — basically combinations of sweet, salty, spicy, numbing, bitter and sour in different amounts.  My pantry staples are the ones to make those authentic flavors.

I think sometimes “pantry staples” are different from ingredients for more celebratory meals. With the Lunar New Year upon us, what are some additional ingredients you would plan to have on hand — and what dish from your cookbook would you make with them? 

For Lunar New Year, there are special dishes you must have at the dinner table, such as traditional Chinese dumplings, steamed or braised pork ribs, “Tian Shao Bai” (steamed pork belly with sticky rice). Also, a fish dish is a must have on the Lunar New Year table. The New Year’s Eve dinner is the most important meal for families. There are usually 12 dishes for a table of 10 to 12 people.

The Sweet and Sour Pork Ribs (page 44), Steamed Whole Fish (page 63), Pork and Chive Dumplings (page 69), and Double Cooked Pork Belly (page 16) are all good for the Lunar New Year.

If you’re interested in better navigating the aisles of your local Asian market, do consider buying Aronson’s book The Asian market Cookbook: How to Find Superior Ingredients to Elevate Your Asian Home Cooking.”

Read more:

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

Republican lawmaker introduces resolution to “reprimand” the Associated Press for racism report

A Tennessee state legislator introduced a joint resolution to “reprimand” the Associated Press (AP) for publishing an article highlighting racism within the military’s ranks, saying the outlet “engaged in the lowest form of yellow journalism.”

The bill, reported by a CBS/ABC-affiliate, was proposed by Republican state Rep. Bud Hulsey, who objected to an AP story that ran back in May, entitled “Deep-rooted racism, discrimination permeate US military.”

In the article, AP reporters Kat Stafford, James Laporta, Aaron Morrison and Helen Wieffering interviewed “current and former enlistees and officers in nearly every branch of the armed services” who “described a deep-rooted culture of racism and discrimination that stubbornly festers, despite repeated efforts to eradicate it.”

RELATED: New report reveals the deep-rooted racism plaguing U.S. military academies

Additionally, the AP found that the military “processed more than 750 complaints of discrimination by race or ethnicity from service members in the fiscal year 2020 alone.”


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


Hulsey’s resolution contends that because the AP found 750 complaints – when there are 425,000 members of the active-duty military – racism in the ranks, by his accounting, is “uncommon and not a largescale problem.”

The “allegations that members of the U.S. military are racist and that the military itself accepts a culture of discrimination are not only blatantly false,” the resolution reads, “but an insult to the brave men and women who combat racism and discrimination at home and around the globe.”

It also adds that “the AP has engaged in the lowest form of yellow journalism and should be held accountable by the American public and their elected officials.”

RELATED: The far right in uniform: How bad is the military’s problem with extremism?

The publication, for its part, has firmly stood by the article in question. Kat Stafford, one of its authors, tweeted weeks ago that she and her colleagues “spent nearly a year interviewing dozens of service members and experts – some of whom could not speak publicly out of fear of retribution. We poured over copious documents & FOIAs. We did our homework. No matter how much one tries [to] deny it, racism does exist.”

AP spokesperson Lauren Easton likewise said that “the Associated Press stands by its reporting.”

The Tennessee resolution does not make clear precisely what a “reprimand” would entail from a legal perspective. As the CBS/ABC-affiliate noted, the state legislature has only reprimanded judges, lawmakers, and doctors. In 2020, the legislature considered a bill that would have legally recognized CNN and The Washington Post as “fake news,” but the measure ultimately failed to see enough support.

Heeding the lessons of James Joyce’s “Ulysses,” a century later

One hundred years ago this week, Sylvia Beach, who ran the bookstore Shakespeare and Company at 12 rue de l’Odéon in Paris and nurtured a community of expatriate writers that included Richard Wright, T.S. Eliot, D.H. Lawrence, Thornton Wilder, Ezra Pound, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, placed in the bookstore’s front window a 732-page novel she had published, “Ulysses” by James Joyce.

“Ulysses” had been rejected by numerous publishers in English speaking countries. The book, which was banned in the United States and Great Britain because of its “obscenity” until the 1930s, takes place during a single day in Dublin, June 16, 1904. It would swiftly become one of the most important novels of the 20th century, drawing its inspiration from Homer’s “The Odyssey.” “Ulysses,” which I have read three times, accompanied by a book of annotations by Don Gifford to catch the literary and historical references, is timeless. It captures the dazed, unresolved wanderings all of us take between birth and death, calling us to a life of compassion and understanding, and cautioning us to eschew the seductive calls to trample over others to worship idols.

The mythical figures in Homer’s epic — Ulysses is the Latin name for Homer’s hero Odysseus — are reincarnated in the lives of the Irish working class. Ulyssesthe Greek king of Ithaca, whose ruse of the Trojan Horse made him the architect of the victory against Troy, who spent 10 years trying to get home after 10 years at war and slaughtered the suitors who besieged his wife and ravaged his court during his absence, becomes in Joyce’s hands Leopold Bloom, a 38-year-old ad canvasser for the nationalist newspaper Freeman’s Journal. Leopold, whose father was an observant Hungarian Jew, throughout the novel mourns his infant son Rudy, who died more than a decade earlier, a loss that severed his sexual relations with his wife Molly. Ulysses’ son Telemachus, who grew up without his father and who, when he reached manhood, left Ithaca to search for Ulysses, becomes Stephen Dedalus, a fictionalized version of Joyce’s precocious younger self. Penelope, the loyal wife of Ulysses, is reinvented as Molly, the wife of Leopold Bloom, who during the day has a tryst with her lover, Hugh “Blazes” Boylan, and whose approximately 22,000-word monologue, one of the greatest in literature, affirming the sanctity of love and life — along with graphic descriptions of digestion, orgasms and farts — concludes the book. 

RELATED: “The Most Dangerous Book”: When “Ulysses” was obscene

“Unimpressive as Bloom may seem in so many ways,” writes Joyce’s biographer Richard Ellmann, “unworthy to catch marlin or countesses with Hemingway’s characters, or to sop up guilt with Faulkner’s, or to sit on committees with C.P. Snow’s, Bloom is a humble vessel elected to bear and transmit unimpeached the best qualities of the mind. Joyce’s discovery, so humanistic that he would have been embarrassed to disclose it out of context, was that the ordinary is the extraordinary.”

“To come to this conclusion Joyce had to see joined what others had held separate: the point of view that life is unspeakable and to be exposed, and the point of view that it is ineffable and to be distilled,” Ellman continued. “Nature may be a horrible document, or a secret revelation; all may be resolvable into brute body, or into mind and mental components. Joyce lived between the antipodes and above them: his brutes show a marvelous capacity for brooding, his pure minds find bodies remorselessly stuck to them. To read Joyce is to see reality rendered without the simplification of conventional divisions.”

Joyce, who wrote much of the book in Zurich during the suicidal slaughter of World War I, as well as the doomed Easter Rebellion against the British occupiers of Ireland in April 1916, detested the intoxicating poison of nationalism and seduction of violence. He watched as European intellectuals, artists and writers, including those in Ireland, descended into the moral squalor of jingoistic cant to support military adventurism. The flip side of nationalism is always racism, the exaltation of the self, the tribe, the nation, the race above the other, who is debased and dehumanized as unworthy of life. To Joyce this was a sacrilege. 


