Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

11 best smoked salmon recipes, bagels included

Smoked salmon is a delicious product, but it’s also a vast category. Within the spectrum of smoked and cured salmon, you’ll find at least half a dozen varieties including Nova, Western, Eastern, Lox, Gravlax, Kippered, and pastrami-style. Before salmon is smoked, it is either dry or wet cured with salt, and sometimes sugar and spices too. Once smoked (either using a hot or cold smoking process), the salmon transforms into a smooth, silky fish with a subtle salty taste.

Of course plenty of people enjoy smoked salmon on its own, but it’s even better when upgraded with crème fraîché, sliced red onions, capers, and dill. Here, we’re sharing 11 combinations of sometimes simple, sometimes spectacular, and always satisfactory smoked salmon recipes.

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

Nothing looks classier than little pieces of toast with shavings of smoked salmon delicately folded on top of, in this case, a thick layer of dill and Dijon butter. You can assemble them in advance and safely leave them out at room temperature so when your guests arrive, you won’t be caught scrambling to finish cooking.

2. Hot Smoked Salmon, Soba, and Asian Greens Salad

Dress up a lunch salad with a fillet of hot smoked salmon. Through the smoking process, the fillet becomes fully cooked (versus just cured) and achieves a maple-y, woodsy, and, yes, smoky flavor. You can try smoking fish yourself (we have instructions for how to do so) or pick up a pre-smoked fillet from the fish department at your local supermarket.

3. Northwest Smoked Salmon Chowder

This West Coast-inspired chowder swaps the usual bacon and clams for capers, cream cheese, hot sauce, and hot smoked salmon.

4. Pickled Deviled Eggs with Smoked Salmon

Dress up pickled eggs for a special occasion brunch. First, the hard-boiled eggs are pickled in a combination of beet juice and vinegar (you can make this step in advance). Once they’re ready, fill them with a classic Dijon and horseradish mixture, then top each egg with a little bit of smoked salmon and chives.

5. Smoked Salmon “Everything Bagel” Pie

Inspired by a classic New York breakfast sandwich, this savory pie is made with puff pastry, which is baked and then topped with all the fixins — aka cream cheese, capers, thinly sliced tomatoes, chopped red onion, scallions, and of course, smoked salmon.

6. Corn Husk-Smoked Salmon with Grilled Corn Salsa

Salmon sweetly quick-smoked with corn husks and served over a bright salsa of tomatoes and grilled corn is the epitome of summer.

7. Smoked Salmon Mousse on Rye Toasts

This is the easiest ever way to serve smoked salmon that’s elegant to boot. Simply combine smoked salmon, whipped cream cheese, crème fraîche, onion, and lemon in a food processor to form the “mousse” and then spread it on toasted slices of rye bread.

8. Baked Ricotta and Smoked Salmon Dumplings in Gyoza Skin

These are so much easier and faster to make than you might expect. All it takes is smoked salmon, ricotta, lemon zest, and wonton wrappers. Fill each wrapper with a dollop of cheese, miniature pieces of smoked salmon, and zest, and then bake them until crisp.

9. Smoked Salmon with Horseradish Caper Sauce

Nothing goes better with smoked salmon than capers, cream cheese (or crème fraîche), and red onion, all of which you’ll find here in this five-minute entrée.

10. Blini with Crème Fraîche and Smoked Salmon

“A classic combo that’s great for brunches, cocktail parties, or light lunches,” writes recipe developer Erin Jeanne McDowell.

11. Tarragon Potato Salad with Cured Salmon and Lemon Vinaigrette

This easy recipe is great for either the main course or a side dish for a brunch. All it calls for is boiled new potatoes, spring onions, smoked or cured salmon, and a little bit of crème fraîche or sour cream.

The one-ingredient vegetable stock I swear by

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. 

Most vegetable stock recipes call for more than one vegetable. There are onions, carrots, and celery. But also leeks, fennel, and cabbage. Maybe scallions, parsnips, and mushrooms. And yes, I could go on.

But just as chicken stock recipes almost always call for more than just chicken, vegetable stock recipes almost always call for more than just vegetables. Supposedly, you need aromatics (like ginger and garlic), herbs (like parsley and thyme), spices (like black pepper and coriander), and umami boosters (like tomato paste and dried mushrooms).

