Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

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

Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., is getting divorced after just eight months of marriage.

The Congressman made the announcement on Twitter Wednesday evening, writing in a statement that he and his wife, Cristina Cawthorn, “realized that balance was not attainable, and that we had irreconcilable differences between us.”

Rep. Cawthorn, 26, was one of the youngest legislators ever elected when he won his race last year. He and his wife tied the knot in April, with the first-term lawmaker saying at the time that it was the “greatest honor, privilege and adventure” of his life.


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


But the life of a Congressman was apparently much more difficult than the pair expected.

“When my wife Christina and I were engaged, I was not a member of Congress,” Cawthorn said in the statement Wednesday. “I felt called to serve and we both agreed that I should run. Our victory was unprecedented. But overnight, our lives changed.”

“That change has been both hectic and difficult. It’s neither the pace nor the lifestyle we had planned for.”

Rep. Cawthorn has a long history of advocating for strict gender norms and traditional family structures — and his divorce announcement comes just days after Rep. Cawthorn advised a conference of young conservatives to drop out of school and marry young. 

More stories like this:

If you’ve never had fresh panettone — you’ve never really had panettone

As a child of the Midwest suburbs, my first introduction to panettone, a traditional Italian holiday bread, was definitely within the aisles of a T.J. Maxx. Starting in early November, tall boxes, often in jewel or metallic tones with a little ribbon affixed to the top as a sort of handle, begin to pop up on the department store’s shelves. They remain there in the holiday rotation until they’re slowly pushed out for Valentine’s Day candy

While panettone of this provenance has its fans, there are inevitable detractors — and they’ve got jokes. “Moist and fresh is a bit of a stretch,” one Twitter reviewer wrote, referring to a slogan on the bread’s packaging. Some provided riffs on Johnny Carson’s classic “There’s only one fruitcake in the world” bit, while one blogger described it as tasting like air freshener. 

I wouldn’t go quite that far, but there is something artificial-tasting about the department store (and even some of the supermarket) varieties. I would hear and see people rave about their annual panettoni, but the few that I had purchased off the shelves had a dry exterior and a crumb that flaked into cardboard-like strips when cut. “Just must not be for me,” I thought. 

Well, I thought wrong. 

This year, I enjoyed a pair of fresh panettoni — made in Arzignano, Italy, and imported within two days — and I’m a complete convert. Bring on the panettone-themed earrings, sweatshirts and OPI nail polish. This is the Christmas dessert for me. The two that I had — a classic panettone packed with dried fruit and a chocolate chip-studded variety — were incredibly light and pleasantly sweet like an airy brioche. The aroma of candied citrus, butter and gently caramelized vanilla was immediately apparent upon opening the boxes. There was nothing heavy or artificial (read as: air freshener-like) about them. 

RELATED: Lidia’s chocolate chip cookies are an easy Italian spin on the classic

I spoke with lead pastry chef and bakery owner Nicola Olivieri of Olivieri 1882 about his process for making panettone and how his product differs from many of the shelf-stable versions found in the U.S. 

“The first and most important part of the panettone process is taking care of the lievito madre (mother yeast),” Olivieri said. “This is the base of our dough, and by extension, the base of our panettone. We have an entire team completely dedicated to taking care of it — it takes almost a full day to be ready for the panettone dough, and we mix it three times per day at a very specific temperature.” 

Once it is ready, Olivieri said, the first batch of dough is mixed. It then rests for about 14 hours in a fermentation room until it triples in volume. The dough goes back into the mixer with the remaining ingredients, such as dried fruit or chocolate. Once everything is well-mixed, it is allowed to rest. Then it is shaped and placed into a paper mold. 


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


“Then we let it rest again in the fermentation room at a low temperature for a full 24 hours,” he said. “This is followed by the scarpatura, a typical artisanal work which involves scoring the superior part of panettone in four parts as a cross. Then they go directly to the oven to bake. Once baked, they rest for 14 hours upside down to avoid collapsing due to the high amount of butter and the presence of only mother dough as a yeast.” 

According to Olivieri, since his panettone has that long fermentation time, it has a “really soft, fluffy texture that is completely different from the dense and often dry ones you find in department stores.” 

The difference in taste is immediately noticeable, as is the difference in price. You can sometimes find season-old bargain panettone at stores for as low as $1.99; Olivieri’s are around $75 each. Customers also need to plan on eating them within a few days of their arrival. Since they aren’t packed with preservatives, they won’t last forever. 

And indeed, after a few days, the lingering few slices began to slightly harden around the edges. No worries, though — that’s your cue to make panettone French toast, the ideal day-after-Christmas breakfast. 

More stories about holiday sweets: 

People who got sick after far-right conference claim it’s anthrax — not COVID-19

A number of people who attended a right-wing conference earlier this month are complaining that they’ve been the target of a biological weapons attack after suffering from symptoms like coughing, shortness of breath and fever — all of which are more commonly associated with COVID-19.

The wild claims of a potential anthrax attack began after a large group of high-profile conservatives attended a gathering in Dallas on Dec. 10 called the “Reawaken America” tour, VICE News first reported. It’s a traveling conspiracy theory bonanza, according to an analysis in The Guardian, bankrolled by top Trump donors that seeks to spread the former president’s supporters’ favorite conspiracies: industrial-scale 2020 election fraud, medical misinformation relating to COVID-19 and vaccines more generally, as well as Evangelical ministers spreading culture war gospel.

Conservative podcaster Joe Oltmann appears to be the source of this week’s anthrax claims — sharing the theory on his show, “Conservative Daily,” while visibly coughing and sneezing on a self-recorded video feed. Not once during the episode did he entertain the idea that he and several others who have reported symptoms had contracted COVID-19, which is surging nearly everywhere in the country. 

“There’s a 99.9% chance it’s anthrax,” Oltmann said, without providing any proof for the newsworthy diagnosis. 


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


Oltmann became a right-wing fixture this year for spreading unfounded claims of election fraud. His off-the-cuff style became a favorite of Rudy Giuliani, who admitted in court recently that a number of his claims came from Oltmann’s show. At one point, Giuliani even admitted that he did not bother to fact check any of the claims. 

“It’s not my job in a fast-moving case to go out and investigate every piece of evidence that’s given to me,” Giuliani said.

The “Reawaken America” conference’s other attendees were a who’s who of Trumpworld figures, including ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn, longtime GOP operative Roger Stone and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. The former president’s son, Eric Trump, even spoke at the Dallas event.

According to Oltmann, Texas-based inventor-turned-election conspiracist Jovan Pulitzer also came down with the same mysterious illness after attending “Reawaken America.” According to VICE, Pulitzer is perhaps best known for the creation of a widely mocked barcode scanner, which at one point made The Verge’s list of the 50 worst inventions ever made.

RELATED: Ron Watkins, who many speculate might be QAnon, eyes congressional run in Arizona

While Oltmann said he himself was “sick, sick,” it appears Pulitzer is even worse off — according to Oltmann nobody’s heard from him in days after suffering “body lesions and weeping skin.” Pulitzer resurfaced later on Twitter briefly to spread the theory that he had been the target of “biological agents.”

“To my friends tried to keep this under wraps until we knew what we were dealing with but Evidence suggest that several of us were targeted by biological agents at an event. This has wreaked havoc on my system all of the most dangerous symptoms appearing,” Pulitzer tweeted. “Scary to say the least.”

Oltmann also added during his podcast that he could have been worse off, but he was already taking the antibiotic doxycycline after accidentally impaling himself with an arrow at his brother’s house.

The outlandish claims that “Reawaken America” had been the target of a biological weapon spread rapidly, after signal boosts from several high-profile conspiracy theorists, including QAnon influencer (and current congressional candidate) Ron Watkins and professor-turned-election “fraud” expert David Clements.

Clay Clark, the lead organizer for “Reawaken America,” attempted to deny the claims Wednesday, but did little to stop speculation from spreading in far-right circles. 

RELATED: Dumbass nation: Our biggest national security problem is America’s “vast and militant ignorance”

“There was no anthrax at the event and we have sniffing dogs,” he told the Daily Beast, adding that he had hired a reputable security firm to sweep the venue ahead of time. “They bring in dogs that sniff and look for, you know these are well-trained dogs to look for any potential bio-weapons, drugs.”

He also added that similar incidents have happened at each of the “Reawaken America” tour’s stops — and that it didn’t phase him to be dealing with another conspiracy. 

“All I know is that we have done seven events of these so far, and at each event, people have claimed they have been attacked by a bio-weapon,” he said. “This is actually normal for me.”

Jan. 6 committee zeroes in on GOP congressmen

The House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has zeroed in on at least two House Republicans, with Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, becoming the latest on Wednesday when the committee called for his “voluntary cooperation” in their probe. 

Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., who is currently under federal scrutiny by the House committee investigating the Capitol riot, has already denied the panel’s request to sit down for an interview, calling the committee’s purpose “illegitimate.”

“I stand with immense respect for our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the Americans I represent who know that this entity is illegitimate, and not duly constituted under the rules of the US House of Representative,” Perry said in a statement. “I decline this entity’s request and will continue to fight the failures of the radical Left who desperately seek distraction from their abject failures of crushing inflation, a humiliating surrender in Afghanistan, and the horrendous crisis they created and refuse to address at our southern border.”

On Monday, committee chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss, asked Perry to sit down with the panel to discuss his apparent communications with Donald Trump and various Justice Department officials ahead of the Capitol riot. 

In a letter, Thompson alleged that the Pennsylvania Republican played “an important role” in Trump’s attempt to oust the then-acting attorney general, Jeffrey Rosen, with Jeffrey Clark, a lower-level agency official who was sympathetic to the former president’s claims of widespread election fraud.

RELATED: Top Senate Democrat calls for probe into DOJ lawyer following report on Trump’s pressure campaign


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


According to the Thompson’s letter, the select committee is “aware that [Perry] had multiple text and other communications with President Trump’s former Chief of Staff regarding Mr. Clark.” 

“We have information indicating that [Perry] communicated at various relevant times with the White House and others involved in other relevant topics, including regarding allegations that the Dominion voting machines had been corrupted,” the panel added. 

Back in October, Perry’s name was mentioned at least fifty times in a Senate Judiciary Committee report detailing Trump’s attempted weaponization of the Justice Department – a bid which ultimately fell apart. According to the committee’s report, Perry reportedly arranged a December 2020 call with Richard Donoghue, then the Justice Department’s second-in-command, asking the DOJ official to probe “things going on in Pennsylvania” with respect to alleged voting irregularities. Pretty also reportedly recommended that Clark be more involved in the agency’s probe of last year’s election results. 

It remains unclear whether the committee intends to subpoena Perry. 

Back in November, after multiple failed bids to sit down with Clark, the committee voted to hold the ex-DOJ official in contempt. Among those also under investigation include ex-Trump aide Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows, former White House Chief of Staff – both of whom have already been charged by the House with contempt of Congress. 

RELATED: Steve Bannon’s criminal indictment is the best thing that’s ever happened to him

There are some mysteries Patricia Cornwell, crime novelist and creator of Kay Scarpetta, can’t crack

More than 30 years after her debut — and five years after we last saw her in the bestselling novel “Chaos” — Dr. Kay Scarpetta is back in a big way. First, there’s “Autopsy,” the 25th installment in the acclaimed series. Then, there’s the long-awaited upcoming television adaptation, with Jamie Lee Curtis on board as producer. And the woman behind all the murder, mayhem and mystery is the Edgar and Sherlock Award-winning Patricia Cornwell. One of the true pioneers in modern crime fiction, Cornwell joined us recently for a Salon Talks conversation about solving crime in space, bringing Scarpetta to television and the one surprising mystery she can’t crack. Watch the video here, or read a Q&A of our talk below.

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

You have sold over 100 million books. Do you ever get tired of people saying that, Patricia?

No, but there are people who’ve sold even more than that. Agatha Christie is up in the billions now. How do you even fathom numbers like that? It’s weird. If you would have told me that in 1990, when “Postmortem” came out and the first printing was 6,000 copies, that I would sell that many books, I think I’d have been scared. I’m glad I didn’t know.


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


Which brings us to where we are now. After that last Scarpetta novel, “Chaos,” it seemed like the series was over. You said in 2019 you felt like you had gone as far as you could go with her. You’ve said that she “fired” you. What got her to rehire you?

The last couple of Scarpetta books I did, I’m always looking for the latest technologies out there and what she might confront. I was dealing with some high-energy weapon that was kind of simulating lightning strikes, all of which is a real thing. When I finished, I thought, “I don’t know what else to do with her, unless to send her to outer space.” I was saying that as a joke. I thought, “This has gone as far as I can go with this series, and it’s time to stop it. I need to quit it before it quits me.”

So I did. I quit. I never, ever planned to come back. If there had not been this pandemic, I would not have come back, because I’d gone on to other things. Then everything just came to a stop, including even in the publishing business. Everybody was being more tentative about making quick decisions about what’s going to be next, and also deep thoughts about what you want to spend the rest of your time on, especially in this world that has changed so dramatically. What matters to you? What’s meaningful?

RELATED: Harlan Coben on why even bestselling authors get those self-loathing writer blues

I went back to her. I thought, “If I’m going to try to speak through anybody now, I would like to work with her and see what she’s got to say and what she would do in this world that we’re living in.” The big thing that’s transitioned is that from the time I left five years ago to where we are today, we are up against enemies that are invisible in a way that we’ve never been before. Whether it’s cyber attacks or the Havana syndrome or high-energy weapons and visible things that are shooting at people, or viruses that some people don’t even believe are real and others wonder were created in a lab, certainly, anything can be weaponized.

Now Scarpetta is up against enemies that she can’t see, necessarily. That’s why she’s on this Washington Doomsday Commission, to help us anticipate the things that can be done and how we can prevent them, recognize them and deal with them. That would include an attack that’s not on the surface of this planet, that’s in outer space, where she can’t even be there, but she’s got to manage remotely. You’re dealing with what would seem to be an invisible enemy at first. Who did this, what is it, and what happened?

Knowing about how you returned to this character, it really seems that Scarpetta is on a similar track in this book. She is returning to something she thought she had maybe left behind. I’m wondering about that relationship between you and her, and if you felt the same way returning to her as maybe she feels in this book.

Yes, it’s interesting. I did not know this in the beginning of my career. No one ever told me that when you create a character, it creates you. It’s like any relationship that’s close. What you do affects the other, and what the other does affects you. So when I quit Scarpetta because I didn’t think I had anything else to say, she kind of quit me at the same time.

When she came back to Virginia in “Autopsy,” I had to go back to Virginia. This began several years ago. When I finished “Chaos,” at first I thought I was going to take Scarpetta back to Virginia, and I even went and did some research there. Then I decided I had nothing else to say. I actually tried to write a couple opening chapters, and then I thought, “I’ve got to let this go.”

Here’s the weird part. I’d been away from Virginia for decades, and when I went back and went to a medical examiner’s office or went to the police department, I realized, a lot of these people don’t know who I am any more. I’ve been gone so long. The series started so long ago. It was really a great thing because I got a feeling for what it’s going to be like for her, to go back where either people know who you are and they don’t want you back because you get in their way for some reason. They’re younger. They weren’t here when she was the chief long ago.