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


In Joyce’s wartime satirical poem “Dooleysprudence,” he speaks in the voice of Martin J. Dooley, a literary personage invented by Finley Peter Dunne. Dooley in the poem ridicules those around him gripped by war fever:

Who is the tranquil gentleman who won’t salute the State
    Or serve Nebuchadnezzar or proletariat
But thinks that every son of man has quite enough to do
    To paddle down the stream of life his personal canoe?

It’s Mr Dooley,
        Mr Dooley,
The wisest wight our country ever knew
      ‘Poor Europe ambles
      Like sheep to shambles’
Sighs Mr Dooley-ooley-ooley-oo.

Leopold Bloom is a pacifist, as was Joyce, a vehicle in the book used to ridicule all ardent nationalists, including Irish nationalists, who, to Joyce, resemble Homer’s idiotic one-eyed Cyclops, in the novel’s chapter called “The Citizen.”

“They believe in rod, the scourger almighty, creator of hell upon earth and in Jacky Tar,” The Citizen says of the hated British, “the son of a gun, who was conceived of unholy boast, born of the fighting navy, suffered under rump and dozen, was sacrificed, flayed and curried, yelled like bloody hell, the third day he arose again from the bed, steered into heaven, sitteth on his beamend till further orders whence he shall come to drudge for a living and be paid.”

“But,” says Bloom, “isn’t discipline the same everywhere? I mean wouldn’t it be the same here if you put force against force?”

Ellmann writes of Leopold Bloom that “if we got to him thinking he may be the apostle of brotherhood, he shows us brothers in violent quarrel. If we go to him to find a defender of the family, he presents his central hero — the cuckold. If we ask him to be the celebrant of the isolated individual, Joyce shows isolation making him morose and defenseless. If we look for the spokesman of life, he introduces us to the dead. The reconciling factor is the imagination…”

By imagination Ellmann means the capacity to see ourselves in the other, especially the stranger, the outcast. Leopold Bloom endures subtle slights and virulent anti-Semitism during the day, even though he has forsaken his father’s religion, his mother was a Catholic and he relishes pork kidneys. “Ulysses” constantly juxtaposes characters who have the capacity for remorse and compassion, like Leopold, with characters who do not, such as Buck Mulligan, who refers to Stephen’s mother as “beastly dead,” and Simon Dedalus, the estranged father of Stephen Dedalus, who mistreated his late wife and their children. 

For Joyce the language we use to know ourselves, whether in official pronouncements, mass culture or the press, which he calls “dead noise,” fragments reality into small digestible bits, sound bites highlighting the trivial, the mythic or the extraordinary. This rhetoric and language obfuscate rather than elucidate. It is a linguistic trick to perpetuate the potent fictions we tell ourselves about ourselves, as individuals and as a nation. In the name of fact and objectivity, it distorts and lies. Joyce also excoriates the religious and political leaders tasked with addressing the needs of the Irish in the figures of Father John Conmee and the British Viceroy. The radical disconnectedness of those in power from the lives and concerns of the public expose the bankruptcy of their pretensions. Order and purpose, Joyce argues, come from the intimate social bonds we knit with those around us. We are our brother’s and sister’s keepers.

RELATED: James Joyce’s lyrical, sensual literary legacy: Why so many novels steal from “Ulysses”

Stephen rejects journalism for literature. But Stephen — read Joyce — also knows that literature can drown itself in platonic idealism, sentimentality and nostalgia. Joyce was an enemy of the Irish Literary Revival, which he excoriated as pretentious self-absorption and self-exaltation in the name of the authentic. We find ourselves, Joyce knew, in the chaotic sights, sounds, slang and messiness of contemporary life. Joyce boasted that if Dublin was ever destroyed it could be reconstructed from his novel. 

Stephen’s, and by extension Joyce’s, lodestar is William Shakespeare, who, of course, was English rather than Irish. Shakespeare inhabited, like Joyce, the world around him and used that raw material to explore the rhythms of human nature and human society, its mix of good and evil, selfishness and altruism, capacity for heroism and deceit, ability to love and hate, often all rolled into one contradictory human being. Stephen, for this reason, broods at length in the novel about Hamlet.

Joyce was ruthlessly honest about human foibles and human proclivities. But his novel is a cri de coeur for our common humanity. He elevates those dismissed, as William Butler Yeats wrote, by “the noisy set of bankers, schoolmasters, and clergymen the martyrs call the world” to heroic status. He makes those forgotten by history worthy of our admiration and respect.

On Wednesday, Feb. 2, which was Joyce’s birthday and the day Beach handed him the first printed copy of his book, with its blue cover and white lettering, in 1922, I will walk the few blocks from my house in Princeton to the cemetery where Beach is buried to say thank you.

More from Chris Hedges on the state of America:

How omicron changes the calculus of risk on airplanes

The country’s health care system is overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients thanks to the omicron variant, which is far more contagious than previous variants of COVID-19. (Indeed, the omicron variant of COVID-19 may be the most contagious virus ever known to exist.)

Yet unlike previous variants, omicron has yet to bring in lockdowns in the United States or slow down travel. Indeed, air travel hasn’t diminished the way it did at the start of the pandemic, and vast numbers of Americans are still traveling via airplane amid the surge. 

Given the degree to which omicron is more contagious than earlier variants, that may not be a good thing. And some experts think flying on an airplanes has become a slightly riskier proposition in the age of omicron. As usual, risk is increased by compounding factors like age and pre-existing conditions, and mitigated by factors like booster shots and high-quality, well-sealed masks. 

“We have evidence that you can get COVID-19 on an airplane,” said John Volckens, an aerosol scientist and professor in the Colorado School of Public Health at Colorado State University. “Most of that evidence is from previous variants, but you can bet that if the alpha or delta variant can be spread on a plane, then so can omicron.”

RELATED: The double-vaccinated are barely protected from omicron — but those with boosters are in good shape

Despite the airline industry’s assurances that airplane travel is very safe, there have been studies on specific flights that affirm that COVID-19 can easily spread on airplanes, despite safety measures like masks and mandatory COVID-19 tests prior to takeoff.

One such study, published in the Journal of Travel Medicine, regarded a flight that took off from South Africa on June 9, 2021, and landed in Shenzhen, China. All 203 passengers were required to have a negative PCR test within 48 hours before boarding. During the flight, all passengers were required to wear masks, too.

Upon arrival at their destination’s quarantine, three passengers tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Twenty-four more people from the same flight tested positive over the course of the following 14 days. Notably, the researchers observed that passengers sitting within three rows of the first identified case had a higher infection rate. Those who were vaccinated were 74% less likely to be infected. Viral sequencing confirmed this specific outbreak was due to the delta variant.


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


But omicron is more infectious than delta, and more capable of evading vaccine-induced immunity — which inherently raises the risk of air travel.

“I think it’s several times more risky, but it’s still generally safe, and I think it all depends more on your own risk-benefit calculus,” said Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. “And the same rules apply, where the riskiest part of traveling is still not the airplane itself — it’s the trip to the airport, it’s the congregations in the food court.”