Except you don’t. You don’t need a laundry list of ingredients. You just need one confident ingredient, plus water and salt.

I tested this a couple years back with chicken and ended up with the chickeniest chicken broth of my life. Then, for my cookbook, “Big Little Recipes,” I developed even more one-ingredient stocks (seven, to be exact).

Not to pick favorites, but this one is my favorite. It comes together with a couple heads of garlic and an hour on the stove.

While over 20 cloves might seem audacious from afar, it’s the secret to turning a pot of tap water into liquid gold. When raw, garlic is sharp, like lemon juice on a paper cut. But when cooked, it melts into something savory and sweet and magical.

The reason why garlic is often used as a sidekick in stock recipes — which typically call for a mere clove or two — is the same reason why it shines so brightly on its own: Its flavor is powerful. So let’s harness that.

Once the garlic is done simmering, you have a couple options: You could repurpose those mushy cloves toward something else (say, a heavily buttered baguette). Or you could mash them through a fine-mesh strainer to enrich the broth with more garlicky goodness (yes please and thank you).

Use this one-ingredient vegetable stock anywhere a recipe calls for the more traditional sort. Because it yields a couple quarts, you’ll likely have some for now, and more to freeze for later. Which, I’ve found, is enormously welcome come winter.

Recipe: Garlic Stock

Make this rosé bucatini for the wine mom in your life

It’s incredibly liberating to not try to be special or different. I like pumpkin spice. I like “The Office.” I have a cute phone case. You want to know why Ed Sheeran is popular? It’s me; I’m the one doing that. In short, #sorrynotsorry, I’m every inch a wine mom.

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

I do not have any wordy signs declaring my philosophy of “Live Laugh Love” or that I “Namaste in Bed;” I own no t-shirt declarations of a “Rosé All Day” ethic. But I am a working parent and full time student who is getting through all of… this with the assistance of chocolate, soft pants, “GBBO” and a glass of vino or two under my weighted blanket. So sue me, those things are great and I love them unconditionally.

RELATED: A salmon and pesto pasta to fall in love to

I’m not sure when rosé became the new Malbec, or why last year bucatini became almost as scarce as toilet paper. But I do know that when I was leafing through my beloved copy of Jamie Oliver’s indispensable “5 Ingredients” recently looking for dinner inspiration, the words “rosé pasta” hit differently than they did when the book came four years ago. Suddenly, that was exactly what I wanted to make, immediately.

Oliver makes his dish with shrimp, angel hair pasta and red pesto, which, when you think about it, makes it a meal that would be very at home in the eighties. But I’m allergic to shrimp and didn’t have any red pesto on hand this particular evening, so I ditched them both. I did, however, want to lean in on the pink theme, so I fluffed up some prosciutto for the occasion. I also threw in a flavor boosting pat of butter to the mix. And finally, because a wine mom is always a year behind any trend, I made the whole thing with bucatini.

This is a dinner you get on the table in 15 minutes and then enjoy at your leisure, preferably with the rest of that bottle of rosé and some intense conversation about the “Sex and the City” reboot. Better yet, get someone you love to make this for you. It’s been a long day, and you deserve a night off. 

***

Rosé bucatini
Inspired by Jamie Oliver’s “5 Ingredients”
Makes 4 to 6 portions

Ingredients:

  • 1 (12 ounce) box of bucatini (or whatever pasta you like)
  • 4 cloves of garlic, peeled and thinly sliced
  • 2/3 cup of rosé or white wine
  • 4 ounces of thinly sliced prosciutto
  • 1 tablespoon of butter
  • Olive oil
  • Salt

Directions:

  1. Bring a pot of salted water to a boil and cook pasta to package directions. Drain, reserving 3/4 cup of your cooking water.
  2. Meanwhile, over medium heat, heat up a few tablespoons of olive oil in a big pan.
  3. Add your garlic and prosciutto, and sauté until the meat is just beginning to crisp. Remove the meat from the pan.
  4. Add the wine and let it reduce by half, about a minute or two.
  5. Add your pat of butter and stir. Now add your cooking water and let everything reduce a little more.
  6. Add the pasta to the pan to coat completely with the sauce and warm everything through.
  7. Remove from heat and stir in your crisped prosciutto. A little zest of lemon on top is really good.
  8. Serve immediately with a radicchio salad, to keep the blushing palette going.