She feels very much like she did in the days of “Postmortem,” when she’d arrived in Richmond from Miami, taking over for a male chief medical examiner who was a drunk and never bothered showing up at crime scenes, and the cops had free run over everything. She showed up in town long ago and had real conflict on her hands. Now, thirty years later, she goes back to Virginia, but now she’s in northern Virginia. She’s chief again, and she is up against huge political obstructions, fiefdoms, networks and corruption, where the system that she had done so well with long ago has been run into the ground. There’s a lot of things that have been covered up.

That’s going to be fun going forward, because you’ve had 20 years of negligence in a medical examiner system, like I have fictionally in this particular scenario. There will always be room for other things that come creeping out of the woodwork that are not resolved or were lied about. The truth will come out eventually.

You’ve already got the next one in progress. Scarpetta is back. This is not a one-off.

No. She came back swinging. When “Autopsy” was over, it felt like she was going to be going off to the next thing.

Going away and learning something new, immersing myself in an entirely different universe and not going to the morgue, not going to forensic labs, but doing all the NASA and other research that I started doing, caused me to let something get its mojo back. It’s like rotating your crops, let the field get fertile again. I learned new things that I can apply to the forensic world and to death scenes — not only in outer space, but if we want to work on anything remotely anywhere, in addition to in your own backyard. She’s got a lot more tools in her little toolbox now.

It is so exciting to watch how excited you get talking about things you’ve learned in the last couple of years, taking this hiatus from Scarpetta and becoming immersed in this world of space. You went off and you started a new book series about that. Talk to me about how that spark began for you.

Ever since I was a little kid, I was interested in space stuff. I just didn’t really know that I was. For example, I have a little drawing I did when I was six years old because of John Glenn in a space suit standing next to a rocket, and there’s a little monkey there. In my childlike thinking, I thought the monkey and John Glenn would go together to keep each other company, which is not how that works. Why was I thinking about that way back then?

I remember my dad had a telescope. He always had telescopes. My grandmother gave us a toy when I was little called a Space Rider, which was a zipline. Back in those days, hardly anybody had anything like that. There were things in my background that harken back to this, like even seeing a helicopter at the bottom of the hill where I lived as a little kid, because Billy Graham had flown into town with Muhammad Ali or somebody. Here’s a helicopter in the 1960s sitting in the grass, and I’m looking at it like, “Holy smoke, what is this?” That was like a UFO back in the day. You didn’t even see those flying overhead back then.

I’ve always been intrigued by things, particularly machines and vehicles. Some of this I think I come by honestly. The reason I get excited is I love the stuff that’s going on out there and I want to learn about it, and then organize it into a story so you can show people the things you’ve experienced that are marvelous. They might be really scary, but they’re marvelous.

When you go in the morgue and you watch somebody look at the gastric contents in a murder victim and measure it, and then go get the meal that they ate before they died, and put that in a blender and measure it to see if it matches, because you have a theory that their digestion shut down because they were so terrorized before they ended up dying, as awful as it is, it fills you full of wonder at the human capacity to figure out the answers to questions that we must answer. We have to know why people died.

What is it about space? The answers to so much about everything down here have to do with up there. Some people might want it called heaven — the heavens, for sure. There have been theories for decades that life here started from somewhere else. Francis Crick, who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the double helix of the DNA molecule, wrote a paper in the 1970s theorizing that life on earth was planted by someplace else, some higher society. He bases this on the fact that the DNA of all living things on this planet is almost identical and had to have come from the same source. It’s up to anybody to figure out what that source might be.

I’m intrigued by all this. I grew up hearing about the Garden of Eden and heaven and birth and death. I’ve been studying death for decades — the end of existence, supposedly. All the while I’m doing that thinking, “No way. This isn’t right.” We don’t know enough about our reality, and we should learn more about it. We should also be open enough to perhaps embrace the idea that we’re not the only thing in the universe, and we need to get along with each other. Start with that, before we’re ever going to get along with anything else.

When I began doing this research about space, in addition to getting great ideas for stories, it changed the way I started thinking about everything. It gave me an understanding that there’s so much that doesn’t meet the eye. Why does it matter? Why do we have Space Force? What is it we’re so afraid of up there? It’s not somebody murdering somebody up there, like I might do in my books. It’s not extraterrestrials coming after us, because if they wanted to do that, they could’ve probably done that a long time ago. They’re probably a little bit smarter than we are.

It’s because of what people here do with every new territory, whether it’s John Smith going to Jamestown from England in 1607, or us going to the moon or space stations, Mars, who knows where. Where we go, we take who we are with us. Crime is already up there, and it’s going to get worse if we’re not careful about what we do and if we don’t develop our technologies and our military. The good guys must win. In the Bible, it talks about St. Peter and the gates to heaven. We have gates that are up there now, and there will be more of them. You want to make sure it’s the right St. Peter, so to speak, that’s got the keys to that, or we could be in big trouble down here.

Patricia, you are one of those people who really lit the match for a popular understanding of forensics and a popular fascination with forensic science. It was not like that 30 years ago at all in the popular imagination. Now I think a lot of us, and I include myself, think of ourselves as amateur crime aficionados.

There is a deeper understanding of the terminology, and so much of forensics has come into the common parlance. I’m wondering how that has changed in your relationship with your readers now, because there’s a deeper sophistication in the general population about crime solving techniques and the science of it.

I don’t know how it’s really changed things for the readers. I would think that those that like to read my books will always expect that there’s going to be some little strange something technologically that they don’t know about. It’s like an archeology dig. If you’ve ever been on one of those, it’s a most amazing thing when you find a little shard or a little piece of something, and then you find out what it means and where it came from and what it says about the people that lived and died there hundreds or thousands of years ago.

In forensics, it’s something simple. It’s like a a fleck of paint, and then you put it under a scanning electron microscope and you can see there’s ten layers to that paint because that car or something has been painted over and over and over. Now it has a unique signature, and you might even figure out where it came from. Then you know who hit that person. All these things where something small tells a really big story if you’re just willing to pay attention to it.

That’s what I think the readers always expect. In “Autopsy,” you have a laboratory analysis of some wine. I’m not going to say why, but there’s trace evidence, invisible stuff, all over the place. Microscopically, you’re looking at this and you’re saying, “Okay, I’m seeing paint that goes back to the 1500’s, because it’s not been made in a long time. I’m seeing hairs from a bat. I’m seeing this, and I’m seeing this.” It almost becomes like Dr. Seuss. It’s like, “Well, what the hell does that mean? Where did this come from?” You’ll find out because there’s a reason that all that stuff is in there.

And you keep us guessing until pretty much the last page.

That’s the whole fun of it. You have to manipulate all this so people go thinking this and thinking that, but always done in a fair way, because I don’t lie about what I’m showing to you. That stuff was definitely in there, but it may not necessarily mean anything, and then again it might. In Scarpetta’s case, she goes, “My house goes back to the 1700’s. Oh my God, is it possible that came from my own place?” That would not be good in this situation if that were true.

It’s just fun to go out and explore. What we’re doing is storytelling. I encourage everybody to be a storyteller, even if it’s just so you tell your kids stories. Your stories are poetry or paintings or drawings, movies. It could be a technical paper where you’re explaining how a rocket works, but it’s a story about how you’re supposed to understand this thing.

Stories are ways of our interpreting everything around us and translating this. It’s no different than going into a pyramid and seeing the hieroglyphics on a wall. It’s stories that help us understand our world and make sense of it, that tell us who we are and what we’re supposed to do and what to expect. That’s why I think we should be exploring and exploring and exploring, because the more we can find out about who we are as humans, the better we’re going to be and the happier we’re going to be.

This book is not the only way that we’re going to be seeing Scarpetta now. There are some other developments going on finally, after 30 years.

The best part about this is getting to work with Jamie Lee Curtis, because I personally just love her. She’s wonderful. I’ve known her for a few years. In fact, the very first time I ever laid eyes on her, we were both on “Good Morning America” together long ago. She was promoting one of her books, and I was promoting one of my books. I sent a book to her dressing room because I had always been a big fan, and she wrote me back this lovely letter. I’d never had anybody really do that before, this beautiful letter and calligraphy. I thought, “That’s a fine person.”

Then I got to know her, and now she’s the producer for the Scarpetta TV series. She just announced that she’s not playing Scarpetta. No doubt she’ll play something, but she’s more the producer. I don’t know who’s going to play Scarpetta yet. We’re in the very early stages. There’s a writer involved, beginning to build and figure out how to do this.

You talk about storytelling and the ways in which we tell our stories. One of the things people love about your books is the food. That is always a supporting star in your books. I’m wondering what it’s like when you’re writing so much about food. How does that impact the rest of your day? Do you just say, “I’ve got to shut the laptop now and go make some garlic bread“?

The garlic bread that Scarpetta serves towards the end of the book, there’s her secret recipe, and nobody knows what’s in that garlic bread. That is based on truth because Staci, my partner, she makes garlic bread. I’m telling you, it is the best thing you’ve ever tasted, and she won’t tell me. There’s some secret ingredient in it, and she hides it. I can’t find it in the cupboard. I don’t know what it is. She orders it. I have no clue.

I do know that if I start eating that garlic bread, like I started doing during the pandemic, all I can tell you is that one day I looked in the mirror and I said, “You didn’t get this way overnight, and you’re not going to un-get this way overnight after a year of tequila and garlic bread.” So I have been having to straighten myself out these last few months, getting ready for book tour.

I’ve just got to get this right in my mind: One of our greatest mystery writers doesn’t know how the garlic bread gets made in your own home?

I don’t know what she puts in it. But I’m telling you, if you ate it, you would not believe it. 

It’s a lot of butter, and there’s some Parmigiano Reggiano, I think. I don’t know. She uses a certain kind of bread. But there’s something there, I don’t know what it is, and she’s never going to tell me. That’s it. People, maybe when they get to the end of it, they can figure it out. Or maybe next year when we have a book come out, we can have a prize that Staci will send the garlic bread to somebody.

I want the next novel to just be about Scarpetta cracking the code of a garlic bread mystery.

I think Staci and Scarpetta are in some kind of conspiracy in the kitchen.

Part of it is it’s the ritual. It’s kind of like “The Sopranos.” My method is, you always end with everybody eating together. It’s where you kind of wind up a few little loose threads, and create a few new ones to go on for later.

But it is fellowship, where I’m basically saying to the reader, “We are all together. This is a party. If I could serve you this food myself to thank you for being here, wed all have dinner together.” Scarpetta makes things with her own hands and she pours it with her own hands, and she feeds you. That is part of the beauty, this woman who can cut open a body with her eyes shut, but yet there is that nurturing. She loves the life in front of her, and she takes care of it as best she can.

More of our favorite author talks: 

In George Clooney’s coming-of-age flick “The Tender Bar,” Ben Affleck provides the gooey center

George Clooney‘s career as a director has been uneven. After a rocky start with “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,” he knocked it out of the park with “Good Night, and Good Luck.” But most of his subsequent efforts, “Leatherheads,” “The Monuments Men,” “Suburbicon,” and “The Midnight Sky,” among them, failed to deliver on his promise. 

Clooney’s latest foray into directing, “The Tender Bar,” based on the memoir by J.R. Moehringer, is patchy too, but this warmhearted drama has an undeniably shaggy appeal. Clooney succeeds here because he is telling a personal story, even if it is one that is purely formulaic. “The Tender Bar” pushes all the expected emotional buttons, but it works — even when Clooney can’t resist the impulse to lay the sentiment on thick with a wistful voiceover, or a soundtrack of catchy too on-the-nose pop songs to tell viewers how to feel. 

The story is simple and hardly novel. JR (Daniel Ranieri as a child; Tye Sheridan as a teen) is a straight, white, working-class kid in 1973 Manhasset, who gets into Yale, realizing his mother’s (Lily Rabe) dream for him. (She also wants him to become a lawyer.) His DJ father, “The Voice,” (Max Martini) is a deadbeat dad. As such, JR gets life lessons from his caring Uncle Charlie (Ben Affleck). In college, JR falls in love with Sidney (Briana Middleton), a biracial lower-upper-middle class Yalie, and experiences heartbreak while also striving to become a writer. 

RELATED: With “Midnight Sky,” George Clooney directs a visually arresting, post-apocalyptic yawnfest

“The Tender Bar” is more gooey than edgy, and Clooney wisely lets the film unfold in an easygoing manner. Uncle Charlie’s bar, named “The Dickens” (after the author, natch), is an inviting place with a library of books and generous barflies who buy JR drinks. Uncle Charlie dispenses his street smart wisdom — “the male sciences” he calls it — to teach JR how to be a man. He also encourages him to read and become a writer. (Which of course, he does). A fun sequence has Charlie picking up his bar buddies to go bowling, and Charlie pulls away before the guys are seated in the back. In contrast, a telling scene has JR’s father taking his son for a ride, but the time they spend together in the car lasts less than it takes for JR’s dad to smoke a cigarette. 

The film is arguably better in its first half before JR goes to Yale. The exchanges between Charlie and JR are engaging and amusing, such as Charlie’s advice about “not keeping money like a drunk” (in one’s front shirt pocket) or watching Charlie battle wits with JR’s 5th grade school shrink. Affleck is channeling Clooney the actor here in this role — playing a wise, direct, and rascally character. Yes, Charlie suffers a hangover, and even gets punched in one scene (to show he isn’t perfect), but Affleck is relaxed and ingratiating here. His performance is never smug or smarmy. Moreover, Clooney gives Affleck room to just be and it is key to the film’s success. It is easy (and essential) to see why JR is so enamored with his uncle. As the young JR, Daniel Ranieri is a real find. He is at his best in a corny but clever scene late in the film where young JR converses with older JR. 

However, Clooney fumbles with his sense of timing. It is not just that the adult characters in the first half fail to age once JR becomes a teenager (Charlie sports a beard to signal the passage of time, but JR’s mother doesn’t seem to change). In addition, crosscutting to scenes of JR on a train to New Haven, and meeting a dyed-in-the-wool Irish priest (Billy Meleady), are mostly a way to provide some exposition about JR’s ambitions and love life.


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


JR’s relationship with Sidney, which is central to the second half of the film is also presented in a flawed manner. His romance is meant to be JR’s great (albeit first) love — and watching Sheridan’s face just light up when he sees her is magic. But their relationship is stop-and-start, and the heartbreak, which is meant to intensify, feels underdeveloped as the years pass. Viewers are more likely to take the narrator’s word for JR’s longing and loss than feel anything based on what is shown on screen. (Clooney jumps forward a few years here; it keeps the film from dragging, but it undercuts the emotional impact.) There is an awkward post-coital breakfast with Sidney’s uptight parents (Mark Boyett and Quincy Tyler Bernstine) that feels cliché, too.  But more importantly, the heartache JR feels for Sidney is not unlike — but also nothing like — the pain and anger he has towards his absent father. Still, it should have been stronger.

But “The Tender Bar” shines when JR scores a win when he feels down or undeserving. Sheridan makes his character sympathetic even when he lacks self-worth. (His college roommate, Wesley (Rhenzy Feliz) seems to exist to mostly boost JR up). Sheridan excels as playing insecure young men — see also “The Mountain,” “Detour,” and “The Night Clerk” — but he is in danger of getting typecast. 

Finally, Clooney may still be directing mediocre movies, but this melancholic coming-of-age film is more good than ambitious — and that may be why, even with its failings, “The Tender Bar” yields some modest pleasures.

“The Tender Bar” is now in theaters and will debut on Prime Video on Jan. 7. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube:

More stories you might like:

No one can say if “The Matrix Resurrections” is good or bad. Either way, it makes you think

Imagine this reviewer sitting across from you, stretching out her hand to offer the either-or choice that ensnared the imaginations of millions over the past 22 years.