Chin-Hong agreed that the risk of travel itself in an airplane is riskier now because omicron is more contagious.

“Omicron is thought to be, depending on what estimates you look at, five to 10 times more transmissible than delta, and the plane becomes that way too despite the ventilation,” Chin-Hong said. “So I think it’s a matter of putting an exclamation point next to the strategies you’ve used all along on planes.”

William Schaffner, a professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, agreed that there’s an increased risk with air travel due to omicron.

“Not only could it be more hazardous than delta or the other other variants, but it likely is because omicron is so much more contagious,” Schaffner said. “But it’s hard to demonstrate.”

Indeed, there has been a wider general consensus that airplanes haven’t been a main source of transmission. But that consensus came about in part because it’s difficult for researchers to study and track outbreaks on planes, as Salon previously reported. Schaffner added there isn’t much data about previous variants spreading on airplanes because the data is hard to collect.

“The first issue is that there are so many cases that case-finding studies and investigations are not done in the vast majority of cases,” Schaffner said, explaining that “public health simply doesn’t have the bandwidth, when there are thousands of cases going on, to interview every case to see where they may have acquired an infection.” 

Schaffner also noted that the airplane variable can be hard to separate from other transmission sources, as there are “so many other ways that people can get infected — in the airport, on the airplane, in the taxi, when they were with their relatives, when they went to the restaurant, when they did whatever they did before they got on the airplane.”

Likewise, persons who are infected but without symptoms, or those with only mild symptoms, may be vectors of transmission yet never officially counted among the infected. In other words, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where a person acquired an infection unless they were sitting next to someone sneezing and coughing on the plane.

Meanwhile, airline executives have touted the presence of hospital-grade air filters on modern airplanes. But do those reduce the risk of infection at all, as they claim?

Schaffner explained by analogizing pockets of air on a plane to slices of bread.

“Pretend the airplane is a loaf of bread with a series of slices,” Schaffner began. “The air is handled slice by slice and, in other words, the people in first class are not exposed to the air of the people in the coach; so the air is circulated in a segmented fashion and it does go through very high efficiency filters,” particularly in new aircraft. In other words, those at risk are those within a specific “slice” of air who may be near someone who is infected. 

Schaffner emphasized previous instances of airplane transmission of disease, despite filtration. “Even in those circumstances in years past… there have been outbreaks of tuberculosis that have come from exposure on aircraft and the CDC has those data,” he added. Schaffner said that those studies “quite clearly” show that a person is at a greatest risk of acquiring an infection from someone two rows behind them, or in your own row.

“And that speaks to the segmented way the air is handled on the aircraft,” Schaffner said. “So even when those systems are in place, you can still get transmission of infectious agents on an aircraft.”

However, Schaffner still believes that the riskiest part of travel is what happens after and before the flight — the gatherings and the people you see and so on.

Volckens noted that “airplane cabins can be at higher risk of exposure because so many people are packed together.” But added, on the other hand, Volckens stressed that “airplane cabins can have high air exchange rates, when the cabin ventilation system is running, which reduces the potential for exposure.”

All experts agreed that masking while flying greatly reduce one’s risk. Almost all commercial flights still require travelers to be masked for the duration of the flight, with the exception of periods when they may be eating or drinking.

“Masking has been associated with dramatically lower infection risk on airplanes — a quality, well-fitting mask provides both control of the source (the infectious person) and protection for the wearer (the exposed person),” Volckens said.

But those who are unvaccinated or have a higher risk of having a severe outcome with an omicron infection might want to postpone their travel plans.

“An unvaccinated person, over the age of 65 person, or an immunocompromised person would be very, very at risk these days and it would probably be best to not travel or drive in their own car without anybody else,” Chin-Hong said. “But somebody who’s vaccinated and boosted, wears a good mask… I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t take a plane.

Read more on the omicron variant:

Madison Cawthorn sues his own state to stop Jan. 6 challenge before North Carolina election board

Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C. has filed a lawsuit against the North Carolina State Board of Elections over its inquiry into whether he is eligible for reelection, arguing that running for office is a “quintessential First Amendment activity.”

His suit comes weeks after eleven North Carolina voters urged the board earlier this month to preclude the conservative’s candidacy, citing Cawthorn’s participation in the rally that preceded the January 6 Capitol riot. State election officials are reportedly aiming the block Cawthorn’s candidacy on the basis of the 14th Amendment, which states that no member of Congress “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

But on Monday, in a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the conservative firebrand disputed ever engaging in an “insurrection or rebellion.”

“Running for political office is quintessential First Amendment activity and afforded great protection,” Cawthorn says in suit, arguing that his involvement in the rally does not exempt him from a political bid. 

Ron Fein, legal director at Free Speech For People, which filed the petition to challenge Cawthorn’s eligibility, told WRAL that “it is unfortunate that Madison Cawthorn has decided to run to federal court instead of complying with the process before the State Board of Elections.” 


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


Fein has also said that Cawthorn is just one of many conservative lawmakers the group intends to challenge on account of their role in fomenting the riot.

RELATED: Rep. Madison Cawthorn getting divorced after less than a year of marriage

According to Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, there may be substantial constitutional precedent to contest Cawthorn’s eligibility. 

For instance, on Dec. 16, amid Donald Trump’s baseless claims of widespread election fraud, Cawthorn implored his followers to “lightly threaten” their representatives, telling them to say: “If you don’t support election integrity, I’m coming after you.” During the January 6 “Stop the Steal” rally just weeks later, Cawthorn tore into other Republicans for “not fighting” against Biden’s electoral victory. After rioters breached the House floor of the Capitol, the conservative tweeted that “the battle is on the house floor.” 

Gerard Magliocca, an Indiana University McKinney School of Law professor who is serving as an expert witness on the case, told Slate that North Carolina’s election board’s process “is not inconsistent with the 14th Amendment,” meaning that the Cawthorn might be found ineligible under a constitutional clause. 

Cawthorn, 26, became the youngest member of Congress in November of 2020, when he was elected to serve North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District. An ardent supporter of Trump, Cawthorn is known for his fiery and often conspiratorial rhetoric. As Salon reported in the past, Cawthorn has been accused of sexual misconduct and lying about the car crash that left him paralyzed. 

RELATED: Rising GOP star Madison Cawthorn faces renewed scrutiny as sexual misconduct allegations resurface

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

Some of the Trump White House records turned over to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack had previously been torn up and then taped back together — perhaps by the ex-president himself — according to the National Archives.

“Some of the Trump presidential records received by the National Archives and Records Administration included paper records that had been torn up by former President Trump,” the agency said in a statement to CNN.

The agency did not say how it knew that Trump had personally torn up the documents, but the former president had a well-documented habit of tearing up records, flouting a federal law requiring they be preserved. Some of the documents were not taped back together before they were sent to the National Archives.

“These were turned over to the National Archives at the end of the Trump Administration, along with a number of torn-up records that had not been reconstructed by the White House,” the Archives said in the statement. “The Presidential Records Act requires that all records created by presidents be turned over to the National Archives at the end of their administrations.”