More easy pasta recipes we love: 

Biden and Putin kick off Christmas season with “useful meeting” — while Trump plays Grinch

Tuesday morning broke cold and crisp at the White House. By mid-morning dozens of reporters were stirring in their warm winter coats — lined up doing live shots on the north side of the campus.

Inside the building, with stockings hung by the fire with care, President Joe Biden began a two-hour telephone call with Vladimir Putin. The call came after the Russian president recently increased worldwide tension by massing troops inside Ukraine with the implicit threat of overrunning a country ruled by a former comedian. I cannot verify whether Putin growled, with his fingers nervously drumming.

While Biden was nestled all snug in his office discussing these grave matters of international importance with a former KGB officer and current autocratic ruler of Russia, our former president, Donald Trump, slithered and slunk and — with a smile so unpleasant! — sent out emails to his loyal followers offering them Trump wine glasses as Christmas gifts for a very affordable price.

RELATED: Joe Biden’s Christmas reboot: A tightly wound presidency badly needs some holiday cheer

Some foreign reporters did appear, discussing “first strike” capabilities, as if whatever happened in the phone conversation between the two presidents could lead to a nuclear war sometime before lunch. Maybe the most likely reason they thought of this at all is that their hearts are just two sizes too small.

Others weren’t so sure, and a few other reporters, shuffling back and forth in the West Wing or running to their various live-shot locations, expressed more concern about the omicron variant of the COVID-19 virus. Some took time to lament the fact that a few reporters had recently tested positive for the virus — including one who apparently sat in on a recent press briefing .

Most of the conversation and consequent speculation among reporters about the Biden-Putin call relied heavily on a background telephone conversation that took place between a White House official and the press corps the previous day. “President Biden will obviously raise our concerns with Russia’s military buildup and plans with respect to Ukraine. The agenda will also cover a number of other critical issues including strategic stability, cyber and Iran’s nuclear program,” we were told.

Nothing was said about outer space issues. 

The background call lasted about 20 minutes and left most questions unanswered, although to be fair because of arbitrarily imposed time constraints few questions were asked.

That set the table for Tuesday, with more speculation leading up to the Putin call and even more cud-chewing afterward. 

After Biden finished the Putin call, he then called and debriefed our closest allies. He also released a one-paragraph statement: 

President Biden voiced the deep concerns of the United States and our European Allies about Russia’s escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine and made clear that the U.S. and our Allies would respond with strong economic and other measures in the event of military escalation. President Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and called for de-escalation and a return to diplomacy. The two presidents tasked their teams to follow up, and the U.S. will do so in close coordination with allies and partners. The presidents also discussed the U.S.-Russia dialogue on Strategic Stability, a separate dialogue on ransomware, as well as joint work on regional issues such as Iran.

A short time afterward, Trump emailed a statement demeaning Biden’s conversation with Putin. Perhaps he even shouted it from 10,000 feet up Mount Crumpet. It’s unclear what, if any, knowledge Trump could have regarding the Biden-Putin private Zoom call, but Trump, well — shucks, he had to be part of the conversation nonetheless. It’s almost as if you’re dealing with a hyperactive pre-pubescent child jacked up on sugar, caffeine, fast food and porn.

Oh, and by the way, the kid with the fake hair and the Rodney Dangerfield suits also took the opportunity a few minutes later to ask me to join his “Official Trump Honor Roll” by donating at least $25. It was an opportunity to join “an exclusive roster” and such an opportunity “does not come around often Brian.”

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

Meanwhile, back in the world that mattered, it was reported that Biden told Putin he was prepared to take economic sanctions farther than in 2014, when Biden was Barack Obama’s vice president.

Most of the details of this conversation were subsequently withheld by both sides, as one would expect. Everyone wants to control their message. 