As the scenario applies to “The Matrix Resurrections,” the question isn’t about a red “truth” pill or a capsule of beautiful blue lies, or whether the movie is good or bad, or whether it demands to be seen or skipped.

The script puts it succinctly: the choice is an illusion. You already know what you’re going to do. You may have even committed yourself to a passionate opinion about the film, sight unseen. The “Matrix” franchise has that effect on people.

What can be said is that the film is more successful in some of its aims than others, and feels more essential than 2003’s one-two punch of “The Matrix Reloaded” and “The Matrix Revolutions.” Eventually, however, it falls prey to the same design flaws that made them lesser works.

The TL;DR version of this review is this: “The Matrix Resurrections” is a better messenger and cultural analyst than a cinematic spectacle — playing with enough lofty concepts to be interesting, while falling short of living up to the hype.

RELATED: Why “The Matrix” is basically a sci-fi “Office Space”

Nevertheless, I appreciate Lana Wachowski’s defiance of any inclinations to see “The Matrix’s” world, or ours, in binary terms. Existence, in the world of “The Matrix,” is rarely defined so simply, which is why my initial distaste for it softened with deeper consideration. It may not deliver the original’s thrills, but at the least it’ll start some conversations.

It is up to you to decide if that is enough to lure you out to a movie theater in 2021.

When it was released in 1999, “The Matrix” was a stupendous, paradigm-shifting action fable, bringing all the explosiveness and scope of a space opera not merely to Earth, but into our cities and office spaces. It gave us a slick fantasy infused with mysticism, positing that capitalism’s toxic corporate system is a massive multiplayer role-playing figment built to enslave us, and that the machinery was built by machines.

Then it brought in the guns — so many guns — wielded by freedom fighters like Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) and Morpheus (played in the original trilogy by Laurence Fishburne), for whom the laws of physics no longer entirely applied. Characters preached about freeing the mind, ran up walls, leapt between skyscrapers and pulled off gymnastic feats all while carrying pounds of artillery and wearing heavy leather and latex.

Most importantly, the Wachowskis cast Keanu Reeves as a cubicle-dwelling computer programmer – otherwise known as a nerd – whose journey transforms him into a superhuman. What’s not to love?

Strip away the florid tech-speak and the dreamy philosophizing, all the gears and mechanics, and you’re left with the simple reminder that this is a perpetual love story — with Neo and Trinity finding and losing each other, time and again.

Since the original film came out, countless newer movies have given us their own versions of moody, destiny-linked romances. Likewise, you’ve definitely seen other versions of its action sequences. The groundbreaking effects and fight choreography in “The Matrix” created a new entertainment industry standard, pulsing through movies, TV shows and, naturally, video games. Now, even the film technology behind bullet time has become quotidian.  

In the second half of “The Matrix Resurrections,” these influences become a significance hindrance to its creative momentum. But the movie’s giddy metatextual embrace of its legacy has glimmers of greatness.

In the here and now, whenever that is, Neo re-emerges in the limiting everyman identity of Thomas Anderson, a man caught in his own existential wake-work-eat-sleep loop.

Like many of us, Mr. Anderson is over-medicated and insufficiently connected to reality, though substantially better off than most. He’s ascended beyond code monkey status to become a programming god at his old company MetaCortex, where he’s partnered with a slick suit named Smith (Jonathan Groff, channeling his “Hamilton” ruler-of-all-he-surveys vibe, but with less spit). Still, he’s not content, sensing that despite his fame and success, something is off.

And what Thomas Anderson’s defining achievement, his “Halo,” his “Minecraft”? A game called “The Matrix”.

Reeves’ hero has been claimed by various constituencies, from hipster outsiders to ground-down office drones, douchey tech bros quoting Jean Baudrillard to incels and, of course, Trump cultists.

When it comes to durable art, the element that make it universally celebrated also leave it open to endless interpretation. Even though Lana Wachowski and her sister Lilly (who is not involved with this film) designed “The Matrix” as an allegory for embracing one’s transgender identity, the filmmakers also knew the dominant cultural mores of 1999 would never allow the story to be overtly about that. The dulling toxicity of tech-enabled corporate hegemony is far more relatable.

But since Neo’s awakening to his true self has been claimed by disinformation peddlers and violent misogynists, Lana Wachowski and her co-writers David Mitchell and Aleksandar Hemon are obligated to respond about that. (Lilly already said her piece on Twitter in May 2020, and it gave us life.) That they do, playfully at first before showing their fangs later.

When Neo reconnects with Trinity she’s going by Tiffany, a suburban mom saddled with an undermining husband named –  ha! Chad.

This is the point where I’m obligated to say only as much as you need to know about the story to maintain the surprise of it all. But, seriously. Look at the fact that Neo/Thomas Anderson is back, as if his death didn’t end the machine wars in “Revolutions.” Or that Morpheus has returned and is now played by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II — but so has Niobe, and she’s still being played by Jada Pinkett Smith.

New characters like Jessica Henwick’s Bugs freshen up the premise, along with other necessary technological upgrades. Since nobody uses landlines anymore, the rebels have figured out other ways to enter and exit the system, which has evolved to be more efficient about capturing them. Other details intentionally recall the first trilogy, like Priyanka Chopra Jonas’ Sati, a role introduced in “Revolutions”; and one of several returning characters, including that portentous black cat that hints at deja vu.

To paraphrase  another property that owes its legacy to this one, the entire purpose of “Resurrections” is to remind the audience to never stop questioning the nature of their reality, including what fictions like this one tell you that it is.  

“Resurrections” at its best escalates the urgency of its examinations of corporate control to take on the dangerous commodification of ideas by those in power. And, it critiques the means by which feelings are exploited to destroy the value of facts.


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


Wachowski and her co-creators acknowledge the role “The Matrix” legend plays in that effort, expressly in an early act sequence splicing scenes from a brainstorming session on Neo’s team with frames from his personal life.  

As each programmer parrots some Reddit-board interpretation of “The Matrix”, Reeves’ hero sneeringly bites into a bloody delicious steak of ignorant bliss. Or he glumly takes the medication prescribed to him by his analyst (Neil Patrick Harris); you can probably guess what color those pills are. One dialogue exchange implies the audience is in The Matrix alongside them. All the while they cycle back to the refrain of, “What made ‘The Matrix’ different? It f***ed with your head.”

We get it: The Wachowskis proposed The Matrix. The many-headed monster of capitalism realized its core aspects, and consumers skinned it to represent whatever they needed it to be.

But most filmgoers don’t go to the movies to see polemics against disinformation peddlers and neo-fascism. They want to have their mind blown again, and differently, with visuals that step up the original’s next-level aesthetics.

That places a gargantuan expectation upon “Resurrections” that it doesn’t exceed or adequately meet. In the same way “Reloaded” and Revolutions” are shaped by Agent Smith’s greedy credo of more and more, always more, the nitro-boosted battles overwhelm the tail of the story, numbing its mad dash toward a climax that’s more satisfying in concept than in its emotional tactility. Once guns are drawn and the fists start flying, this installment falls right back into the franchise’s old habit of slipping on its carpet of spent ammo casings.

Overload isn’t the only means by which “The Matrix Resurrections” fails to prevent itself from becoming a pop culture ouroboros. Every action sequence hearkens back to a recent movie channeling something from the original trilogy.  When a character marvels, “I’ve never seeing anything like this before,” you should be forgiven for thinking, “Oh, yes I have.” Every zombie slaughterfest, every Marvel Cinematic Universe or DC Comics superhero team up, every “John Wick” punch-a-thon has pulled off what “Resurrection” serves up, and with more panache.

That’s the challenge of creating a popular mythology, isn’t it? Any product emerging after the original is more likely to be the victim of its ubiquity than resetting the bar. Perhaps this chapter is meant to grab the nostalgia we assign to these stories by the shoulders and shake it around, as if to yell, “Wake the hell up.”

Then again, since the entire point of the story is that our brains are hooked on what this system has been feeding it for years, disappointment is baked into the game. And what is disappointment, if not a state that shatters the good-bad binary? Like “The Matrix Resurrections,” it speaks to that itchy spot out of reach between unqualified success and absolute misfire. Being neither and both makes it worth a good think.

Believe me, or don’t. You’ll just have to see for yourself.

“The Matrix Resurrections” is now playing in theaters and available stream for a limited time on HBO Max.

More stories you might like:

“The King’s Man”: Come for the goofy revisionist history, but stay for scenery-chewing Rasputin

“The King’s Man” — an “origin story” for the previous two films in the “Kingsman” series — is a dumb bit of fun, a revisionist history of WWI told in a nimble, comic-book style. At times it is perhaps too comic; Tom Hollander’s sneering Kaiser Wilhelm is like something that snuck in from the Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker spy spoof, “Top Secret!” And then there is Rasputin (Rhys Ifans) who is deliciously over-the-top, albeit in a pretty spectacular way.

This is not to say that the film, directed and cowritten by Matthew Vaughn, who helmed the two previous entries, is not without serious moments. The horrors of WWI battlegrounds are vividly shown, and the film certainly tries to be respectful to the lives that were lost and could have been saved during the Great War. But even as this film provides lessons about privilege and responsibility, as well as reputation vs. character — the former is what others think you are, the latter is what you are — “The King’s Man” really just wants to feature as many souped-up fight scenes as possible, and some of the action set pieces are fantastic. 

But first some backstory. “The King’s Man” opens in 1902, South Africa, where a tragedy befalls Orlando Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) and his young son, Conrad (Harris Dickinson). The episode prompts Orlando to protect his only child who, 12 years later, insists on serving in the war after Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (Ron Cook) is assassinated. But Orlando is a gentle man, a pacifist, and cannot allow his son to see battle, even when he is of age to enlist. 

RELATED: 20 epic fails from the history of pop culture

The film pits the three cousins, King George of England (Tom Hollander), Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany (Tom Hollander) and Tsar Nicholas of Russia (Tom Hollander), against each other. However, it is really a cadre of baddies, led by a mysterious Scotsman, who is pulling the strings. One of the evildoer’s henchmen is the Gavrilo Princip (Joel Basman) assassin of the Archduke. Another is Rasputin, who has Tsar Nicholas under his spell.

Vaughn provides a glossy historical fiction that places Orlando and Conrad in the carriage when the Archduke and his wife, Sophie (Barbara Drennan) are shot. It also involves the Oxfords conning their way to a Christmas party to do in Rasputin, who has a taste for sweet cakes and sweet boys. (The homophobia here is cringey, but so too is Rasputin). Orlando’s plan is for Conrad to be the bait to get Rasputin to eat a poisoned cake. Yet the film twists this so Orlando is in a private room with Rasputin, with his trousers off, and the Russian mystic trying to heal the injured Orlando getting incredibly close to his manhood. It’s a sight to behold because Ifans goes wild — not just in that moment, but with the action that comes next. Suffice it to say, Rasputin dances like a whirling dervish, fighting any comers, and, as legend dictates, is immune to most attempts on his life. It’s a rollicking sequence and the highlight of “The King’s Man.”

Alas, the film has more than an hour to go when this bit is over, and the film gets sluggish as Conrad asserts his independence and enters the war against his father’s wishes. This stretch of the film sets up the big climax, but the more interesting part involves not Conrad’s experiences dodging bullets on the battlefield, but Polly (Gemma Arterton), Orlando’s trusty assistant, breaking coded messages from Germany by using a network of well-placed domestics. This kind of quiet subversive spycraft is fun, but a subplot about Mata Hari (Valerie Pachner) seducing President Woodrow Wilson (Ian Kelly) to blackmail him — is silly. Still, it gets Orlando, Polly and Orlando’s right hand man, Shola (Djimon Hounsou), to recover the cinematic proof of Wilson’s assignation in the Scotsman’s mountain lair where adorable goats are being raised to make the softest, rarest cashmere. 

“The King’s Man” starts to get far-fetched and exhausting at this point, and then it includes a death-defying airplane adventure and a mountaineering sequence that lead up to the final showdown with the obvious, nefarious villain. Vaughn tries to go to extremes with these scenes, but they just scream CGI. Such visual gimmickry is better used earlier in the film, when a character on a ship is killed by a torpedo from a nearby submarine. Vaughn uses a nifty tracking shot to show what will happen right before it does. As for the various fight scenes the ones involving gunfire feels telegraphed whereas the swordplay sequences are far more exciting and believable.


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


While the film is not meant to be an actor’s showcase, Ralph Fiennes does justice to his part, providing an air of sophistication that grounds the film in chivalry. (It’s not for nothing that the characters have code names that derive from the legend of King Arthur). Gemma Arterton is plucky as Polly, who is smarter than most of the men, but Djimon Hounsou is underserved in the Magic Black Man role. (His code name, of course, is Merlin). Harris Dickinson, who is generally magnetic on screen, oddly fails to make much of an impression here. It may be that his role is one note, but he should have a bit more spark. In contrast, Rhys Ifans gives a commanding performance, and not just because his Rasputin is a towering figure. Ifans chews the scenery like Rasputin chews the poisoned cake, in great big bites, letting the crumbs fall as they may. In support, Tom Hollander seems to enjoy playing three great European leaders, even if he is best at playing King George. 

“The King’s Man” is a goofy, but that is part of what makes it a good time. It delivers, even if it doesn’t go wholly according to plan.

“The King’s Man” is in theaters beginning Wednesday, Dec. 22. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube:

More stories you might like:

Republican Congressman publicly admits regret for voting to overturn 2020 election

Only hours after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump seeking to overturn the 2020 election, Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) voted to back the insurrectionists by voting against certifying the vote.

Now Rice is the first Republican to go on record voicing regret for his vote, Politico reported Wednesday.

“In retrospect, I should have voted to certify,” Rice said. “Because President Trump was responsible for the attack on the Capitol.”


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


“In the wee hours of that disgraceful night, while waiting for the Capitol of our great country to be secured, I knew I should vote to certify. But because I had made a public announcement of my intent to object, I did not want to go back on my word. So yeah, I regret my vote to object,” Rice explained.

Rice said Trump “did nothing to stop it” from the safety of the White House.

“There was a coward in that equation, but it wasn’t Mike Pence,” he argued.

More news from the Jan. 6 committee:

Best of 2021: I shaved my legs like I found love: On body hair, Inauguration and a new day rising

I have to start this off by getting a few things off my chest. Let me get my razor.

My mother gave birth to me in January of 1979, the year of the goat — goatee, in my case. She said I was the hairiest thing she had ever seen. A whopping 23 inches, nine pounds and enough ounces to rid her of any desire to have another fur ball come out of her body.

Through the years, my head of thick hair was met with tension and much reservation. The work of it was treated as a burden: the parting, the slabbing sulfur-scented grease to scalp for detangling, the heat pressing into a more manageable texture. I was a tomboy who prided herself on keeping up with the boys, no matter how my edges or bangs lifted in defiance of my mother’s hard work and secret hope for daughterly good behavior. When I was 17 she had to threaten me to sit for a makeup demo in a mall department store. The “how to shave” conversation was one we never had. I couldn’t sit still for it.