The Archives cited a 2018 Politico report that an entire administration department had been tasked with taping up documents torn up by Trump “like a jigsaw puzzle” in order to prevent the White House from running afoul of the law. “White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor. … Instead, they chose to clean it up for him, in order to make sure that the president wasn’t violating the law,” the outlet reported at the time.

RELATED: Jan. 6 committee says Mark Meadows’ “hokey pokey” has slowed down plan for primetime hearings

Some legal experts argue that the practice itself violated the law.

There are “several statutes that make it a crime to destroy government property if that was the intent of the defendant,” Stephen Gillers, a constitutional scholar at New York University, told the Washington Post. “A president does not own the records generated by his own administration. The definition of presidential records is broad. Trump’s own notes to himself could qualify and destroying them could be the criminal destruction of government property.”

The committee began obtaining documents from the National Archives after the Supreme Court, including all three of Trump’s nominees, rejected his bid to shield the documents. The agency handed over 700 pages of documents to the committee last month, according to the Post.

The documents included a draft executive order instructing the Pentagon to seize voting machines in key states to investigate unfounded claims of fraud. CNN later reported that a second version also exists, that would have instructed the Department of Homeland Security to seize the machines. The New York Times reported on Monday that Trump personally directed attorney Rudy Giuliani to call DHS to ask if the agency could legally seize the machines. Giuliani’s request was ultimately rebuffed by acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli. Trump around the same tim raised the possibility of the Justice Department seizing the machines, which Attorney General Bill Barr “immediately shot down,” according to the report. Trump similarly pressed Republican state lawmakers in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania to use local law enforcement to seize the machines but the lawmakers likewise refused to go along.

Along with efforts to seize voting machines, which was inspired by the conspiracy theories floated by Sidney Powell and Michael Flynn — and allegedly inspired by Phil Waldron, a former Army colonel who had no official standing in government — Giuliani was reportedly involved in efforts to submit fake slates of electors who would cast votes for Trump instead of President Joe Biden. The National Archives turned over forged documents from more than a half-dozen states falsely claiming that Trump won states that he lost. The committee has subpoenaed Giuliani and others involved in the effort, as well as 14 of the people who signed on as fake Trump electors.


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


To this point, the House panel has interviewed more than 400 people as part of its investigation. It recently obtained text messages from former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, according to ABC News, and McEnany was interviewed virtually by the panel for “several hours” last month.

The committee recently cited a text message exchange between McEnany, who now works as a Fox News host, and longtime Fox host Sean Hannity.

“1 – no more stolen election talk,” Hannity wrote, according to the committee. “2 – Yes, impeachment and the 25th amendment are real and many people will quit.”

“Love that. Thank you. That is the playbook. I will help reinforce….,” McEnany replied.

The panel last week also interviewed Marc Short, who served as former Vice President Mike Pence’s chief of staff, according to CNN. Short was with Pence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and participated in a Jan. 4 White House meeting about Trump’s efforts to block the certification of Biden’s electoral victory. Short’s interview was a “lengthy session,” according to the report, and he also turned over documents that were subpoenaed by the committee. The committee has also sought to interview Pence,  but the former veep “would prefer aides like Short act as the former vice president’s ‘proxy’ so Pence himself does not have to appear,” sources told CNN. Multiple reports have said that Pence’s team has been “particularly cooperative” with the committee, even as some former Trump advisers refuse to cooperate with the investigation.

The committee plans to host televised hearings beginning in April or May, as Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., told Salon last week, after delays caused by the reluctance of former Trump advisers Mark Meadows and Steve Bannon, both of whom have declined to appear for interviews and have been referred to the Justice Department for contempt of Congress.

“It’s only when you get right to that kind of bullseye core right around Donald Trump and his innermost confidants that people think they’re somehow above the law and can just give the finger to the U.S. Congress,” Raskin said in the interview, predicting that the upcoming hearings could be the “most important” in American history, “certainly up there with the Watergate hearings.”

Read more:

Donald Trump’s lackeys failed him — and saved democracy

Late Monday, more horrible-but-not-surprising information about Donald Trump’s attempted coup leaked out, this time through the New York Times, in a story that seems sourced heavily through Trump allies who are trying to shift some of the heat off themselves onto their boss. Trump, the Times reports, had a direct hand in efforts to seize voting machines in swing states. It was under the guise of stopping “fraud,” but obviously the purpose was destroying votes for Joe Biden before they could be counted. Specifically, Trump ordered his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to call the Department of Homeland Security and ask to “take control of voting machines in key swing states.” This matters, as the reporters write, because it shows Trump “was more directly involved than previously known” in this plot to seize voting machines. 

Maggie Haberman, one of the Times’ reporters, elaborated on Twitter, noting that “Trump allies have repeatedly painted him as essentially giving a hearing to but not really heeding some of the suggestions.” In reality, as this report shows, it was the opposite: Trump was the one pressuring his lackeys to take action to steal the election, not the other way around. This, as she noted in another tweet, destroys claims that Trump was merely “a passive observer” of his own coup. 

RELATED: Trump is feeling the heat from investigations — and wants his mob to save him

But even though this reporting shows Trump trying to mastermind a plan to steal the election from Biden, it also illustrates how focused Trump was on insulating himself from legal consequences. 


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


Every step of the way, Trump tried to get someone else to actually pick up the phone and make the call to break the law. He didn’t have the nerve to call Homeland Security himself, so instead he got Giuliani to do it. He also brought then-Attorney General Bill Barr into the Oval Office and “raised the possibility” of seizing machines, clearly hoping Barr would take a hint and do his dirty work for him. 

What Trump was doing isn’t mysterious. By leaning on underlings and insinuating orders rather than giving them directly, he’s setting his people up to take the fall if things go sideways. It’s a strategy that Trump has used his whole life to great effect. As his former lawyer/fixer Michael Cohen explained in his 2019 testimony before the House, Trump “doesn’t give orders. He speaks in code.” He lets his wishes be known and hopes that his minions take the hint. That way, if the law starts sniffing around, Trump can play innocent and pretend that his flunkies were self-directed. That is one reason why, for instance, Cohen went to prison for the Stormy Daniels pay-off scheme and Trump avoided legal jeopardy. 

RELATED: Trump’s trapped in his own bunker of fear — with his fan base of right wing cowards

As Henry Farrell of the Washington Post wrote, it’s “the way that Mafiosi speak to each other, to avoid trouble.” It’s how the entire Ukrainian blackmail scheme Trump got impeached over was conducted. Trump never came out and told the Ukrainian president that he was expected to make false accusations to smear Biden, or Trump would cut off military aid. It was much more of the “nice country you got there, shame if something would happen to it”-style of communication. 

Crucially, this latest story is a reminder of what a sniveling coward Trump is. He wants everyone else to take the risks for him, while he reaps all the rewards. This was most obvious on the day of the Capitol insurrection.

Trump promised his riled-up supporters that “I’ll be there with you” when they marched on the Capitol. But, the weenie that he is, he did no such thing. Instead, he sat in the safety of the White House, watching the insurrection gleefully on TV and egging on the rioters with his Twitter account. Now they’re all going to jail and he’s walking around free, making mostly empty promises of future pardons


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


Ultimately, Trump’s gutlessness worked against him in pulling off his coup. His tendency to insinuate his wishes rather than issue direct orders may shield him from accountability, but it also gives the people he’s leaning on an excuse to act like they don’t know what he’s asking of them.