Putin’s minions described the presidents’ video conference as “candid and businesslike,” and the pair of presidents apparently even exchanged a few jokes. Whether or not they were about Trump — well, who knows?

Russian state television showed a brief video clip of a friendly introduction, while at the White House, national security adviser Jake Sullivan appeared in front of the press corps with press secretary Jen Psaki later in the afternoon and told us it was a “useful meeting.”  

But it’s all on Putin, according to the White House. And some who report on Putin say it all hinges on whether or not the two men mutually respect each other. 

So the foreign reporters have figured it all out. Human culture is intellectually equivalent to a pair of roosters ready to go at it in a cockfighting ring. Personally, having seen a real cockfight or two, watching either grows pointless with repeated viewing. The question is: How easily does politics bore you? Because it’s dangerous to ignore it.

As it turns out, the endless negativity in politics for some reason overwhelmingly leads to voter disenfranchisement by choice. That’s good for the bad politician, but bad for the good citizen. 

The cacophony is avoided by most people who are struggling to “pay the bills, man.” With millions of homeless in this country, a national reporter asked Psaki on Tuesday why the administration didn’t just solve the problem of getting people tested by sending tests to everyone’s home. Maybe his heart was two sizes too small. Or maybe I just “Hate all the Noise!” But Psaki, who long ago put it into cruise control when dealing with most of the press, ignored the noise and eased right on by this one. Never venturing out of her lane, she stressed what the White House had done and how getting people to come forward voluntarily was important — and then she stepped on the gas and wiped that tear away. (Apologies to Lennon and McCartney).

I don’t think Psaki even blinked. It’s one of the reasons she is respected by a press corps who, for the previous four years, were screamed at daily by an administration of spoiled children who often soiled themselves. She’s always cool and cordial even when reacting emotionally, which has been rare. Or maybe people have just stopped watching. Some say that’s because you can’t expect a lot of groundbreaking information from a Psaki briefing. In fact you can’t expect much information at all — outside of what is dictated to you. But it will be done in professional and friendly fashion, definitely not rudely.

More to the point, Psaki didn’t slap a reporter for asking an oblivious question about universal COVID testing. 

Meanwhile, we all continue to deal with the pandemic, raising our kids, paying the bills and struggling to make ends meet in a country that has torn itself apart with political strife, economic disruption and voter disenfranchisement. It is plagued by continuous mass shootings, willful political ignorance, arrogance, transportation problems, a huge national ego problem and supply chain snafus. Education is mostly crude and rudimentary; public schools are based on antiquated models from the last century.  The climate is changing. People are angry and frightened. Leadership: Honestly? Most rational adults have long ago abandoned any hope of leadership from most politicians of either party. Much like they’ve given up hope for unbiased journalism.

At the end of the day they just want to know, as the holiday season rolls around, what to give to their loved ones for presents, and whether there’s a reasonable chance the world won’t blow itself up before the end of the New Year. You know: the basics.

As it turns out, the White House isn’t saying much about it. How effective was the telephone call between the two leaders? Were tensions lessened? Is the world any safer?

That’s something Sullivan couldn’t say definitively. “So, all I will say is that the ultimate metric for whether the world is safer or not is facts on the ground and actions taken, in this case, by Russia. Let’s see. We are prepared to deal with any contingency, as I said at the outset. And I’m not going to make predictions or characterizations. I’m only going to say that President Biden will continue to do all of the necessary prudent planning for a variety of different pathways that could unfold in the weeks ahead.”

That’s a fine Merry Christmas for everyone.

But wait. There’s more.. After it was all said and done Trump sent out an email saying that in 2022 he was going to “SAVE AMERICA” from the radical left. It had something to do with receiving an “Official 2022 Trump Calendar Today,” for just a contribution of $25 or more.

As Biden left the Oval Office on Wednesday, he stopped by the press pool and cleaned up one bit of business. Whatever else might happen, the president explained, he wasn’t proposing the possibility of sending U.S. troops to Ukraine. 

Somebody please pass the eggnog.

…A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

Oh, and spike it.