RELATED: Women stop shaving for “Januhairy” and the backlash is all too predictable

It wasn’t until college that I began to feel I had an obligation to pursue beauty. I had a crush on a guy from New Jersey, and he told me, unapologetically, “You’re cute, but you need to shave your legs.” I took it like a prescription. Next thing I knew I was in the hair removal aisle in the store, trying to decide if it was best to shave, wax, or let my body hair melt off. Thank God a dear friend clued me in on how to avoid making this new activity a new full-time gig: I could slack during the winter months, but only if I were single. Body hair removal was my gateway drug to other beauty to-dos. But as time pressed on, it became less of a standard I felt like keeping. As life would unfold, a myriad of unfortunate events (mostly via bad choices) left me wearied of maintaining beauty standards only to be heartbroken by a beast.

Fast forward to Inauguration Day, 2021. Kamala Harris walks down the Capitol steps at 11:11 Eastern Standard angel appointed time. Before her, Michelle Obama blew us away, so doused in regality I almost forgot the man next to her was the former president. I felt the wave of sentiment that many Black women shared through text messages, phone conversations, social media posts, and private joy — we were in awe of seeing Black women on this stage, sharing this moment.

And after Kamala took her oath, I felt the sudden urge to shave my legs. 

RELATED: Kamala Harris: Most powerful vice president since Richard Nixon. Yes, really

And so I write this from my bathtub in shallow water, somewhat single, and with deep regard for skin that looks like my own. It may send a wave of judgment from hairless cat-skinned readers or maybe even a few hairy sisters who pride themselves on their fur sleeves, pants and chin straps, but this is my body, my choice, and my five-blade shaver. Move over Beyoncé and Nicki, Kamala and Michelle have me feeling myself. Shaving my legs is my own crash course in the oral history of my Black womanness and the beauty I have ignored. 

As the shaver contours my legs, I am reintroduced to old scars: mosquito bites from cookouts, old nicks from rushing past sharp-edged tables and shaving too fast in the winter. There are my moles, birthmarks shaped like butter beans because my Mom said she used to crave them when she was pregnant with me. There’s the bruised knee from a misstep, falling to the cement in tangled feet in front of my parents’ house down the un-cemented bricks of our front steps. My father meant to finish them after he was paid, but he died first. Now it’s a blemish I hope never blends, because it reminds me of him.

If Kamala and Michelle could hear me, I would tell them I feel seen, like legs that look like mine can stand in sunlight and shine now without bidding, prodding, gawking and the fondling of curves, molesting visions and abusing purpose.

You damn right I shaved my legs today like I found love for the first time in a long time. The smoothness of my legs reminds me of rolling hills and mountains they used to climb on. And the valleys, too — the times they had to go so low chariots couldn’t reach, so deep into darkness they struggled to find a North Star to lead them out. 

I wish they could see me scrubbing away the fingerprints of the last man who touched and laid here. He was so wrong for me. One night, he held my legs in his lap and told me I would never find a better man, only to string me along, his own legs never wanting to walk, let alone stand, beside me.

I digress. 

Now I know better. It’s the bare skin for me, and how a new touch turns me on and leads me to wonder: What else have I neglected to give my attention? Sometimes when you forget to have pride in something, others will find value for themselves. We have to be careful of who ogles our beauty behind silent stalking, who fetishizes us. These legs are mine, a glow impossible to achieve by sunbathing or tanning salons, and it doesn’t crack under pressure. It gets tougher. 


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


Whether or not you shave your legs doesn’t matter. Making time for what makes you feel beautiful. For some of us, we forget ourselves. We make a habit of putting others’ needs before our own. Or we get so down-and-out we lose ourselves and suppress any life that lives within us. Black women are erased, ignored, and taken advantage of in more ways than I can mention for the sake of time and space. Breaking the internet is afforded to the women who outfit themselves in our features while withholding the scraps and bones they throw to us, who made them.

Kamala Harris is vice president of the United States. Black, Indian American, woman, an HBCU graduate. I’m a woman with legs newly shaven. I’m out of the tub now, a force, feeling a new breeze. A new day. A new dawn, ready to redefine what I stand for.

Read more of Salon’s Best of 2021 Life Stories.

How to weigh risk when traveling with children this holiday

In December 2020, the end of the first year of the pandemic, only one-quarter of Americans traveled for the holidays — a fraction of the normal one-third who do. This year is different: air travel is triple what it was in 2020, and 109 million Americans — almost exactly one-third of the country — are traveling. The timing couldn’t be worse: the incredibly contagious omicron variant of COVID-19 is causing a vast surge in cases. That’s causing many to rethink plans — particularly those with children under the age of five, who are not yet eligible for vaccination. Indeed, the lack of a vaccine for the youngest means young children, toddlers and babies are unprotected this holiday season.

That omicron is still not fully understood is understandably making traveling parents more nervous. Different variants have been known to infect children at different rates. And in the case of omicron, early data is already pouring in regarding how the new variant affects children compared to previous ones. 

In Texas, doctors are reporting an increase in hospitalizations of children under the ages of 18.

“We can confidently say at this point that we are now at the beginning of a new omicron surge, and that surge is affecting children as well as adults,” Dr. Jim Versalovic, co-chair of the TCH COVID-19, said about hospitalizations at Texas Children’s Hospital. Specifically, there were 10 pediatric hospitalizations due to COVID-19 over the last week. “Our hospitalizations for those under 18 years of age have more than doubled in the past four days,” Versalovic added.

Doctors saw an increase in hospitalizations of children under the age of 5 during their omicron surge, too, and suspected it was because of omicron’s increased infectious rate. Notably, doctors said there was one common theme among the hospitalized children: their parents were unvaccinated.

“All these young children being admitted, most of them, the parents have not been vaccinated either,” Dr. Waasila Jassat of South Africa’s National Institute for Communicable Diseases told CBS News. “So I think, certainly the value of vaccination in the adults, protecting the children in the homes, is something to keep in mind.”


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


This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the omicron variant now accounts for nearly 73 percent of new coronavirus infections in the United States. That rise is astonishing given that, in the beginning of December, the new variant only made up less than 1 percent of new infections. While the jury is still out regarding omicron’s virulence — meaning its potential to cause severe disease — the variant’s increased transmissibility means more people are at risk of getting infected, including children.

It is important to note that relatively low numbers of children have been hospitalized or died from COVID-19 throughout the pandemic. Age seems to be linearly correlated with risk from COVID-19, a trend that has stayed true throughout the pandemic.

Dean Blumberg, chief of pediatric infectious diseases and associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, told Salon that there is no data on how children will be affected by omicron yet.

“We know is that it’s probably two to five times more transmissible than delta,” Blumberg said. “That makes it extraordinarily infectious, so everybody is at risk for infection. And we know that it has mutations that allow it to evade previous immunity either immunity from vaccination or immunity from previous infection.”

Blumberg stressed that children are at lower risk for severe disease. 

“Children who are healthy without underlying conditions should not have risk factors for more severe disease, so if they do get an infection — either unvaccinated or get a breakthrough infection — they’re less likely to have severe disease and require hospitalization.”

Of course, Blumberg said children who are considered to be high-risk for COVID-19, perhaps because they have immunocompromised conditions, could be at a higher risk with omicron. If you have a child with such a condition, it is something to consider in the risk calculus of holiday travel.

“We know that although COVID is generally more mild in children than compared to adults, in the U.S. there has been more than million hospitalizations of children and more than 700 deaths,” Blumberg said. “So although it’s less severe on children, it can be severe, and that’s why I would encourage parents to vaccinate their children and make sure they’re fully vaccinated.”

Of course, not all children are eligible for vaccinations yet. In the meantime, Blumberg stressed the importance of masking for children.

“Vaccinations are the first line of defense — the second line of defense is masking, and children as young as two can mask,” Blumberg noted. “I would have those children mask when they’re around others outside of their household, especially people who you don’t know their vaccination status. For children less than two where masking is not feasible and may not be safe, it’s a risk for them to be around unvaccinated individuals.”

Blumberg added that children between the ages of six months and four years old will likely be eligible for vaccination during the first quarter of 2022.

So, is omicron a reason for parents with young children to cancel holiday and travel plans? Blumberg stressed the need to weigh your own “risk tolerance.” 

“I think that we all can respect that people are tired of the impacts that all the lockdowns have had on people,” Blumberg said. “If people have underlying risk factors for more severe disease, you might want to rethink your plans. If everybody is healthy and you think that infection or breakthrough infections can likely result in mild disease and you have to get together, you think it’s important for the mental and emotional health of your family then you should do that.”

Read more on the omicron variant:

Under pressure from progressives, Biden extends pause on student loan repayments

As the Democratic fissure on the student loan crisis continues to widen, the White House announced on Wednesday that it plans to extend the freeze on student loan repayments due to the pandemic. 

Originally set to resume on February 1, 2022, loan repayments that had been paused since the start of the pandemic are now scheduled for May 1. 

President Joe Biden’s campaign promise was to sign a bill forgiving debt but Congress has long been stymied on the issue. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., recently argued that Biden lacks the power to cancel student debt – a claim that progressives in Congress actively dispute. “People think that the President of the U.S. has the power for debt forgiveness, he does not,” Pelosi told reporters during the summer: “He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That had to be an act of Congress.”

But over in the Senate, Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a progressive crusader against student debt, put pressure on the president to deliver students a ​​debt jubilee. “We’re here today to say, ‘Tick tock, tick tock, Mr. President. Millions of Americans ask you now to pick up a pen to cancel student loan debt. To pick up a pen and extend the payment pause,” Warren said. 

https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/1473706936977793028

Meanwhile, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a mainstream Democrat who has in the past been at odds with his progressive counterparts, has largely sided with Warren.


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


“For many Americans with student debt, the COVID-19 crisis turned their financial difficulties into catastrophes. Even before the pandemic, 43 million Americans owed nearly $1.7 trillion in student loan debt,” Schumer wrote in an on Tuesday with Natalia Abrams, the executive director of Student Debt Crisis. “Paying off that much debt is arduous during normal times, but once the economy collapsed during COVID-19 and tens of millions of Americans lost their jobs and incomes, it became nearly impossible.”

They duo added: “That is why we recently came together as a proud coalition of lawmakers and organizations to write letters to President Joe Biden asking him to extend the pause on student loan payments at least until next spring, and reiterated our appeal that he go further by canceling $50,000 in student debt per borrower immediately by executive action.”

On the campaign trail, President Biden initially made a pledge to cancel student debt as long as debtors paid it back with national or community service, as CNBC noted. However, back in February, the president said that he wouldn’t cancel student debt by executive order, telling viewers in a Town Hall: “I will not make that happen. I’m prepared to write off $10,000 [in] debt, but not $50[,000].”

According to a May report by The Washington Post, Biden’s student debt promise appears to be completely absent from White House budget proposal, which has left progressives wondering precisely how the president intends to address the crisis – especially when Senate Republicans can conceivable parry any student debt legislation with the filibuster.  


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


Last year, over 230 organizations signed onto a letter urging Biden to cancel student debt, citing its specific impact on communities of color. 

Whether Biden can unilaterally cancel student debt remains an open question in the legal realm. According to PolitiFact, a president may be able to do so by invoking the 1965 Higher Education Act, which vests the Education Secretary with the authority to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release” federal student loans – just in the same way Biden was able to pause the debt at the height of the pandemic. Though experts disagree on just how big the scope of the law’s application could be.

Why they hate him: Dr. Fauci triggers the right because he reveals their deepest insecurities

“Whatcha reading for?” 

It’s the laugh line in a classic bit from Texas comedian Bill Hicks, recounting his encounter with a Waffle House waitress in Tennessee who did not understand why a man sitting by himself in a coffee house would read a book. The bit continues with a truck driver standing over Hicks and menacing him with, “We’ve got ourselves a reader.”

Hicks, who died of pancreatic cancer in 1994, has a lot of material that hasn’t aged well. Still, I have fond memories of this part of his act, which tended to kill with Austin audiences, packed as the city was back then with escapees from the less liberal parts of Texas. That audience brimmed with people who had repeatedly been on the receiving end of the anger Hicks described. He captured the defensive rage the willfully ignorant have towards those who look at the larger world with curiosity, instead of fear.

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

I thought about that Hicks bit when I saw Tuesday’s news that Fox News’ Jesse Watters, a man who radiates a strong “I paid some nerd to write my term papers” energy, threatened the life of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been the top COVID-19 advisor to President Joe Biden. Oh, Watters pretended it wasn’t a threat when he told an audience at the conference for right-wing youth group Turning Point USA — founded by Charlie Kirk, who blames his lack of a college education on minorities supposedly taking “his” spot — to “ambush” Dr. Fauci with a “kill shot.” Watters pretended he was speaking metaphorically, encouraging “deadly” questions instead of actual violence. But obviously, the garish rhetoric, especially in light of the growing violence on the right, was meant to intimidate. 

What struck me about the whole incident was how weird it was.

Both Watters and his audience — who were whooping and hollering — are just so clearly threatened by Dr. Fauci. The frenzy of defensive rage that Dr. Fauci inspires on the right is hard to square with the man himself, a slight and mild-mannered fellow who retains a 50s-era Brooklyn accent. It’s like being threatened by a puppy dog. It’s like experiencing foaming rage at a child flying a kite. Dr. Fauci’s main two public qualities are that he’s very nice and wants to help. Who hates that?


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


Well, right-wingers do. And it’s not just Watters.

Dr. Fauci has been the favorite target of “who does he think he is”-style rants by pretty much every right-wing pundit and politician out there for over a year now. He’s easily the most reliable hate object they’ve had since Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Those three are some readers — and that reliably triggers the bullying response in the Jesse Watters types. Despite all of their chest-thumping bravado, this knee-jerk hostility to those perceived as intellectually curious evinces a deep insecurity driving right-wingers.

RELATED: Young Democrats are right: There is no reason to date or befriend Trump voters

We also see this in the furious reaction on the right to polling data showing that young Democrats are not interested in socializing with, much less dating, Republicans. Considering how much liberals are demonized in right-wing media, you’d think the last thing conservatives would want is their company. But so much of that anger is driven by conservative insecurity, knowing that ultimately, their company is mostly irritating and definitely not interesting, and lashing out at others for perceiving that. 

Which isn’t to say the stereotype of the smug liberal doesn’t exist. That Hicks routine is iconic in the annals of smug liberalism. But nowadays, the trend in smug liberalism tends to be more condescending than catty. It’s those on the left who mistake intentional obtuseness for inborn stupidity. It manifests in lectures at other liberals about how we need to be patient with the unvaccinated Trumpers, because they can’t be expected to understand how vaccines work. Or in treating Fox News viewers like dim-witted ciphers, instead of people who actively seek out propaganda and reject reality-based information. Say what you will about those on the left who are angry at the unvaccinated, fascistic Fox News audience — at least we give them the respect of knowing that their ignorance is a choice, not a predetermined condition. 


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


In truth, the “smug liberal” is far more of a paranoid fantasy on the right than a reality. It’s the manifestation of their own resentment of people who did do the reading, people who do want to know more about the larger world. They are jealous of people who say yes to novel ideas and new experiences, instead of freaking out at the mere thought of having to learn something new. It’s not that such people are especially smug. Dr. Fauci, for instance, radiates kindness and patience. It’s that conservatives are just that insecure about their own shortcomings. 

That’s why this assault on schools has been such a potent organizing force for Republicans. It really plugs into not just the racism of the right, but the defensive posture of those who are deeply afraid that their kids will be rewarded for intellectual curiosity and grow up to be brighter than dear old mom and dad. Though it has admittedly produced some truly sublime moments of comedy, such as when a woman named Kara Bell stood up at a Texas school board meeting to rant, “I’ve never had anal sex. I don’t want to have anal sex.” It earned her the online nickname “Cornhole Karen”. 