For instance, one of Trump’s more direct actions during the attempted coup was to call Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, and ask him to “to find 11,780 votes.” He continued with this passive mobster talk throughout the call, saying, “So what are we going to do here, folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break.” Obviously, what Trump was doing was instructing Raffensperger to falsify these votes to steal the election. But Trump didn’t come right out and say it, so Raffensperger was able to play dumb throughout the call, brushing off Trump’s insinuated demands. 

Trump’s scheme to steal voting machines appears to run against the same problem. He wouldn’t come right out and tell anyone to seize the machines and destroy votes, and instead hid behind lackeys and insinuations about “fraud.” The result was that it was much easier for the federal officials he was leaning on to blow him off. He kept running against people who weren’t interested in sticking their own necks out to steal the election for him, and why should they? He didn’t even have the guts to ask them directly to do so.

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

Unfortunately, we can’t count on Trump’s cowardice to save us from his next coup, which is already in the works.

The last coup was chaotic and fast-moving, and largely centered on a handful of Trump stooges pressuring people who weren’t in on the conspiracy, weren’t stoked about taking the big legal risks being asked of them, or, in some cases, seemed genuinely confused about what they were being asked to do. In the past year, however, the entire Republican Party has had the time and mental space to figure out what, exactly, Trump is envisioning with all the hints he was dropping. And they’ve largely fallen in line, with state officials across the country piecing together plans to make Trump’s vision of a stolen election easier to pull off. He won’t be so hobbled by his lily-livered inability to give a direct order next time, because, frankly, he won’t have to. Unlike last time, most of the GOP knows what is expected of them, and they have the luxury of time to pull it off.

Trump’s gutlessness may have kept him from stealing the election, but it probably also helped him stay out of prison. And as long as he’s a free man, he will be able to try again — and this time, with an army of people who are ready to take the risks for him. 

Giada De Laurentiis’ bright lemon spaghetti is “one of the easiest pasta dishes you’ll ever make”

There comes a certain point in the winter where my brain suddenly switches from craving all things beige — chicken and dumplings, braised hunks of meat, mashed potatoes and gravy — to all things bright. This tends to manifest in rushed trips to the grocery store, where I linger in the produce aisle and leave with way too many blood and cara cara oranges. 

Thankfully, Giada De Laurentiis has made a dish that brings the distinctive acidic pop of lemon to an otherwise beige plate of pasta. Her lemon spaghetti is one of her most flavorful recipes, and De Laurentiis herself also calls it “one of the easiest pasta dishes you’ll ever make.”

RELATED: How to make the most out of blood orange season (because this fruit is literally edible sunshine)

As De Laurentiis writes on her website, her lemon spaghetti recipe was inspired by a trip to Capri, a “tiny island near Naples and the Amalfi coast is a paradise of ultra-blue waters, towering cliffs and colorful, seaside villas” (which sounds particularly appealing as I sit looking at a pile of re-frozen snow and sludge outside my Chicago apartment window). While traveling, she and her party stopped at a restaurant called Da Paolino, which is surrounded by more than 100 lemon trees. 

“Of course, when you’re surrounded by the sweet scent of fresh lemons, it’s all you can think about eating,” De Laurentiis writes. “So I ordered a simple spaghetti dish tossed with olive oil, parmigiana cheese, garlic and lemon from those gorgeous trees. One bite, and I was absolutely blown away by the balance of flavors. The salty cheese, tart lemon juice and fragrant lemon oil all combined to make the most addictive plate of pasta I’d ever had.” 

She continued, “I knew I had to figure out how to make it for myself.” 

Excluding cooking oil and salt and pepper, De Laurentiis’ version has a scant four ingredients: the juice and zest of two lemons, chopped basil, a pound of spaghetti and 2/3 cup of grated parmesan cheese. What’s the secret to turning that limited list of items into something cravable? Per De Laurentiis, there are two things to keep in mind while finishing the lemon spaghetti. 

“The secret for this dish is to really let the pasta sit for a few minutes in the lemon mixture, and be sure to add that pasta water,” she said. 

Well, what are you waiting for? You can get Giada De Laurentiis’ full recipe for lemon spaghetti here

If you’re looking for other easy-to-make dinners, consider one of these recipes from the Salon Food archives: 

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

Ron DeSantis accuses Democrats of trying to “smear” neo-Nazi rallies on him

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has accused his opponents of attempting to “smear” him after being called upon to condemn a neo-Nazi demonstration in Orlando this past weekend.

On Saturday, videos surfaced online of a small group of neo-Nazis chanting antisemitic slurs and holding up Nazi flags outside an Orlando shopping plaza. At one point, demonstrators reportedly engaged in a physical altercation with someone, though no arrests were made, according to deputies. A second gathering was reported at the Daryl Carter Parkway overpass on I-4.

https://twitter.com/WUTangKids/status/1487798584149958663

Though it’s been a full day since then, DeSantis has refused to condemn the demonstration as of this writing, despite calls from other lawmakers to do so.

“It should be easy, Ron,” tweeted Rep. Charlie Crist, a Democratic Florida gubernatorial candidate. “Condemn the Nazis.” 


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


RELATED: Why is the media reluctant to cover neo-Nazi violence?

During a Monday press conference, DeSantis alleged that Democrats” were attempting “smear me as if I had something to do with [the demonstration].”

“We’re not playing their game,” the governor added. 

DeSantis’ remarks came just day after his press secretary, Christina Pushaw, apparently downplayed the possibility that the demonstrators were neo-Nazis. 

“Do we even know if they are Nazis? Or is this a stunt like the ‘white nationalists’ who crashed the Youngkin rally in Charlottesville pretending to be Dem staffers?” Pushaw said in a since-deleted tweet. 

The press secretary was referring to a stunt staged by the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump GOP group, during a campaign event for then-Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin. The group had sent five people to pose a white supremacists holding tiki torches in front of a campaign bus – an apparent reference to the white nationalist “Unite the Right” rally organized in Charlottesville, Virginia back in 2017. 

https://twitter.com/CharlieCrist/status/1488308656596791297?s=20&t=4xKuEnOufQxQd0VUuTVG4w

After deleting the tweet, Pushaw said that she regretted “flippant” tone, arguing that the governor’s opponents were attempting to paint him as a “Nazi sympathizer.”

RELATED: DeSantis in hot seat after top aide pushes anti-Semitic conspiracy theory

It isn’t the first time Pushaw has come under scrutiny over concerns around antisemitism. In November, Pushaw criticized the rollout of Georgia’s vaccine passport program, the “Green Pass,” by invoking an antisemitic trope about the Rothschild family, a European banking dynasty dating back to the 18th century that has been scapegoated in a number of baseless right-wing conspiracies. 

“Georgia decided to enact a ‘Green Pass’ system (biomedical security state),” Pushaw tweeted. “Immediately after that, the Rothschilds show up to discuss the attractive investment environment in Georgia (lol). No weird conspiracy theory stuff here!”