More from Brian Karem on the contradictions of the Biden White House:

California joins states trying to shorten wait times for mental health care

When Greta Christina fell into a deep depression five years ago, she called up her therapist in San Francisco. She’d had a great connection with the provider when she needed therapy in the past. She was delighted to learn that he was now “in network” with her insurance company, meaning she wouldn’t have to pay out-of-pocket anymore to see him.

But her excitement was short-lived. Over time, Christina’s appointments with the therapist went from every two weeks, to every four weeks, to every five or six.

“To tell somebody with serious, chronic, disabling depression that they can only see their therapist every five or six weeks is like telling somebody with a broken leg that they can only see their physical therapist every five or six weeks,” she said. “It’s not enough. It’s not even close to enough.”

Then, this summer, Christina was diagnosed with breast cancer. Everything related to her cancer care — her mammogram, biopsy, surgery appointments — happened promptly (like a “well-oiled machine,” she said), while her depression care stumbled along.

“It is a hot mess,” she said. “I need to be in therapy — I have cancer! And still nothing has changed.”

A new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October aims to fix this problem for Californians. Senate Bill 221, which passed the state legislature with a nearly unanimous vote, requires health insurers across the state to reduce wait times for mental health care to no more than 10 business days. Six other states — including Colorado, Maryland and Texas — have similar laws limiting wait times.

Long waits for mental health treatment are a nationwide problem, with reports of patients waiting an average of five or six weeks for care in community clinics, at Department of Veterans Affairs facilities and in private offices from Maryland to Los Angeles County. Across California, half of residents surveyed by the California Health Care Foundation in late 2019 said they had to wait too long to see a mental health care provider when they needed one.

At Kaiser Permanente, the state’s largest insurance company, 87% of therapists said weekly appointments were not available to patients who needed them, according to a 2020 survey by the National Union of Healthcare Workers, which represents KP therapists — and was the main sponsor of the California wait times legislation.

“It just feels so unethical,” said triage therapist Brandi Plumley, referring to the typical two-month wait time she sees at Kaiser Permanente’s mental health clinic in Vallejo, east of San Francisco.

Every day, she takes multiple crisis calls from patients who have therapists assigned to them but can’t get in to see them, she said, describing the providers’ caseloads as “enormous.”

“It’s heartbreaking. And it eats on me day after day after day,” Plumley said. “What Kaiser simply needs to do is hire more clinicians.”

Kaiser Permanente says there just aren’t enough therapists out there to hire. KP is an integrated system — it is a health provider and insurance company under one umbrella — and has struggled to fill 300 job vacancies in clinical behavioral health, according to a statement from Yener Balan, the insurer’s Northern California vice president of behavioral health.

Hiring more clinicians won’t solve the problem, said Balan, who suggested that sustaining one-on-one therapy for all who want it in the future wouldn’t be possible in the current system: “We all must reimagine our approach to the existing national model of care.”

Kaiser Permanente lodged concerns about the wait times bill when it was introduced. And the trade group representing insurers in the state, the California Association of Health Plans, opposed it, saying the shortage of therapists would make meeting the two-week mandate too difficult.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated this workforce shortage, and demand for these services significantly increased,” said Jedd Hampton, a lobbyist for the California Association of Health Plans, in testimony during a state Senate hearing for the bill in the spring.

Hampton referred to a University of California-San Francisco study that predicted California would have nearly 30% fewer therapists than needed to meet demand by 2028.

“Simply put, mandating increased frequency of appointments without addressing the underlying workforce shortage will not lead to increased quality of care,” Hampton said.

Lawmakers pushed back. State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who authored the bill, accused insurers of overstating the shortage. State Sen. Connie Leyva (D-Chino) said that the therapeutic providers are out there but that insurers are responsible for recruiting them into their networks by paying higher rates and reducing administrative burdens.

If insurers want more young people to enter the mental health care profession, they must improve salaries and working conditions now, said state Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento). (A 2016 KQED investigation uncovered multiple ways that insurers save money by keeping provider networks artificially small.)

As bipartisan support for the bill grew in Sacramento, insurers withdrew their formal opposition.

But whether other states have the political will, or the resources, to legislate a similar solution is unclear, said Hemi Tewarson, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy in Washington, D.C. Although California may be able to force insurers to hire more therapists, she said, places like New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and parts of the South don’t have enough therapists at any price.