Ashley Hope Perez is the author whose book, “Out of Darkness,” was the object of Bell’s rage. As amusing as the clip is, it hasn’t been so fun for Perez, who has been the target of harassment for writing the historical novel that explores racism in 1930s Texas. As Perez astutely noted on a recent Slate podcast, the hysterics over sexual content are actually a cover for the true objections conservatives have to the books they are challenging: that they center “characters or experiences from nonwhite, nondominant communities.” What scares white conservatives is the possibility of learning — or having their kids learn — anything about the world outside of their cloistered enclaves of willful ignorance. 

Still, there’s something about the screeching about anal sex that also underscores the larger problem here: bitter incuriosity. And it is delivered in a way that was funny enough for Jimmy Kimmel to make it his clip of the year. It’s not that Bell doesn’t like anal sex, which is really just a matter of taste. It’s the self-righteous fury at the very idea that anyone would be curious about such a thing. It’s treating ignorance like a virtue, and intellectual dullness like a mandate. 

It’s been long understood that, once you control for demographic factors, the personality trait psychologists deem “openess to experience” is a major predictor of progressivism. That used to mostly be an interesting but irrelevant factoid, like learninig that orange cats are mostly male or what a “strawberry moon” is. Now, however, this personality difference is a central motivating factor in a growing fascist movement. The kind that wants to violently put down those who do express inquisitiveness and a willingness to be intellectually challenged. The kind of movement that leads crowds to cheer wildly at the idea of taking a “killshot” at an 80-year-old man whose main crime seems to be that he studied hard and knows things about science. This isn’t just an unpleasant encounter in a Waffle House. It is a rage that is threatening to destroy a nation. 

The heroes of “Hawkeye” dress like us

In Kate Bishop’s first appearance in “Hawkeye,” the Disney+ series, she’s barefoot. Young Kate (Clara Stack) is eavesdropping on her parents, and for detective work like that, you need to be comfy.

You need to be comfy for a lot of work, a small though not inconsequential lesson of 2020 and beyond — including the hard work of saving the world. But action stories, among them the Marvel ones, have usually featured superheroes clothed in bustiers and breastplates, tiny tanks and skin-tight leather, including — or especially — women.

Over the years, many women on the big and small screens have fought crime bare-legged in hot pants, which seems like it would increase the likelihood of injury. When so much skin is exposed, some of it is going to get bruised or bloody, or be a target. Those costumes look like a liability in a fight, not to mention a bit chilly on the streets of New York or Asgard, Wheaton or Washington, D.C.

In “The Boys,” the Amazon Prime series about the business of being super, new recruit Annie/Starlight (Erin Moriarty) complains about her skimpy costume — made even smaller, with higher-heeled boots and hair teased like a beauty queen, after she comes forward about sexual assault. But her employer is “leaning into old sexist archetypes under the guise of ‘girl power.’ Annie is told to embrace her feminist strength by wearing less clothing,” as Emma Fraser writes on Syfy Wire

RELATED: “Hawkeye” is a pandemic fable

“The Boys” pokes fun of and examines these archetypes, but for much of time, people have wanted their superheroes uncomfortably and impractically clothed. Enter Kate Bishop, played by Hailee Steinfeld as an adult on “Hawkeye”: college archer, rich girl, and would-be partner to Clint’s Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). In the present story, we see her first in lavender athleisure, comfortable but causal. Her boots are flat and possibly steel-toed. “Nice outfit, by the way,” her friend says. “Yeah, well,” Kate answers. “Sometimes you gotta dress the part.”

Fortunately for Kate, the part she’s trying to fake till she makes is that of Hawkeye, and if the advice goes that you should dress for the job you want, she’s got an easy-going role model. Clint’s street clothes are jeans and zip-up hoodies. Even in action star mode, Hawkeye usually wears a vest with pockets, donning a leather hooded jacket as his avenging alter ego, the Ronin. 

There are a lot of hoodies in “Hawkeye.”

There are also a lot of sweatsuits, a cozy outfit Kate both sleeps in, and in an act of self-care, changes into after a hard fight. She looks ready to work from home. She looks like us.

Kate Bishop is the first aspiring superhero whose clothes I’ve actively coveted. Along with the sweats — I’m particularly fond of a bright purple number — she wears a signature oversized plaid coat, her long hair frequently in a messy ponytail as she traipses about New York, scarf flapping. You know her shoes are sensible and there are tissues and a snack in her bag. Kate wears jeans sometimes, but they’re worn and ripped, with black tights beneath for warmth.

RELATED: In “Black Widow,” here’s why a simple vest with pockets means so much

Important for New York in winter, nobody looks cold in “Hawkeye.” Kate buys herself and Clint matching Christmas sweaters. Even Kate’s mother Eleanor (Vera Farmiga), who dresses in draped silk numbers like a cross between Isadora Duncan and Rebecca from “Ted Lasso,” arrives at balls and benefits in frocks that could have come from Halston’s line. Her clothes manage to appear effortless, flowing — maybe even machine wash?

A red dress drips from Eleanor’s frame at the party where Kate wears an all-black men’s suit. After mistaking her for a server, Kate’s doomed, almost great-uncle Armand says he would “appreciate it if she [would] wear something a little more ladylike.”

But comfort is king here, along with not conforming to gender or superhero stereotypes. The royal color purple also plays a huge role in the show, a nod to the original comics. It’s not exactly Pantone’s 2022 Color of the Year — that’s more of a periwinkle, apparently — but the slightly purple-hued everything makes the show feel contemporary while simultaneously reminding us that it’s based on a visual art. 

Real life doesn’t coordinate, not like “Hawkeye” does, recalling for me the green in Alfonso Cuarón’s 1995 film adaptation of “A Little Princess.” In “Hawkeye” it’s pops of purple: purple Christmas lights on balconies, purple on the costume of Hawkeye in a Broadway Avengers musical, purple smoke, purple goo on an arrow. It feels like watching the comic flicker to life.  


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


It’s significant that the villains of “Hawkeye” look cozy too. They are the Tracksuit Mafia after all, not the Three-Piece Suits or the Leather-Panted Boys. And though the matching red (and green, for Christmas) tracksuits look funny, I’m sure the loose clothes make it easy to fight, along with contributing to the bumbling nature of their villainy. Perhaps it’s best that cool mob boss Maya (Alaqua Cox) wears slim black pants and a black motorcycle jacket, its faint three stripes the only nod to her rather ineffectual army’s attire. 

Clothes are important in “Hawkeye” to the storyline as well as to the overall look. Enter the LARPers, the motley role-playing crew who function as a kind of heartfelt chorus for the show. Clint has to win his Ronin costume back from one of them, the affable Grills (Clayton English).

The Ronin costume mysteriously going up for auction is what launched this whole story, and LARPers anchor it. In the finale, airing Wednesday, LARPers have made and given Clint and Kate their new costumes too, signaling the start of a new era, one where the two archers match. 

In worn-looking yoga clothes, sweats and headbands, the LARPers practice stage combat like a ragtag group rehearsing Shakespeare in the park. Maybe they stepped out of “Station Eleven.” Maybe, like in the Bard’s material, they’re the clowns. But the casually dressed, mismatched LARPers make the story of “Hawkeye” approachable. Anyone can dream of saving others through acts of courage, strength and daring. Anyone can try. Kate shows us: Maybe anyone can actually do it, and you don’t have to be perfect — or wear a Lycra mini-dress — when you do. 

With her rashness and clumsiness —  and yes, with those sweats — Kate Bishop, the queen of leaving too many awkward voicemails, may not be the superhero we need. But she’s the one we are.

More stories like this:

On navigating the holiday season after loss

I started feeling anxious about Thanksgiving and Christmas in August. By October, I decided the best way to get through the holidays was to escape them.

My husband, Erik, had died suddenly in a mountain-climbing accident in late May. Since then, I had spent my days in a sad stupor of grief: crying, struggling to eat, and grasping for motivation even to get dressed.

And now the holidays were coming: my first holiday season without him. Right after Halloween (it seems to get earlier every year), the twinkle lights and holiday candy began appearing in the supermarket. All things red, green, and glitter were in. I needed out.

From the guest bed of my sister’s house, where I had been staying, I opened my laptop and clicked onto the website for R.E.I. Adventures.

“Plan Your Escape,” the home-page banner read. Yes, please.

I scrolled and clicked through every trip that straddled Christmas and New Year’s. Hike with alpacas in South America? Hmm. Should I kayak in the American Southwest? Trek the Galápagos? I settled on the very farthest place from my life: New Zealand.

I clicked my mouse a few times, typed my name, address, credit card number, clicked again, and booked the trip. If there had been a commercial space flight to Mars, I would have taken out a second mortgage and booked it. That’s how badly I dreaded the holidays that first year after Erik died.

Grief has a way of turning sweet to bitter. Grief bends happy occasions into sad ones, and can make parties the loneliest places on earth. The blithe holiday cheer — the collective swirl of cookie baking, roasted turkey, Champagne toasts, and swingy Christmas standards like “It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year” — was like a big party everyone was invited to but me.

Everyone’s happiness made my grief feel invisible and unimportant. Worse, the world’s carrying on made Erik seem invisible and unimportant, like his death hadn’t made a dent.

Yet even as I took comfort in my holiday escape hatch to the far end of the earth, I began feeling uneasy about the trip. For one, I was physically weak with grief. My body, the body that had once carried me to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro and sustained 14-hour shifts in a pastry kitchen, now struggled to walk around the block. I had aches and sniffles all the time.

Also, there was my family. I remembered the reaction when I first told my mom and sister about my New Zealand plan.

“Oh. That sounds exciting,” my sister said, with zero enthusiasm. My mom, who had dropped by for tea, asked if I was sure.

“I don’t know what else to do,” I sobbed. “I don’t know how to make Christmas nice. I just need to pretend like there is no Christmas.”

My mom gathered me into her arms and squeezed me hard. My sister blotted away tears. My dad was at home, probably researching young widowhood or life insurance, without my even asking. They were grieving Erik’s loss, too. My absence from Christmas would sadden them even more.

I guessed (grief is often guesswork) that feeling broken with family in Philadelphia might be better than proving my resilience alone in New Zealand. I canceled my trip.

Despite willing it away, Christmas Eve arrived. In my Italian-American family tradition, Christmas Eve is the main event. Normally, the evening was a boisterous, overheated eatathon, my parents’ house bursting at the seams with cousins, aunts, uncles, gag gifts, seafood upon seafood dish, pasta, cookies, and pie.

But that year we kept it small. Only my parents, my sister and her family, my aunt, and I gathered at the table. The seats were carefully arranged so that there was no obvious gap where Erik would have been. Yet everything still felt wrong. Of course there was an obvious gap, one no creative chair arrangement could fill.

From my dining room chair, I could see memories of Erik from holidays past: on the living room couch, wearing a green sweater and button-down shirt, eating my mom’s pepperoni pinwheels and laughing with my dad and cousins over a beer. The memories were so vivid. I never felt like someone was so heartbreakingly close to being tangible, yet so immutably out of grasp.

I cried at the table. I barely ate my mom’s beautiful meal, the meal I anticipated all year. I snapped at my aunt for asking about a birthday check I never cashed. I went to bed, and instead of looking forward to Christmas Day, I only felt an exhausted relief that Christmas Eve was over: one day down, one to go.

* * *

Seven years on, I look back on that night. There were nice moments, like a crackling fire and laughs supplied by my curly-haired baby nephew. But the first Christmas holiday post-Erik was pretty much terrible.

I rode tides of sadness, emptiness, and loss, hour by hour, until the holidays were over. I leaned in to the happy, normal moments when they came, taking someone’s advice to feel grateful, not guilty, for the reprieve those good moments offered. I ate some cookies. I embraced the hugs.

For those experiencing new loss and grief this holiday season, I would say this: You only have to do the first year once. It will not be this hard forever. Do not put pressure on yourself to make the holidays “nice.” Do things that feel supportive and nurturing, not obligatory. Bake cookies because you want to, not because you feel like you have to.

Likewise, do not put pressure on yourself to make the holidays unnecessarily joyless. Forcing misery is guilt, not love — love for them, or for yourself. Guilt is a common, but largely unhelpful, emotion of grief. You can smile and miss your loved one at the same time. There is room.

There is no end to grief, as the saying goes. But it does evolve. This Christmas, as in all subsequent Christmases since Erik died, my eyes will well with tears as I hang a special ornament on the Christmas tree, a small portrait of him. I always put him on a branch at the top, like my angel.

I will also have fun. I will bake cookies because I want to. I’ll eat too much apple pie. I will laugh and celebrate with my second husband and my stepdaughter and other relatives, and be cozy around the fireplace.

There is no end to grief. But believe this: There is also no end to joy.

Yes, Dolly Parton really did turn down the presidential medal of freedom (twice) – here’s why

Dolly Parton seems like she’d qualify for the Presidential Medal of Freedom based on her cultural contributions alone, from songs like “Jolene” and “I Will Always Love You” to hit movies like “Steel Magnolias” (1989) and 1980’s “9 to 5” (not to mention her Tennessee theme park, Dollywood).

But as all Dolly devotees know, her initiatives reach far beyond the entertainment world. She promotes child literacy through her Imagination Library — which has donated more than 100 million books to kids since its foundation in 1995 — and she also helped fund the development of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

In short, you’d be well within reason to ask why Parton hasn’t been offered the medal yet. But as she shared during a virtual appearance on NBC’s “TODAY” earlier this year, she actually has been offered it — twice, both during Donald Trump’s tenure. The first time she turned it down because her husband was ill. The second offer came during the thick of the pandemic, and she decided to decline the award rather than have to travel to accept it.

As for whether Parton would accept a third offer, she’s not sure. “Now I feel like if I take it, I’ll be doing politics,” she explained. In other words, she seems to be wary that the move would be read as an endorsement of one administration over another, and Parton is famously mum when it comes to politics.

In any case, receiving the medal doesn’t appear to be much of a focus for her. “I don’t work for those awards,” she said. “It’d be nice, but I’m not sure that I even deserve it. But that’s a nice compliment for people to think that I might deserve it.”

It’s not the first time Parton has shown such admirable humility. This past February, when Tennessee’s state government was working on getting the OK to install a Dolly Parton statue on Capitol Hill, she asked them to kill the bill. “Given all that is going on in the world, I don’t think putting me on a pedestal is appropriate at this time,” she said in a statement (though she did allow that she’d be open to the possibility in some years’ time).

[h/t TODAY]

A holiday dessert for anyone too tired to make a holiday dessert

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

Don’t save room for dessert. If the glazed ham is sweet enough, if the latkes are crisp enough, if the spinach is creamy enough, go back for seconds. Go back for thirds. Go back for fourths. You deserve it.

There is a running gag at my family festivities, maybe yours, too, that by the time the pie or tart or cake joins the party, everyone is already so stuffed, they only want “a sliver — just a sliver — no, no — even smaller than that.” So instead of making a pie or tart or cake, why not make something sliver-sized to begin with?

I’m making chocolate truffles.

Though chocolate truffles are named for their resemblance to the “edible subterranean fruiting body of several European ascomycetous fungi” that costs hundreds of dollars a pound, these candies are relatively humble. You don’t need a pig to hunt them down. Nor do you need a lot of money or ingredients or time or effort.

One of the earliest recipes for them, from “Rigby’s Reliable Candy Teacher” in the 1920s, instructs: “Dip a plain vanilla cream center, one as small as possible in milk chocolate coating, then before the coating dries, roll each piece in macaroon coconut so that the coconut sticks to the chocolate. Now lay them on a sheet of wax paper and allow to dry.”