The Anti-Defamation League wrote on Monday that it was “alarmed” that the press secretary “would first give cover to antisemites rather than immediately and forcefully condemning their revolting, hate-filled rally and assault.”

Making paneer at home is totally doable, promise

Considering that India is one of the largest milk producing countries in the world, it is rather surprising that it doesn’t have a major cheese-making culture. You won’t find stinky and moldy cheeses in the shops that line India’s busy, narrow streets — but almost every dairy shop carries paneer, an immensely popular fresh cheese. 

Paneer is such a dominant culinary symbol in India because, unlike other cheeses, it doesn’t require animal rennet. This makes it perfect for the predominantly vegetarian Indian diet. Paneer makes a great meat substitute in most Indian recipes, but even non-vegetarians like myself love it. From sweets, to fried snacks, to cream-drunk royal curries, paneer is used in North Indian dishes extensively. Its mild taste, texture (similar to that of halloumi or tofu), and capability to soak in flavors and withstand high cooking temperatures make it a household favorite. 

I like to compare this Indian cheese to the humble potato. On its own, a potato is rather bland. But when coupled with simple ingredients and cooked with the right technique, it is converted into irresistible dishes that the whole world loves!

What you need

For this paneer recipe, you need just two ingredients: two liters of fresh whole milk and two to three tablespoons of fresh lemon, vinegar, or lime juice. Essentially you just need something acidic and relatively mild in flavor to make curdled milk so that the fresh flavor shines through. You also need a few pieces of cookware, but nothing that you probably don’t already have on hand. Gather two deep, heavy-bottomed pots, cheesecloth or muslin, and a wooden spoon. 

The ingredients here are basic, but the methodology is important to follow for the best results. I’m sharing my own step by step technique for making paneer and a few tips I hope will help you get through paneer making. This paneer recipe will yield about one cup of cheese. Trust me: once you make paneer at home, you will never go back to store-bought.

***

Recipe: Homemade Paneer

Serves
2 

 

Ingredients

  • 2 liters fresh whole milk
  • 2 to 3 tablespoons fresh lemon or lime juice

 

Directions

  1. Things you will need: 2 deep, heavy-bottomed pans, cheesecloth or muslin, and a wooden spoon.
  2. Heat the milk in a pan over medium heat. Let it come to a gentle boil and stay there for a minute, making sure the milk does not boil vigorously. If it does, reduce the heat and bring the milk back to a gentle boil.
  3. Add one tablespoon of juice and quickly stir it in. At this point, you will start to see small curds in the milk, but no whey. Add another tablespoon of juice and stir. More curds will appear and you will slowly begin to see the greenish whey. Add the last tablespoon of juice and with this, you should be able to see a clear, greenish whey separating from the curds. Switch off the gas immediately at this point. Depending on the acidity of the juice, the amount of juice you require may differ. Start with one tablespoon at a time until you achieve the results.
  4. Once the curds and whey have separated, you’ll want to work quickly. Line another pot with double-layered cheesecloth, making sure the cheesecloth is long enough to be bundled up and hung later. Pour the contents of your pot into the cheesecloth to drain the whey and collect the curds. Wash the curds by running them under cold water to remove the lemon taste. 
  5. Tie up the cheesecloth in a tight bundle and let it drain for about 30 minutes. Then place weight on the cheese to get it to be flatter and drain out extra moisture. I generally place it between two cutting boards and set a heavy pot on top of them for 1 to 2 hours. Adding too much weight for too long will drain out too much moisture from the cheese, resulting in hard and crumbly paneer.
  6. Wrap your paneer and store it in the fridge for up to a week. I prefer to use it as early as possible.
  7. For use in curries, cut the paneer into evenly size cubes. You might want to trim out any irregular edges to get even cubes. 
  8. Note: Lately, I add a good pinch of salt to the milk for more flavor, but it is not essential. Other flavorings like cumin, herbs, and other spices can be kneaded into the curds before draining. Yogurt can be used in place of lemon for those with a sensitivity to citrus. About ¼ cup of yogurt should work for this recipe, but it will depend on the quality and sourness of the yogurt.

 

How to use paneer

Archana Mundhe’s Instant Pot Palak Paneer

“Cumin seeds add a subtle earthiness, and the creamy texture of cashews is the perfect replacement for traditional heavy cream, as it seamlessly balances the pureed sauce,” says recipe developer Archana Mundhe. You’ll find two methods for cooking palak paneer, with this one being the slightly lower-fuss version because it’s made in everyone’s favorite multicooker.

Saag Paneer

This is an Indian-style creamed spinach, which is studded with diced paneer cheese. A warm, peppery spice blend of cumin, coriander, mustard seeds, red pepper flakes, and cardamom make this decidedly *not* Betty Crocker’s version of the spinach side dish.

Palak Paneer

A traditional entrée in North Indian cuisine, palak paneer features a bold combination of spinach and paneer, plus onions, tomatoes, garlic, ginger, and garam masala. It comes together in 45 minutes and makes even better leftovers (with naan on the side, of course).

Instant Pot Pea and Paneer Curry

“This is a very traditional, very comforting dish for many who grew up in India. Once you taste it, you’ll see why: the creamy cheese, the tang of the tomatoes and onions in the sauce, the bright green peas that pepper it,” writes recipe developer Urvashi Pitre. She says you can also use frozen paneer, but why would you when you’ve just made a fresh batch?

Wordle was fun while it lasted

The New York Times giveth, and the New York Times taketh away. Kinda. In less than a month, the humble word game Wordle went from a glowing Times profile (“Wordle Is a Love Story,” Jan. 3) to the paper’s gloating announcement that it had acquired the game it just made a star in a seven-figure deal (“The New York Times Buys Wordle,” Jan. 31). And with that, I can stop playing. 

If it’s true that it takes 28 days to make a habit, the Times has — in addition to millions of dollars to offer our humble puzzle king Josh Wardle for his delightful creation — precision timing, considering its Jan. 3 story catapulted the three-month-old online no-frills puzzle with a cult following into cultural ubiquity, complete with knockoffs and a “Saturday Night Live” Trump/Fox News parody sketch, in the first place. It had 90 users in November, according to the Times, and now it has millions.

Wordle’s backstory — Wardle created the game for his partner, quite a romantic flex — was charming. The game, even more so. Everyone guesses the same five-letter word of the day in six tries or less. At the end you get a little grid to share your game, sans spoilers. It’s cute and novel, and it roared into popularity precisely at the right time for those of us shut in due to weather and the current COVID variant wave. 

RELATED: My virtual life as a jam maker in “Stardew Valley,” where small-batch food takes down Big Business

Wordle is pleasantly accessible for a word game, which is certainly a major part of its appeal. When everything around you is hard and has been for years, a little Wordle win is a modest daily feelgood hit. Being good at word puzzles isn’t even a requirement. You can approach Wordle with a strategy, but I don’t. The words are common. A lot of the game is luck. It’s fast, portable, and I can finish it over a cup of coffee, text my grid to my friends as a morning check-in, and be on my way.