“They don’t have the providers, so you could fine the insurers as much as you want, you’re not going to be able to, in the short term, make up those wait times if they already exist,” she said.

The new California law is a solid step toward improving access to mental health care, with communities of color standing to benefit the most, said Lonnie Snowden, a professor of health policy and management at the University of California-Berkeley. African Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos face the most barriers getting into care, Snowden said, and when people of color do come in for treatment, they are more likely to drop out.

Oversight and enforcement are needed for the new rules to work, said Keith Humphreys, a psychiatry professor at Stanford University. Kaiser Permanente has data systems that can track the time between appointments, but other insurers set up contracts with therapists in private practice, who manage their own caseloads and schedules.

“Who would keep track of whether people who’ve been seen once were seen again in 10 days, when it’s hard enough just to keep track of how many providers we have and who they are seeing?” he asked.

Questions like that one will fall to state regulators, primarily the California Department of Managed Health Care. The department has fined insurers $6.9 million since 2013 for violating state standards, including a $4 million penalty against Kaiser Permanente for excessive wait times for mental health care. Previous state law required insurers to provide initial mental health care appointments within 10 days, and the new law clarifies that they must do the same for follow-up appointments.

Greta Christina, who gets her care at a Kaiser Permanente facility, said she is desperate for the new law to start working. It takes effect on July 1, 2022. Christina thought about paying out-of-pocket in the meantime, to find a therapist she could see more often. But in a cancer crisis, she said, starting over with someone new would be too hard. So she’s waiting.

“Knowing that this bill is on the horizon has been helping me hang on,” she said.

This story is part of a partnership that includes  KQED, NPR and KHN.

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.

Donald Trump’s new social network has “highly suspect” Brazil ties, claims watchdog group

A government watchdog group on Thursday called on Congress to investigate whether former President Donald Trump used the power of his presidency to help lay the groundwork for his planned social network before leaving office.

In October, Trump announced the launch of a social network and media platform through Digital World Acquisition Corp., a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that would merge with the newly-formed Trump Media & Technology Group. The SPAC, which has already come under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal regulators amid scrutiny of its fluctuating stock price, was incorporated in December 2020, while Trump was still in office, according to Delaware records. The SPAC’s chief financial officer is Brazilian lawmaker Luiz Philippe de Orléans e Braganza, a close ally of right-wing Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes described as the “Trump of the Tropics.” 

Around the same time as the SPAC was formed, Trump made several moves to benefit the Bolsonaro regime and the Brazilian president returned the favor, endorsing Trump ahead of his failed re-election bid. Trump struck a trade deal with Brazil before the 2020 election and declared Brazil a “major non-NATO ally” while removing COVID-based travel restrictions previously imposed on the South American nation.

The left-leaning government watchdog Accountable.US on Thursday called on the House Oversight and Reform Committee to “investigate potential efforts by President Donald J. Trump to deliver Brazil-friendly policies in the waning days of his presidency in exchange for help from key allies of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro in getting his recently announced social media venture off the ground,” in a letter shared with Salon.

“Misuse of the highest office in the land for personal gain threatens the very foundation of our nation’s democracy,” Accountable.US President Kyle Herrig wrote to Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and ranking member James Conner, R-Iowa. “In order to uphold our most fundamental values and do right by the American people, we believe the committee must investigate if, and to what extent, Donald Trump abused his office for his own benefit — along with Bolsonaro’s.”

RELATED: Inside the “weird” world of DWAC, Trump’s already soaring social media SPAC

Trump’s new media company, which will include a social network called TRUTH Social, will be helmed by retiring Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., a longtime Trump ally. The news broke the same week a filing revealed that the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority are investigating the Digital World Acquisition Corp. and have requested information related to stock trading that preceded Trump’s October announcement, as well as documents related to board meetings and identities of certain investors.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., called for the SEC to investigate whether Digital World Acquisition Corp. “committed securities violations by holding private and undisclosed discussions about the merger as early as May 2021 while omitting this information” from public filings.