Modern truffles are even simpler. The cream center and chocolate shell have streamlined into a creamy, chocolatey orb. Every recipe is different, but also the same: Make a ganache (chocolate plus cream). Perhaps add butter or shortening, and maybe vanilla, too. Chill until firm. Scoop into portions. Roll into balls. Dust with cocoa.

Vanilla is a no from me. No disrespect to vanilla, which I love — say in vanilla ice cream or vanilla pound cake. But did you know that most commercial chocolates already include it? They do.

Butter or shortening, also a no, also no disrespect. With enough cream — my golden ratio is equal parts cream and chocolate by weight — the flavor is rich enough, the texture is silky enough, and that butter can be saved for toast.

The only catch? We actually aren’t using any cream. At least, not heavy cream. Instead, enter crème fraîche. This French-style cultured cream has the tanginess of sour cream, butteriness of labneh, and happiness of a lazy Saturday morning. Plus, it can be heated without curdling, a godsend for melting chocolate.

It’s a little swap that makes a big difference. While heavy cream can be just that — heavy — crème fraîche is lively, like a cup of coffee after rolling out of bed. Coupled with bitter chocolate, the tartness is so subtle that someone might not be able to name the ingredient (in fact, none of my relatives could), but compelling enough that they’ll ask, “Why is this so good?”

So good you can’t help but eat one or three. Even if you didn’t save room for dessert.

***

Recipe: Easier Chocolate Truffles

Prep time: 2 hours 10 minutes
Cook time: 10 minutes
Serves: About 18 truffles

Ingredients

  • 8 ounces (1 cup) crème fraîche
  • 8 ounces dark chocolate (at least 60% cacao), chips or chopped
  • 1/8 teaspoon kosher salt
  • Your pick of toppings (optional, see Author Notes)

Directions

  1. Add the crème fraîche to a medium saucepan over medium-low heat. Once it’s melted and hot, turn off the heat and add the chocolate and salt, shaking the pan so the chocolate is evened out. Let sit for a couple minutes, then stir to combine and melt the chocolate. 
  2. Transfer the chocolate mixture to a baking dish (a brownie pan works well), spread into an even layer, and cover. Refrigerate for 1 to 2 hours, until the chocolate is scoopable, like ready-to-eat ice cream. 
  3. Use a 1-tablespoon–size cookie scoop (or similar) to portion the chocolate mixture into truffles on a parchment-lined plate; use the side of the dish to create level scoops, so they’re evenly sized and flat on the bottom. If you’d like, roll in your pick of toppings, then serve immediately or refrigerate for later. (If you are eating them later, make sure to let them come to room temperature first.)

Trump’s COVID army turns against him

One of the most notorious moments of the presidency of Donald J. Trump has to be that visit he made to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) on March 6th of 2020. COVID-19 hadn’t even been named yet and the World Health Organization (WHO) hadn’t yet designated it a pandemic but we all knew that something very bad was happening. Cases had shown up in Washington state and California. The whole country was riveted by the plight of a cruise ship sailing off the West Coast with sick people aboard and nowhere to moor. The president was reportedly angry about the whole thing and was resisting dealing with it but finally agreed to travel to the CDC’s Atlanta headquarters for a photo-op to show his concern. It was one of the most astonishing presidential performances of all time:

But perhaps the most memorable of all was this:

You know, my uncle was a great person. He was at MIT. He taught at MIT for, I think, like a record number of years. He was a great super genius. Dr. John Trump. I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it. Every one of these doctors said, “How do you know so much about this?” Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for President.

Those exchanges illustrated the fundamental bind Trump was in from the beginning of the crisis. He wanted to “downplay” the virus, as he admitted to Bob Woodward around that time, but he also wanted to be the very stable genius who personally solved it. So he wavered back and forth throughout, some days saying the whole thing was just going away by itself and that his political enemies were talking it up to hurt his re-election chances. On other days he promoted snake oil cures, even offering advice to scientists on what they should be researching to treat the virus, apparently convinced that he had brilliant ideas that hadn’t been explored:

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1253450209499189251?s=20

He grew impatient with the medical professionals who kept telling him bad news and instead turned to the quack remedies like Hydroxychloroquine which people like Fox News personality Laura Ingraham were promoting. He listened to quack doctors like Fox News radiologist Dr. Scott Atlas, who would tell him what he wanted to hear. As his COVID task force coordinator Dr Deborah Birx has testified before Congress, during the final months of his term, Trump completely lost interest in COVID altogether — at least until he came down with it himself.

However, towards the end, the vaccines were coming on line and Trump very much wanted to be given credit for them. He claimed over and over again that everyone said it would take five years but he made sure they were done in record time and nobody could have achieved that but him. In his first press conference after the election he said this:

The vaccines, and by the way, don’t let Joe Biden take credit for the vaccines. If Joe Biden… Joe Biden failed with the swine flu, H1N1. Totally failed with the swine flu. Don’t let him take credit for the vaccines because the vaccines were me and I pushed people harder than they’ve ever been pushed before. But the vaccines, there are those that says one of the greatest things. It’s a medical miracle. Don’t let anyone try and take credit for it.

As you can see, he was desperate to be given credit, as if he had personally spent that previous few months cooking up the vaccines in the White House kitchen. After all, he had a genius uncle who taught at MIT and all the doctors were astounded by his “natural ability.” As he put it, “the vaccines were me.”

We found out later that he and Melania Trump were among the first to be vaccinated while they were still in the White House, although they didn’t announce it or do what all the other politicians were doing by having cameras present to record the moment as a way to reassure the public that they were safe. Nonetheless, over the following months, Trump would from time to time talk up the vaccines, mostly as a way to talk up his part in it, and while always emphasizing that people “have their freedoms.” Last September, he even joined the freedom from sanity club himself saying that he probably wouldn’t get the booster when they became available.

His followers were not convinced.

After all those months of Trump downplaying the virus, refusing to wear a mask and otherwise encouraging his voters to see the mitigation strategies as a Democratic plot to bring him down, they have continued to chase snake oil cures and refused to get vaccinated. They don’t see the “medical miracle” of vaccines as a Trump triumph. They see it as a threat.

This week, Trump told another audience that he had received the booster after all — and he got booed. He took the opportunity to once again try to make the case that he should get credit and that his supporters are “playing into [the Democrats’] hands” by booing him.

“Take credit for it. What we’ve done is historic,” Trump told an audience over the weekend. “If you don’t want to take it you don’t have to, you shouldn’t be forced to take it, no mandates. But take credit because we saved tens of millions of lives, take credit, don’t let them take that away from you.”

He meant, “don’t let them take that away from me.

Many people have seen those comments as Trump encouraging people to get vaccinated, but it really wasn’t and I doubt any of his followers saw it that way. In fact, he made it clear that he doesn’t care if they do it or not and that all that matters is that he is acknowledged as a big hero. In other words, his comment was really just more of his partisan politicization of the pandemic that’s gotten us into this mess in the first place.

And even if he did make an explicit pitch for people to get vaccinated, it’s unlikely that it would make a difference. Polls show that the resistance to vaccines is now baked into the MAGA psyche, with him or without him. He may have created this problem but he has no power to fix it and I imagine that’s intensely frustrating for him.

Trump yearns to be worshiped as the great leader who single-handedly saved the world but his followers are all inexplicably offering themselves up as human sacrifices instead.  

“I can go anywhere”: How service dogs help veterans with PTSD

It was supper time in the Whittier, California, home of Air Force veteran Danyelle Clark-Gutierrez, and eagerly awaiting a bowl of kibble and canned dog food was Lisa, a 3-year-old yellow Labrador retriever.

Her nails clicking on the kitchen floor as she danced about, Lisa looked more like an exuberant puppy than the highly trained service animal that helps Clark-Gutierrez manage the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

“Having her now, it’s like I can go anywhere,” Clark-Gutierrez said. “And, yes, if somebody did come at me, I’d have warning — I could run.”

A growing body of research into PTSD and service animals paved the way for President Joe Biden to sign into law the Puppies Assisting Wounded Servicemembers (PAWS) for Veterans Therapy Act. The legislation, enacted in August, requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to open its service dog referral program to veterans with PTSD and to launch a five-year pilot program in which veterans with PTSD train service dogs for other veterans.

Clark-Gutierrez, 33, is among the 25 percent of female veterans who have reported experiencing military sexual trauma while serving in the U.S. armed services.

Military sexual trauma, combat violence and brain injuries are some of the experiences that increase the risk that service members will develop PTSD. Symptoms include flashbacks to the traumatic event, severe anxiety, nightmares and hypervigilance — all normal reactions to experiencing or witnessing violence, according to psychologists. Someone receives a PTSD diagnosis when symptoms worsen or remain for months or years.

That’s what Clark-Gutierrez said happened to her after ongoing sexual harassment by a fellow airman escalated to a physical attack about a decade ago. A lawyer with three children, she said that to feel safe leaving her home she needed her husband by her side. After diagnosing Clark-Gutierrez with PTSD, doctors at VA hospitals prescribed a cascade of medications for her. At one point, Clark-Gutierrez said, her prescriptions added up to more than a dozen pills a day.

“I had medication, and then I had medication for the two or three side effects for each medication,” she said. “And every time they gave me a new med, they had to give me three more. I just couldn’t do it anymore. I was just getting so tired. So we started looking at other therapies.”

And that’s how she got her service dog, Lisa. Clark-Gutierrez’s husband, also an Air Force veteran, discovered the nonprofit group K9s for Warriors, which rescues dogs — many from kill shelters — and trains them to be service animals for veterans with PTSD. Lisa is one of about 700 dogs the group has paired with veterans dealing with symptoms caused by traumatic experiences.

“Now with Lisa we take bike rides, we go down to the park, we go to Home Depot,” said Clark-Gutierrez. “I go grocery shopping — normal-people things that I get to do that I didn’t get to do before Lisa.”

That comes as no surprise to Maggie O’Haire, an associate professor of human-animal interaction at Purdue University. Her research suggests that while service dogs aren’t necessarily a cure for PTSD, they do ease its symptoms. Among her published studies is one showing that veterans partnered with these dogs experience less anger and anxiety and get better sleep than those without a service dog. Another of her studies suggests that service dogs lower cortisol levels in veterans who have been traumatized.

“We actually saw patterns of that stress hormone that were more similar to healthy adults who don’t have post-traumatic stress disorder,” O’Haire said.

A congressionally mandated VA study that focuses on service dogs’ impact on veterans with PTSD and was published this year suggests that those partnered with the animals experience less suicidal ideation and more improvement to their symptoms than those without them.

Until now, the federal dog referral program — which relies on nonprofit service dog organizations to pay for the dogs and to provide them to veterans for free — required that participating veterans have a physical mobility issue, such as a lost limb, paralysis or blindness. Veterans like Clark-Gutierrez who have PTSD but no physical disability were on their own in arranging for a service dog.

The pilot program created by the new federal law will give veterans with PTSD the chance to train mental health service dogs for other veterans. It’s modeled on a program at the VA hospital in Palo Alto, California, and will be offered at five VA medical centers nationwide in partnership with accredited service dog training organizations.

“This bill is really about therapeutic, on-the-job training, or ‘training the trainer,'” said Adam Webb, a spokesperson for Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who introduced the legislation in the Senate. “We don’t anticipate VA will start prescribing PTSD service dogs, but the data we generate from this pilot program will likely be useful in making that case in the future.”

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the pilot program will cost the VA about $19 million. The law stops short of requiring the VA to pay for the dogs. Instead, the agency will partner with accredited service dog organizations that use private money to cover the cost of adopting, training and pairing the dogs with veterans.

Still, the law represents a welcome about-face in VA policy, said Rory Diamond, CEO of K9s for Warriors.

“For the last 10 years, the VA has essentially told us that they don’t recognize service dogs as helping a veteran with post-traumatic stress,” Diamond said.

PTSD service dogs are often confused with emotional support dogs, Diamond said. The latter provide companionship and are not trained to support someone with a disability. PTSD service dogs cost about $25,000 to adopt and train, he said.

Diamond explained that the command “cover” means “the dog will sit next to the warrior, look behind them and alert them if someone comes up from behind.” The command “block” means the dog will “stand perpendicular and give them some space from whatever’s in front of them.”

Retired Army Master Sgt. David Crenshaw of Kearny, New Jersey, said his service dog, Doc, has changed his life.

“We teach in the military to have a battle buddy,” Crenshaw said. “And these service animals act as a battle buddy.”

A few months ago, Crenshaw experienced this firsthand. He had generally avoided large gatherings because persistent hypervigilance is one symptom of his combat-caused PTSD. But this summer, Doc, a pointer and Labrador mix, helped Crenshaw navigate the crowds at Disney World — a significant first for Crenshaw and his family of five.

“I was not agitated. I was not anxious. I was not upset,” said Crenshaw, 39. “It was truly, truly amazing and so much so that I didn’t even have to even stop to think about it in the moment. It just happened naturally.”

Thanks to Doc, Crenshaw said, he no longer takes PTSD drugs or self-medicates with alcohol. Clark-Gutierrez said Lisa, too, has helped her quit using alcohol and stop taking VA-prescribed medications for panic attacks, nightmares and periods of disassociation.

The dogs actually save the VA money over time, Diamond said. “Our warriors are far less likely to be on expensive prescription drugs, are far less likely to use other VA services and far more likely to go to school or go to work. So it’s a win-win-win across the board.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

28 make-ahead Christmas appetizers for a stress-free holiday

A few years back, I came to the realization that the star of my holiday table is not in fact the turkey, or the ham, or even the crown rib roast. Though we all ostensibly come together for the picture-perfect moment when Dad carves up the big bird, or slices up the roast, the real excitement is the flurry of activity that happens around cocktail hour. Regardless of what’s on the dinner menu, everyone jumps for the tartlets, canapés, and mile-long cheese board I place out hours before dinnertime. Who doesn’t love tasting different bites of cheesy, gooey, savory snacks before all the mashed potatoes and gravy?

I also realized that as much as my guests and I love appetizers, I seem to dread my appetizer prep each year (let’s face it — making 100 of anything can be time-consuming and just a little stressful). But, knowing I couldn’t give up my favorite little bites (give the people what they want!), I thought about what I could do to get them checked off the list well ahead of the big day. It soon dawned on me: If I chose wisely, many of my cocktail nibbles could be made weeks ahead of time and stockpiled in my freezer.

The process is simple: I pick a quiet Sunday that’s two, even three, weeks out from my big holiday dinner, and prep a whole boatload of apps. Once they are ready, I arrange them in a single layer on a baking sheet and put in them the freezer until they are just-frozen, about 45 minutes to an hour. Then, I transfer these just-frozen bites into their respective airtight, labeled storage containers or bags, and pop them back in the freezer. On the day we’re ready to eat them, I just have to get the oven to temperature, fill up my sheet pans with the apps, and begin rotating them in and out of the oven. Plate them on a few fancy platters when it’s time to serve them up, and a stellar spread comes together really fast.

These 10 impressive appetizers are incredible when made ahead and frozen. Let them make your life a whole lot easier and seriously wow your guests when they join your holiday table.