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


Of course, Peak Wordle, with its swift Twitter and group chat ubiquity, received its own grumbling backlash within the 28-day timeframe as well. What doesn’t? People got snippy very fast about the preponderance of green and yellow squares on their Twitter timelines, as is their unquestioned right. We’re all snippy about something on our timelines. (Me: Ennui monkey jpegs priced like real estate.) But even the grumbling was kind of innocent. After all, Wordle wasn’t trying to sell us anything. No brands involved; no messaging attached. I didn’t have to fear it would somehow try to overthrow the government or practice eugenics or get books banned. Joe Rogan couldn’t ruin it if he tried. The big complaint? “I don’t like looking at green squares.” That’s so cute!

Nothing gold can stay, Pony Boy. First came the Times’ ominous promise that “the game would initially remain free to new and existing players,” emphasis mine. We all know what that means! But in Wardle’s subsequent announcement of the sale, he appeared to clear this up: “When the game moves to the NYT site, it will be free to play for everyone…” So OK, crisis averted — but the rather modest overall point still stands.

Look, I don’t blame Wardle for selling his game. This is a guy you want to see make millions on his pure and sweet creation! A corporation compensated a creator fairly, it seems, for his work and that’s undeniably better than the alternative. This is, forgive the terrible pun, a classic “don’t hate the player, hate the game” situation. I’m a New York Times news subscriber and I do not begrudge them their profits or their subscriber base. But can I also say? It’s still a little depressing when an enjoyable independent creation gets gobbled up by a behemoth that will remove it from its lo-fi little dot-co-dot-uk frame and position it as bait to convert players to Times Puzzle subscribers or whatever. It’s not all or nothing: I can be happy for Wardle and a little sad for the loss of my own experience all at once. 

Because engaging with a big brand is a different experience. I’m no purist; I do it all day. But part of the joy I took in Wordle was its anachronistic lack of branding and growth strategy. And that’s probably over. Now Wordle has nowhere to go but up and out, baby. Even if in-app purchases aren’t coming tomorrow, is it only a matter of time before we’re recapping eight seasons of a gritty prestige drama about a programmer tormented with visions of cryptic green blocks that could be the keys to unlock her mysterious past? And that spawns a Wordle cinematic universe, tentpole movies and quirky spinoffs, podcast tie-ins, IP novelizations written entirely in five-letter words? Unauthorized stuffed green blocks dangling among the off-brand plushie prizes at the state fair midway now feels inevitable. 

I’ve learned my lesson. Don’t get attached. I’m staying lower than lo-fi with my games from now on. A brilliant friend of mine — he’s nine — plays a variant called “Wordle in Your Head.” He thinks of a five-letter word, and you guess. He replies with your progress: green, gray, gray, yellow, gray. So far, he hasn’t charged a dime. 

More Salon stories about games: 

How to make the stickiest sushi rice

When you bite into a sushi roll filled with imitation crab, shrimp tempura, or creamy avocado, one of the things that stands out is the sushi rice. It’s sticky, tender, and absolutely not bland. “Traditional sushi chefs spend years practicing and perfecting the art of making sushi rice,” write Marc Luber and Brett Cohen in “Stuff Every Sushi Lover Should Know.” “It’s a simple process that takes time to master in order to create the right balance of consistency, texture, and flavor.” So what’s the secret to perfect sushi rice? It’s a combination of the right tools (ideally in a rice cooker), the right type of rice (hint: it’s short-grain white rice), and the right seasonings (rice vinegar and a little bit of sugar). Here’s how to make it.

What you need

The rice cooker

You definitely do not need a rice cooker to follow our sushi rice recipe. Is it useful to have one? Will it yield better rice? Possibly. So here’s our advice: Try the stovetop method first. If you like the results, there’s no need for a rice cooker. However, if it doesn’t quite do it for you, or you really find yourself making sushi rice all the time, then a rice cooker may be worth the investment.

Better yet, buy an Instant Pot, which has rice cooker capabilities (in addition to pressure cooking, slow cooking, yogurt making — the list goes on and on).

Rice paddle

A rice paddle, or shamoji, is a type of spoon used in East Asian culinary traditions to stir and smooth rice. The reason why they’re so great is that they’re nonstick, so you don’t have to worry about the rice clumping or sticking to the surface. Can you get away with making sushi rice without using a rice paddle? Absolutely. Is it helpful to have one? Also, absolutely. Fortunately, they’re inexpensive and will fit in your utensil crock or drawer, so it’s not a huge burden to purchase one if you want to improve your technique.

Rice vinegar

There’s a 50/50 chance that you have rice vinegar in your pantry. If you do, use what you have. There’s no need to buy specialty vinegar to make sushi rice. However, if you don’t have any, here’s a tip that will help you choose the best kind: “Avoid ‘seasoned’ rice vinegar for this sushi rice recipe, which already has sugar added. Using unseasoned allows you to control the sweetness of your rice,” according to Luber and Cohen.

How to make sushi rice

Step 1: Rinse the rice

There are well-worn debates on whether or not you should rinse the rice, and truthfully, there’s no definitive answer. It really depends on the texture that you’re trying to achieve. For perfect sushi rice, you should rinse the grains before cooking. This ensures that the rice does not clump and removes any natural residue. To rinse rice, fill a bowl with cold water and add the rice. Swirl it around a few times until the water begins to turn cloudy, and then strain it through a fine-mesh sieve. “A good rule of thumb is to wash once for each cup of rice you are using,” Luber and Cohen say.

Step 2: Cook the rice

Making sushi can be a somewhat meditative process, so cooking the rice should be the same thing. No need to panic. Use equal parts of short-grain rice and water to cook sushi rice, whether you’re using a rice cooker or the stovetop method. To cook sushi rice in a rice cooker, place the rinsed rice and water into a rice cooker and let it soak for 10 minutes. Turn the rice cooker on and cook the rice according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

To cook sushi rice on the stovetop, add the rinsed rice and water into a small saucepan and soak for 10 minutes. Next, turn the stove to high heat and cook the rice, uncovered, until it comes to a simmer. Once it’s simmering, cover the pot and reduce the heat immediately to the lowest possible setting. Continue simmering gently for 20 minutes. Once the 20 minutes are up, remove the pot from the heat (but keep the lid on!) and let it sit for 10 minutes to steam and get fluffy. Why is this last step necessary? “Because the thing is, it’s not just water that cooks rice; it’s the steam you build up in the pot as well. Which is why a properly cooked pot of rice needs less water than you might realize, especially if what you’re after is perfectly sticky (but still individual, separated, not-mushy) grains,” writes former Food52 editor Eric Kim.

Step 3: Making the seasoning

What makes sushi rice so flavorful is a combination of vinegar, sugar, and salt. For a single serving (1/2 cup) of sushi rice, Kim likes to use 2 teaspoons rice vinegar, 1 1/4 teaspoons granulated sugar, and 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt. Combine all three ingredients in a small bowl until the sugar has dissolved, then fold it into the cooked sushi rice.

Luber and Cohen like to cook the vinegar mixture over medium heat, which allows the sugar to dissolve more quickly and brings out the sweetness of the sushi rice. If you do cook it on the stove, be sure to let it cool to room temperature before adding to the cooked rice. Pro tip: “Don’t pour all the liquid at once, because it will cause the rice to clump; try to distribute it evenly,” they say.