Best Make-Ahead Christmas Appetizers

1. Bea’s Cheese and Dill Danish

One of my favorite make-ahead appetizers is from Bea, a contributor to my cookbook Heirloom Kitchen: Heritage Recipes and Family Stories from the Tables of Immigrant Women. It’s a beautiful, braided bread, filled with cheese and dill, and it’s quite the showstopper on the holiday table. It also happens to freeze beautifully, which lets me do the heavy lifting weeks in advance, and simply bake it and slice the bread on the day of my event.

2. “Everything” Pigs in a Blanket

It’s no surprise that these nostalgic snacks are among the first to go in my party spread. Basically made for the freezer, these are super-forgiving when prepped in advance. I roll them up to a month ahead of time and load them up in freezer-friendly storage containers, then bake them off when party time is nigh. I guarantee when the hungry guests arrive, these piggies will not make it to market because as soon as you turn your back, the dish will be empty.

3. Nonna Gina’s Stuffed Mushrooms

My mom’s stuffed mushrooms always come to the rescue when I have a swarm of people expected for a holiday dinner. I make up the stuffing well in advance and roll them into small balls, then freeze them and tuck them away until the big event. When guests are about to come around, all I have to do is pop the frozen stuffing balls into the mushroom caps and bake them off. The mushrooms are hearty and full of flavor, and worth the advance planning.

4. Brie En Croute

Store-bought puff pastry is a make-ahead superstar. Easy to roll out and manipulate, a number of appetizers are born from these butter-filled sheets. My holiday cheese board even makes use of this helpful tool, as the centerpiece is always brie en croute: a magnificent wheel of brie wrapped in puff pastry and baked, until golden-brown on the outside and bubbly and molten on the inside. Hot, gooey and delicious, it’s the perfect accompaniment for the bread, crackersmarinated olives, and salumi that lives on the board. Even better: Brie en croute can be fully assembled and placed in the freezer weeks in advance.

5. 10-Minute Parmesan and Mustard Pinwheels

Another puff pastry star is the simple and classic pinwheel. Since it’s so versatile and easy to assemble, you can get creative with fillings (like the Parmesan and mustard versions below, or these ones with mushroom and thyme), and portion and freeze a bunch for when you need them.

6. Fig and Blue Cheese Savories

Speaking of showstopping cheese boards, I always pop some cheesy cookies like these in the oven to add to the spread. A few weeks (sometimes, even a month or two!) ahead, I make up the dough and tightly wrap it for safekeeping in the freezer. The morning of my event, I let it defrost, roll, and fill. With half the work done in advance, the cookies are ready for action in no time at all.

7. Baked Tofu and Vegetable Egg Rolls

On a day when meat is often the dinner star, it’s important to make a few dishes my vegetarian guests will truly enjoy. Because they are baked, there’s no need to fuss with hot oil — especially when real estate on the stove is truly precious.

8. Phyllo Stuffed with Lamb, Spinach, and Feta

I love phyllo dough. It’s so versatile and good for both savories and sweets: baklava, spinach pie, or even as a creative swap for pie dough! For a make-ahead savory bite, these little lamb starters are an unexpected treat on the holiday cocktail table. Swap out the lamb for another protein if you wish, but I suggest serving them as-is for something totally delicious and different.

9. Crab Rangoon Flowers

These little flowers will be a welcomed addition to the spread. Inspired by a take-out Chinese restaurant treat, not only are these super tasty, the presentation just screams holiday merriment. Simply assemble them and place them on a parchment-lined baking sheet. Wrap in plastic wrap and freeze them for about 30 minutes. Once they are fully frozen, place them in storage containers and back in the freezer they go until needed. Best yet, there is no need to defrost; just pop them back on a baking sheet, and right into the oven.

10. Date Asiago Gougeres

And finally, these savory-sweet puffs are a holiday table must. I double the batch before I freeze them because they inevitably get gobbled up before the big dinner, but people still ask for them when we’re seated at the holiday table.

11. Serrano Ham and Manchego Croquetas

Fry up a huge (read: huge) batch of these crunchy Salty Serrano ham and nutty Manchego cheese, reheat in the oven when guests arrive, and serve with smoked pimentón aioli for a sublime Spanish snack that will vanish before your eyes.

12. Za’atar Grilled Chicken Wings

Fan of flavor-packed chicken wings? Freshen up your appetizer game by marinating wings in tangy-savory za’atar and grilling them over high heat to achieve a crisp char. Pair with a cool, creamy fava bean and feta dip for a hearty bite that’s hard to beat.

13. Spicy Korean-Style Gochujang Meatballs

Fans of Korean wings (so pretty much all fans of chicken) will delight in this sweet-sticky-savory meatball riff that shines a spotlight directly onto the best parts of Korean fried chicken. The glossy glaze really beckons to hungry guests, so prepare these in advance and prepare to replenish the platter at least once.

14. Devils on Hatchback

Devils on Horseback are an easy make-ahead appetizer that fans of sweet-savory mashups are guaranteed to love (and backing up that guarantee is a hearty bacon wrap). Smoky, savory hatch chiles are a welcome addition to this delightfully complex combination that can be made ahead and reheated or served room temperature.

15. Glazed Shallot, Walnut, Sage, and Goat Cheese Pizza

The dough for this pizza is easy to make and roll out, and the pizza itself is delicious hot, warm, room temperature, and (see where we’re going with this?) even cold! You can also freeze the cooked pizza for the ultimate make-ahead time-saver. Heat, cut into wedges or squares, and prepare for guests to request the recipe.

16. Mini Pissaladières

The hardest part of this recipe is…none of it. Pissaladière is heavenly, quintessentially French blend of deeply caramelized onions, anchovies, and olives, perked up by fruity balsamic vinegar. This mini version wraps this extra-savory combination in puff pastry, for a seamless transition to make-ahead appetizer nirvana.

17. Virginia Willis’ Deviled Eggs

These deviled eggs have a secret ingredient that will make perfect sense the moment you taste them. Adding unsalted butter to the yolk mixture enhances its natural rich savoriness and contributes an enhanced smoothness that — with all apologies to the beloved condiment — additional mayonnaise simply couldn’t achieve on its own. Try it for yourself, and you’ll never go back to butter-less deviled eggs.

18. Sausage Balls

This classic recipe (or a variation of it) shows up at holiday tables across America, and for good reason: it’s absolutely delicious. The combination of sausage and cheese enveloped in a lightly sweet pancake-ey batter and baked to golden-brown perfection is hearty, satisfying, and easy to make for a crowd. Bake up a big batch, cool, stash in a zip-top bag in the fridge and reheat gently in the oven for a breakfast-for-appetizers treat that will delight your diners.

19. Stuffed Pepperoncini

Those cute mini peppers at the market are practically begging to be stuffed, and the sky’s the limit! This recipe calls for beloved Mediterranean flavors like anchovy fillets, pancetta, mozzarella, basil, and extra-virgin olive oil for a wonderfully savory and satisfying small plate.

20. Beet Tartare

Tartare isn’t normally something you can make too far ahead (or leave out, unrefrigerated, for too long). Thankfully, this vegetarian beet tartare — which can easily be made vegan — takes beautifully to pre-party refrigeration and tastes even better as it comes to room temperature. Serve with rye crackers or endive leaves.

21. Black Olive Cookies

Be sure to put a platter of these crisp black olive cookies with the savory bites (though they do have a pleasant subtle sweetness) or your guests may wonder what’s wrong with your chocolate chips. Orange zest and olive oil bring out the olives’ briny flavor, perfect for serving alongside a cheese board.

22. Everything Pigs in a Blanket

Bake these flavor-packed pigs in a blanket straight from the freezer — they’re the ultimate snack, in ultimate time-saver form. Everything bagel seasoning can be bought online or at specialty markets and is exactly what it sounds like: poppy and sesame seeds, onion and garlic flakes, sea salt, pepper, everything but the bagel itself. Serve with your favorite mustard for crowd-friendly pigs that will (pardon the pun) fly right off the plate.

23. Grandma’s Mushroom Puffs

Like a potato chip or pizza slice, it’s impossible to eat just one of these classic, savory mushroom puffs. Good thing it’s easy to make them for a crowd. Wrap buttery, creamy caramelized onions and mushrooms in puff pastry, bake, set aside and reheat (or simply serve room temperature) for an old-school bite that never gets…well, old!

24. The Perfect Cheese Ball

The perfect cheese ball doesn’t exi — oh yes it does! This one is incredibly easy to make and even more than that, a showstopper appetizer for your holiday party. It’s made with an unstoppable combination of maple syrup, cheddar cheese, gruyere cheese, cream cheese, horseradish, and plenty of herbs.

25. Sourdough Starter Crackers with Thyme and Black Pepper

The beauty of this make-ahead Christmas appetizer is that you’ve already done the time-consuming part, which is feeding your sourdough starter. A little bit of dried thyme and lots of cracked black pepper is all it takes to make cheese’s dream partner.

26. Yotam Ottolenghi and Sami Tamimi’s Basic Hummus

When all else fails — you’re out of fridge space, patience, time, and money — make good-quality homemade hummus. It’s no-fuss, crowd-pleasing, and easy to store. Plus, unlike guacamole, you don’t have to worry about it prematurely turning brown; just drizzle olive oil and a squeeze of lemon juice on top to keep it fresh (plus, it tastes better that way anyway).

27. Smoked Salmon on Mustard-Chive and Dill Butter Toasts

There’s a couple of steps you can take to make this smoked salmon appetizer in advance. For starters, you can toast your favorite baguette and then make the mustard-herb butter. Day of, or just a few hours before, bring the butter to room temp, smear it on the toast, and top with thin slices of the best-quality smoked salmon you can afford.

28. Chutney and Cheddar Palmiers

Palmiers are often thought of as a sweet dessert, but there is a whole world of savory palmiers like these, which are filled with a cilantro-mint chutney and cheddar cheese.

Stop calling the GOP fascists “hypocrites”: No one cares, and they have no shame

A healthy democracy, in America or anywhere else, must be based upon shared assumptions about empirical reality, facts and truth. Today’s Republican Party and other “conservatives” reject such basic principles, norms and values.

Fascism, which lies at the core of contemporary Republican politics, is the mind-killer: It is anti-intellectual, anti-rational and anti-human. Fascism also seeks to annihilate the world as it actually exists and replace it with a fantasy world created by the fascist movement and its leader. 

Too many liberals and progressives in this hour of darkness cling to the misguided belief that their core values about reason, democracy, human rights and civil rights are effectively universal, and so compelling that Republicans and others on the right must share them to a large degree. This collective narcissism may doom us all.

Many members of the media class obsessively complain and protest — in a mixture of performative shock and sincere disbelief — that Republicans are “hypocrites” who have “double standards” and constantly tell lies. This is also a willful decision to avoid the truth.

To cite a recent example, it is now publicly known that on Jan. 6, Fox News personalities, including Brian Kilmeade, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, texted White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, pleading with him to persuade Donald Trump to stop his followers from attacking the Capitol. Yet within hours or days, these propagandists were telling their viewers that Trump’s attack force actually comprised “leftist radicals” — members of antifa, “Black Lives Matter or similar groups. Or, alternatively, that the Capitol attackers were genuine patriots and heroes — or simply “tourists.”

On cue, Democrats and the mainstream commentariat lambasted Fox News for its supposed hypocrisy and for allegedly insulting its audience. And of course, once this news hit the headlines, the Fox hosts involved changed their stories, blatantly lying about what their texts to Meadows had said. Hannity, Ingraham and Kilmeade pledged their loyalty once again to Donald Trump — out of fear, shared by all members of his cult following, that he might order them purged for disloyalty.

RELATED: Text-gate fallout: Hannity, Ingraham and Don Jr. unveiled as whiny MAGA wimps!

This is all part of a much larger and very tedious pattern, in which many liberals and Democrats express amazement that Republican political leaders and propagandists say one thing in private and something opposite in public. There also continues to be considerable consternation and awe at the power of Trump’s Big Lie and his followers’ unwavering dedication to it.

Even after decades, many people still seem stunned by the Republican Party and the broader right’s unwavering hostility toward science and expertise, their cultlike behavior and rejection of reality, their willingness to embrace conspiracy theories and religious extremism, their deepening attraction to fascism and authoritarianism and a range of related antisocial behavior.

These habitual complaints about Republican hypocrisy function as a script or narrative frame that dominates much mainstream American political commentary. The indictment has lost almost all its power, except among a small niche audience of those who have convinced themselves that “democratic norms” still apply to the Republicans. When the average American is told that the Republicans are hypocrites, the common (and largely understandable) response is: “So what?” To make that accusation against politicians is the equivalent of observing that water is in fact wet.

But for those in the chattering class who wield such words it has the imagined power of a religious invocation: God’s judgment is called down to punish the “hypocrite” who has transgressed against the democratic order and its supposed commitment to truth and facts. In the world of realpolitik — and a country under siege by a fascist movement — such holy words have lost their power. If there is a deity who cares about such things, that deity abandoned the American people a long time ago.

But there is another more basic explanation for why Democrats and others committed to reason, truth and democracy continue to believe they can find common ground with Republicans. That explanation is rooted in fear.

Today’s Republican Party and conservative movement has shown itself to be sociopathic and sadistic. It evinces no belief in a moral code or set of values that could be leveraged to create feelings of shame or embarrassment. Winning and keeping political power is all that matters; domination and control are the sole raison d’être. 

RELATED: Dr. Justin Frank: Laughing at Trump is “unhealthy” and won’t “protect us from reality”

Most people who identify with the Democratic Party, and most Americans overall, are terrified of that fact and continue to deny it, believing — or pretending to believe — that Republicans will return to the realm of “normal” politics sooner or later. 

In a conversation with Salon earlier this year, Dr. Justin Frank, a physician and psychoanalyst who is the author of “Donald Trump on the Couch,” explained the roots of such reasoning:

Most people do not want to believe that a person could be as destructive and evil as Donald Trump. That fact changes their worldview and their fantasies about life having a happy ending. The fantasy is that we are all protected, we are all going to be safe, which is a very childlike way of thinking. This is why many people do not want to acknowledge what Trump really is: They do not want to face the fact that Donald Trump, in my opinion, has shown himself to be a psychopath.

Similarly Dr. John Gartner, a former professor at the Johns Hopkins medical school and a contributor to the bestseller “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” offered this context in an interview earlier this year:  

In a way, we as a society have been so protected and privileged, and lived such a life of peace and sanity, that we don’t believe that the dystopian science fiction that we are living today in America is actually happening. There’s a certain default option of normality. Nobody wants to give up that default assumption that we are still living in a world of facts and sanity.

White America does not have either the historic memory or contemporary experience that comes from living under that kind of power, or struggling against it. For many people, therefore, the default impulse is to deny or ignore the existential danger embodied by American fascism, or simply hide from it in terror. 

RELATED: Dr. John Gartner on America after Trump: “Dystopian science fiction is actually happening”

Fascism is viewed by many Americans — mostly but not entirely meaning white Americans — as something that occurs “over there” as opposed to arising here at home. Black Americans, of course, had a dramatically different historical experience, surviving and defeating domestic fascism in the form of chattel slavery and then the regime of Jim and Jane Crow white supremacy.

Many heirs to the Black Freedom Struggle are not especially surprised by the ascent of American neofascism in the Age of Trump. Moreover, Black Americans and other marginalized groups are uniquely “gifted” in terms of their ability to comprehend such evil and ultimately to outlast and defeat it. Others would be wise to learn from them.

What should those who are genuinely committed to saving American democracy do in this moment of escalating crisis? Most important of all, they must not abandon their core values. That amounts to surrender. Liberals, progressives and other pro-democracy forces must instead embrace a new maturity by confronting the political battlefield (and the larger world) as it exists, not as they wish it to be.