***

Recipe: Seasoned Sushi-Grade Salmon with Warm Sushi Rice

Yields
1 servings
Prep Time
20 minutes
Cook Time
20 minutes

Ingredients

Warm sushi rice

  • 1/2 cup short-grain white rice, rinsed and drained
  • 1/2 cup water
  • 2 teaspoons rice vinegar
  • 1 1/4 teaspoons granulated sugar
  • 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt, plus more to taste

Seasoned salmon

  • 4 ounces sushi-grade salmon, thinly sliced (see Author Notes)
  • 1 scallion, thinly sliced
  • 1 small bundle cilantro stems, thinly sliced
  • 1 teaspoon soy sauce
  • 1 teaspoon rice vinegar
  • 1/4 teaspoon toasted sesame oil
  • 1 teaspoon capers
  • Freshly ground black pepper

Directions

  1. Cook the rice: (Rice-Cooker Method) Place the rinsed rice and water into a rice cooker and let soak for 10 minutes. Turn the rice cooker on and cook the rice. (Stovetop Method) Place the rinsed rice and water into a small pot and let soak for 10 minutes. Cook over high heat, uncovered, until it comes to a simmer, then reduce heat immediately to the lowest possible setting on your stove and continue simmering gently, covered, for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, remove from heat and let sit, still covered, for 10 minutes to steam and get fluffy.
  2. Meanwhile, in a small bowl, dissolve the sugar and salt into the vinegar. As soon as the rice is done (and still hot), quickly but gently fold in the seasoned vinegar until thoroughly mixed. Set aside, covered, until ready to eat.
  3. Season the salmon: Directly on the cutting board where you’ve thinly sliced the salmon, scallion, and cilantro stems, sprinkle the fish with the soy sauce, vinegar, and sesame oil and toss together with your fingers.
  4. Assemble the bowl: Place the sushi rice into a bowl, then top with the seasoned salmon. Garnish with the scallion, cilantro, capers, and black pepper.

In super-vaxxed Vermont, Covid strikes — but packs far less punch

Even Eden, a snow-covered paradise in northern Vermont, is poisoned by omicron.

The nearly vertical ascent of new coronavirus cases in recent weeks, before peaking in mid-January, affected nearly every mountain hamlet, every shuttered factory town, every frozen bucolic college campus in this state despite its near-perfect vaccination record.

Of all the states, Vermont appeared best prepared for the omicron battle: It is the nation’s most vaccinated state against covid, with nearly 80% of residents fully vaccinated — and 95% of residents age 65 and up, the age group considered most vulnerable to serious risk of covid.

Yet, even this super-vaxxed state has not proved impenetrable. The state in mid-January hit record highs for residents hospitalized with covid-19; elective surgeries in some Vermont hospitals are on hold; and schools and day care centers are in a tailspin from the numbers of staff and teacher absences and students quarantined at home. Hospitals are leaning on Federal Emergency Management Agency paramedics and EMTs.

And, in a troubling sign of what lies ahead for the remaining winter months: about 1 in 10 covid tests in Vermont are positive, a startling rise from the summer months when the delta variant on the loose elsewhere in the country barely registered here.

“It shows how transmissible omicron is,” said Dr. Trey Dobson, chief medical officer at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center, a nonprofit hospital in Bennington. “Even if someone is vaccinated, you’re going to breathe it in, it’s going to replicate, and if you test, you’re going to be positive.”

But experts are quick to note that Vermont also serves as a window into what’s possible as the U.S. learns to live with covid. Although nearly universal vaccination could not keep the highly mutated omicron variant from sweeping through the state, Vermont’s collective measures do appear to be protecting residents from the worst of the contagion’s damage. Vermont’s covid-related hospitalization rates, while higher than last winter’s peak, still rank last in the nation. And overall death rates also rank comparatively low.

Children in Vermont are testing positive for covid, and pediatric hospitalizations have increased. But an accompanying decrease in other seasonal pediatric illnesses, like influenza and respiratory syncytial virus, and the vaccinated status of the majority of the state’s eligible children has eased the strain on hospitals that many other states are facing.

“I have to remind people that cases don’t mean disease, and I think we’re seeing that in Vermont,” said Dr. Rebecca Bell, a pediatric critical care specialist at the University of Vermont Health Network in Burlington, the only pediatric intensive care hospital in the state. “We have a lot of cases, but we’re not seeing a lot of severe disease and hospitalization.”

She added, “I have not admitted a vaccinated child to the hospital with covid.”

Vermont in many ways embodies the future the Biden administration and public health officials aim to usher in: high vaccination rates across all races and ethnicities; adherence to evolving public health guidelines; and a stick-to-itiveness and social cohesion when the virus is swarming. There is no “good enough” in Vermont, a state of just 645,000 residents. While vaccination efforts among adults and children have stalled elsewhere, Vermont is pressing hard to better its near-perfect score.

“We have a high percentage of kids vaccinated, but we could do better,” said Dobson.

He continues to urge unvaccinated patients to attend his weekly vaccination clinic. The “first-timers” showing up seem to have held off due to schedules or indifference rather than major reservations about the vaccines. “They are nonchalant about it,” he said. “I ask, ‘Why now?’ And they say, ‘My job required it.'”

Replicating Vermont’s success may prove difficult.

“There is a New England small-town dynamic,” said Dr. Tim Lahey, director of clinical ethics at the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington. “It’s easy to imagine how your behavior impacts your neighbor and an expectation that we take care of each other.”

While other rural states in the Midwest and South have struggled to boost vaccination rates, New England, in general, is outpacing the pack. Behind Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, and Connecticut have the highest percentage of fully vaccinated residents in the country.

“It’s something beyond just the size,” said Dr. Ben Lee, an associate professor at the Robert Larner, M.D. College of Medicine at the University of Vermont. “There is a sense of communal responsibility here that is a bit unique.”

In a state with the motto “Freedom and Unity,” freedom has largely yielded to unity, and the state’s pandemic response has been met with eager compliance. “The general attitude here has been enthusiasm to be safer,” said Lahey.

Lahey credits the state’s Republican governor, Phil Scott, who has been “unambivalent about pro-vax messaging.” Combined with a “tendency to trust the vaccine, you get a different outcome than in places where political leaders are exploiting that minority voice and whipping people up in anger.”

Vermont’s medical leaders are advising state leaders to shift from a covid war footing — surveillance testing, contact tracing, quarantines, and lockdowns — to rapprochement: testing for covid only if the outcome will change how doctors treat a patient; ceasing school-based surveillance testing and contact tracing; and recommending that students with symptoms simply recuperate at home.

Once the omicron wave passes and less virus is circulating, Dobson said, a highly vaccinated state like Vermont “could really drop nearly all mitigation measures and society would function well.” Vermonters will become accustomed to taking appropriate measures to protect themselves, he said, not unlike wearing seat belts and driving cautiously to mitigate the risk of a car accident. “And yet,” he added, “it’s never zero risk.”

Spared the acrimony and bitterness that has alienated neighbor from neighbor in other states, Vermont may have something else in short supply elsewhere: stamina.

“All of us are just exhausted,” said Lahey, the ethics director. But “we’re exhausted with friends.”

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.