Over the last few years, I have come to this conclusion: What many Democrats, liberals and progressives of a certain type —comfortable, middle-class and predominantly white — want from the Republicans and conservatives is an apology. They seem to expect a rueful admission that fascism was not supposed to “happen here,” and an expression of regret that the democratic bargain has been broken and betrayed.

In this fantasy, first comes the collective schadenfreude and satisfaction of seeing both the leaders and followers of the Republican Party admit they were wrong. Second comes an expression of repentance and a kind of conversion experience, in which Republicans and their followers come back to reason and fully commit themselves to “normal” social and political behavior.

In reality, no such apology will be forthcoming, nor will there be any ritual penitence. Republicans and their allies are dedicated to their cause. They believe themselves to be just and noble, and moreover to be righteous victims of oppression who are on the correct side of history. They will never admit defeat. They will never repent. To an increasing degree, they are willing to die or kill for their cause.

Do Democrats and their allies want to be “right” on questions of principle and to keep on complaining in sanctimonious terms about hypocrisy and lies and the violation of so-called norms and institutions? Or do they want to win power and keep it, and by doing so save the unfinished experiment of American democracy from descending into fascism? The answer to that question will help to shape the future of American democracy.

Who are the vaccine holdouts? America’s real COVID divide might not be what you think

The dramatic rise of the omicron variant has renewed medical experts’ warnings about the need for Americans to start taking the pandemic more seriously. Considering the generally low levels of vaccination in the U.S. relative to other wealthy countries, the CDC recommends that all Americans get vaccinated as the best means of protecting against severe illness from the variant, which has quickly overtaken delta as the dominant COVID strain in the U.S. Reporting from the first week and a half of December found that only 12 percent of new COVID-19 cases were from omicron; alarmingly, that had skyrocketed to 73 percent of new cases by the end of the third week of the month.

America is seriously divided on the vaccination question. And one doesn’t have to go far to see headlines emphasizing the partisan nature of anti-vax sentiment. Stories placing partisanship at the center of the conflict are everywhere, with titles like: “Inside the Growing Alliance Between Anti-Vaccine Activists and Pro-Trump Republicans,” “Republicans Seize on Federal Vaccine Mandates to Fire Up Their Base and Try to Court New Voters Worried About the Economy” and “The Biggest Divide on Vaccination Isn’t Race or Income, But Party — and the Divide is Growing.”

Despite the preoccupation with partisan conflict, available evidence suggests that the conflict over vaccination is not what we think it is. National polling in September found large divides on COVID vaccination on numerous demographic fronts, based on education, political party and age. Sixty percent of Republicans reported being vaccinated, compared to 86 percent of Democrats. Sixty-six percent of high school graduates said they were vaccinated, compared to 86 percent of those with graduate degrees. And 66 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds reported vaccination, compared to 86 percent of those 65 and older.

RELATED: “Don’t, don’t, don’t”: Trump lashes out after crowd boos him for getting COVID booster

These are all large divides between groups — of 20 percentage points or more. But without a careful analysis of the raw data from national surveys, it’s not possible to tell how much each factor accounts for the enduring national divide over vaccination. To provide a clearer answer, I undertook an original statistical “regression” analysis of mid-2021 surveys, one a Marist poll, another from Axios — both completed in June — which asked Americans about their vaccination status, while collecting information on other demographic and personal behavioral factors. 

For the Axios poll, Americans’ political behavior was gauged in relation to their reliance on various media venues, including social media like Facebook and Twitter, the elite agenda-setting press (The New York Times), cable viewership (CNN, MSNBC and Fox News), and broadcast television (ABC, CBS, NBC News), in addition to various demographics, including political party identification, gender, race, education level and income. For the Marist poll, additional demographic factors included religious affiliation (for evangelical Christians) and region of the country. 

By statistically “controlling” (in social science terms) for all these factors simultaneously within a regression analysis, I am able to measure the percent likelihood that each variable is associated with being vaccinated or unvaccinated, other factors considered. For example, I can estimate the percent likelihood that age predicts being unvaccinated, moving from the oldest group of Americans — those 60 and older — to younger adults in the 18-29 age group. Or the likelihood that one is not vaccinated based on party identification, Democrat or Republican. Or the likelihood that rising education — from those with a high school degree or less to those with graduate degrees — accounts for vaccine refusal. 

The results of this research may surprise those who have been told that the battle over vaccinations is primarily a question of partisanship or, alternatively, is about where someone gets their news. The Biden administration has targeted a “disinformation dozen” of vaccine skeptics operating on social media, and CNN has emphasized that Fox News viewers are more likely to oppose vaccination. In fact, neither those who rely on social media nor those who watch Fox News as their “main source of news” are more likely to be unvaccinated, after controlling for other factors included in my analysis. On the other hand, consumption of various “liberal” media outlets, including CNN and The New York Times, is also unrelated to vaccination status. 

In terms of news consumption, only MSNBC and broadcast television act as positive predictors that someone is vaccinated. And even in these two cases, the correlation is not particularly strong: Watching MSNBC and broadcast news is associated, respectively, with a 14 percent and 15 percent increased likelihood of vaccination, after controlling for other factors. 


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


For a fuller accounting of various demographic factors, we need to look to the June Marist poll. Importantly, despite claims that Black Americans are more likely to be vaccine holdouts, this group is not significantly more likely to be unvaccinated, after statistically accounting for other factors. This finding is reinforced by recent polling, such as the Pew Research Center’s September poll that found minimal differences between the 70 percent of Black people, 72 percent of white people and 76 percent of Latinx people who report being vaccinated. 

Similarly, income, gender and the region of the country where one lives are all not significant in predicting vaccination status. Despite high-profile reporting drawing attention to lower vaccination rates in the South, living below the Mason-Dixon line is simply not relevant in accounting for vaccine resistance. Southern states are disproportionately Republican in their politics, and partisanship appears to be the primary factor at work here. Reflecting this point, my analysis of the Marist poll finds that Republican party affiliation is associated with a 26 percent increased chance of being unvaccinated, controlling for other factors. 

Despite academic and journalistic emphasis on vaccine resistance among white evangelicals, this group is only moderately more likely to be represented among vaccine holdouts. Being a white evangelical is associated with only a 10 percent increased probability of being unvaccinated in the Marist poll, compared to other Americans and after controlling for other demographic factors. Similarly, education is only moderately significant as a predictor of vaccination: The least educated Americans (those with a high school degree or less) are about 16 percent less likely to be vaccinated, compared to the most educated Americans (those with graduate degrees).

RELATED: False prophets: When preachers defy COVID — and then it kills them

But there is one factor that accounts, by far, for the largest variation in vaccination rates: age. Recent polling finds large differences between groups based on vaccination status and age, but the results are not what many people might expect. On the one hand, younger Americans are significantly less likely to be vaccinated than older Americans, with movement from the youngest Americans (18 to 29 years old) to the oldest (60+) associated with an astonishing 57 percent increased likelihood of being vaccinated. But this distinction is not because those in the youngest age cohort are disproportionately refusing vaccination, presumably because they feel they are healthy and are not concerned about contracting COVID-19. 

My analysis clearly shows that adults under 30 are not significantly more likely, statistically speaking, to be unvaccinated compared to the rest of the public. The difference occurs at the other end, where it is older Americans — those 60 and older — who are far more likely to have sought out vaccination, compared to all other age groups. Taking a closer look at Pew’s September polling, an overwhelming 86 percent of Americans 65 and older reported being vaccinated in mid-2021, only a few months after vaccines first became widely available, compared to 73 percent of those 50 to 64, 69 percent of those 30 to 49, and 66 percent of those 18 to 29. 

To put this another way, the major story here is not that younger Americans are disproportionately holding out on vaccination, but rather that all age groups except people 60 and older have failed to get vaccinated at the high rates that were necessary (at least before omicron took hold) to achieve “herd immunity” against COVID-19.

It may be comforting or politically convenient to blame the failure to achieve mass vaccination on ideological factors such as partisanship, Fox News socialization or religion (specifically referring to white evangelicals). There’s no doubt that Fox News has a history of flirting with anti-vaccine propaganda, while Republican state and local officials have militantly opposed vaccine and mask mandates and evangelical Christians have a long history of viewing evidence-based reasoning with suspicion, in favor of a faith-based worldview often associated with the rejection of science. 

RELATED: With omicron variant arriving, Republicans are now bribing people to avoid vaccination

But none of those factors, it turns out, is the primary reason for vaccine opposition. White evangelicals represent 14.5 percent of the U.S. population in 2021, and with 40 percent of them being unvaccinated in late 2021, that amounts to just 5.8 percent of the adult population. Republicans were 26 percent of the adult population as of October 2021, and with 44 percent reportedly not vaccinated, this amounts to 11.4 percent of American adults. By contrast, the number of unvaccinated Americans younger than age 65 is much larger than either of these groups. Census data reveals that Americans under 65 were 79 percent of the adult population as of 2020, and based on Pew’s data, the unvaccinated people within that group represented almost a quarter (24 percent) of adults.

It’s clear that partisanship and religious faith fuel suspicion of vaccines, and both factors clearly play a role in vaccine refusal. But our nation’s vaccination problem runs much deeper than that. The reality is that the U.S. has a widespread anti-vax problem, and lags well behind most wealthy countries in the percentage of adults who are fully vaccinated. If roughly one in four adult Americans under age 60 is unvaccinated, that comes to more than 60 million people, without even counting children younger than 18 who remain unvaccinated for various reasons.

RELATED: How deadly is the omicron variant? Here’s what we know

Mass opposition to vaccination is rooted in larger cultural values, such as a tendency to embrace narcissistic ignorance and to discount the advice of medical experts. Tens of millions refuse to come to terms with the gravity of the threat, despite the U.S. closing in on a million people dead of COVID and the prospect that half of those who contract the virus may face “long COVID” symptoms that persist for six months or more — an especially alarming statistic, considering our lack of understanding of what the long-term consequences will be years from now.

The significance of age as the best predictor of vaccine refusal suggests that much of the population, disproportionately concentrated among those younger than 65, have discounted the dangers of COVID-19, viewing it as something that only threatens the elderly. This belief is grossly ignorant, considering that one-quarter of the 800,000 U.S. COVID deaths as of December, or 200,000 people, were people younger than 65. Despite the evident dangers faced by Americans of all ages, anti-vax sentiment persists in the face of the most devastating pandemic in a century — and the prospect that new variants will continue to reduce the efficacy of vaccines and guarantee prolonged viral spread well into the future.

Manchin killed BBB fearing it might worsen inflation — here’s why that’s not true

One of Sen. Joe Manchin’s main concerns in deciding to pull his support for President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan is that it would drive up inflation, which is currently rising at the fastest pace in four decades.

On Dec. 19, the West Virginia Democrat said in an interview that he couldn’t support the bill in its current form because of the impact he says it would have on increasing consumer prices and the national debt. The decision effectively killed one of Biden’s top economic priorities.

The Senate had been considering the roughly $2 trillion bill passed by the House that would spend money on health care, education, fighting climate change and much else over the next decade. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says he still plans to bring it to the floor for a vote.

Manchin and Republicans have argued the risk that more spending could push inflation even higher is too great.

As an economist, I believe Manchin’s concerns are misguided. Here’s why.

Putting $2 trillion in context

High inflation is clearly a problem at the moment — as the Federal Reserve’s Dec. 15 decision to accelerate its withdrawal of economic stimulus signals.

The most recent statistics show inflation, as measured by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index, was 6.8% in November 2021. This is the highest level since 1982, yet still a long way from the double-digit inflation experienced back then.

The question, then, is: Could an additional large spending increase cause inflation to accelerate further?

To answer this, it’s useful to put the numbers in some context.

The price tag of the Build Back Better plan passed by the House of Representatives is about $2 trillion, to be spent over a 10-year period. If the spending is spread out evenly, that would amount to about $200 billion a year. That’s only about 3% of how much the government planned to spend in 2021.

Another comparison is to gross domestic product, which is the value of all goods and services produced in a country. U.S. GDP is projected to be $22.3 trillion in 2022. This means that the first year of the bill’s spending would be about 0.8% of the GDP.

While that doesn’t sound like much either, it’s not insignificant. Goldman Sachs had estimated U.S. economic growth at 3.8% in 2022. If the increased spending translated into economic activity on a dollar-for-dollar basis, that could lift growth by over one-fifth.

But what really matters here is how much the bill would spend in excess of any taxes raised to pay for the program. The higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations that the House version of the bill calls for would reduce economic activity — by taking money out of the economy — offsetting some of the impact of the spending that would stimulate it.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would increase the deficit by $150.7 billion over a decade, or about $15 billion a year. Again, assuming this is spread evenly over the 10 years, it would amount to less than one-tenth of 1% of GDP. Even if elements of the bill are front-loaded, it does not seem that this increase in the government debt would contribute much to inflation.

In other words, the proposed spending would make a barely noticeable macroeconomic effect even if it had an unusually disproportionate impact on the economy.

But it won’t reduce inflation either

Some proponents of the bill — including the White House and some economists — have gone further. They have argued that the proposed spending package would actually reduce inflation by increasing the productive capacity of the economy — or its maximum potential output.

This seems implausible to me, at least given the current level of inflation. Historical evidence shows a more productive economy can grow more quickly with relatively little upward pressure on prices. That’s what happened in the U.S. in the 1990s, when the economy grew strongly with little inflation. But it takes time for investments like those in the bill to translate into gains in productivity and economic growth, meaning many of these impacts will be slow to materialize.

And current inflation is likely an acute problem reflecting supply chain disruptions and pent-up demand, challenges that won’t be resolved by expanding the economy’s productive capacity five or more years down the road.

At the same time, what’s in the bill would make a big difference to improving the lives of average Americans by providing more of them with affordable child care and health care and reducing child poverty, areas where the U.S. seriously lags behind other rich countries. And it would help the U.S. fight the ever-worsening effects of climate change.

While the $2 trillion in spending would be unlikely to worsen inflation if it were to become law, I believe it could do a lot to materially address these challenges America faces.

Michael Klein, Professor of International Economic Affairs at The Fletcher School, Tufts University

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

Ghislaine Maxwell trial: Trump flew on Epstein’s jets more often than previously known

Flight logs revealed by federal prosecutors in Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial appear to show Donald Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” private jet a half dozen times more than was previously known.

“Decades before he became president, Trump flew four times in 1993, once in 1994 and once in 1995, in addition to a flight in 1997 that had been documented in portions of the flight log previously released,” The Miami Herald reports. “A woman named Marla, apparently Trump’s then-wife Marla Maples, is listed as joining him on the June 1994 flight, along with a Tiffany, apparently their then-infant daughter, and a nanny. Trump’s son Eric is listed as joining him on an August 1995 flight between Palm Beach and New York.”

Trump discussed his relationship with Epstein for a 2002 New York Magazine story.

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump said. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

It had previously been reported that former President Bill Clinton had flown on Epstein’s jet nine times.

“Trump and Clinton aren’t the only notable names included in the 118-page log, which includes flights between April 1991 and January 2006,” The Herald reported. “The log also includes two previously undisclosed flights in February 1994 on which a passenger identified as Bobby Kennedy Jr., is listed, a previously undisclosed April 1994 flight with former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell (D-MT) and several previously undisclosed flights involving famed violinist Itzhak Perlman.”

Head the full report.