Others have raised concerns that the new Trump-centric company has provided little information about its products despite touting massive projections in its pitch deck to investors. The company has already missed its first product deadline to release a beta version of TRUTH Social, raising questions about how legitimate the venture actually is. The structure of the SPAC has raised concerns that investors could use the opportunity to buy their way into Trump’s favor ahead of a likely 2024 presidential campaign, including foreign investors who could potentially pose a national security threat. The company’s shares soared 1,657% after the Trump announcements but have since fallen to $75 a share, about $100 below the October peak of $175.

While in office, Trump had a distinctly friendly relationship with Bolsonaro. Many observers in Brazil believed that Bolsonaro had “privileged access to the White House” and no previous Brazilian president had ever “made his resemblance to and friendship with his U.S. counterpart such a central element,” Americas Quarterly reported last year.

Trump backed Bolsonaro in 2019 when the Brazilian leader came under heavy criticism from world leaders over the extensive and uncontrolled fires burning in the Amazon rain forest. Less than a month before his election loss, Trump’s administration signed a new trade deal with Brazil. In January, the Trump administration designated Brazil a “major non-NATO ally,” which makes countries eligible for loans, military agreements and other benefits. On Jan. 18, 2021, just two days before leaving office, Trump ordered an end to the ban on travelers from Brazil due to COVID, which President Biden later reimposed after taking office. Earlier this year, Trump endorsed Bolsonaro’s re-election bid.

A spokesperson for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

Philippe, who is known in Brazil as “the prince” because of his ancestral ties to Brazil’s last emperor, who ruled more than a century ago, has aligned himself with many of Bolsonaro’s and Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. After being elected to the Brazilian parliament in 2018, one of his first proposals was to create an unelected head of state with the power to overrule the legislature’s decisions. After last year’s presidential election, Philippe praised Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani for pushing baseless election fraud claims. Earlier this year, he published a video of Steve Bannon attending a conference in Brazil where Trump’s former strategist claimed that “globalists” would try to steal the upcoming election from Bolsonaro. Several other Trump allies have helped the Brazilian leader stoke Trump-style conspiracy theories, claiming possible fraud before any votes are cast. Philippe later posted a photo of himself standing next to Trump after the SPAC deal was announced.

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

“Documents from Digital World Acquisition Corp evidence Philippe’s involvement in the SPAC since at least when it went public in May 2021, suggesting that he was an early addition to the SPAC’s leadership,” Herrig wrote to the Oversight Committee, arguing that the timing of the SPAC launch, the hiring of Philippe and the pursuit of pro-Bolsonaro policies raise serious questions about potential conflicts of interest.

Digital World Acquisition Corp. did not respond to a request for comment. The New York Times previously reported that Trump was in talks on a deal since at least March, well before the company went public in September.

Herrig called on the committee to investigate whether Trump used the power of his office to arrange a deal with Bolsonaro or his allies and whether he discussed plans for the company during official meetings with Bolsonaro and his allies while still in office.

A spokesperson for the committee did not reply to a request for comment.

“The American people deserve to know if Trump used the power of his office to arrange a deal with Bolsonaro or top members of Brazil’s government to help get his company off the ground in exchange for pushing policies that would benefit the Bolsonaro regime,” Herrig said in a statement to Salon. “The timeline is highly suspect and Congress needs to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. If the former president once again put his own business interests ahead of the needs of American families, those involved must be held accountable.”

Read more on Trump’s social media venture and the Bolsonaro regime in Brazil:

Supreme Court stands up for centuries of entrenched misogyny: It’s a grim history lesson

In her memoir “Recollections of My Nonexistence,” Rebecca Solnit writes, “To be a young woman is to face your own annihilation in innumerable ways.” Nothing proves her point more powerfully than the debacle seen at the Supreme Court last week, as the justices debated the likely demise of legal abortion in this country.

With stunning ignorance of and disregard for women’s lives, five men and one woman in black robes pontificated and danced around the real issue before them — women’s bodily integrity, agency and personhood. Instead, they reprised the overwhelming oppression of females that has existed for millennia in fear of women’s autonomy, joining the generations of (mostly) men who view women as nothing more than state-owned semen vessels. 

The argument before the court, which aimed at gutting 50 years of precedent in the matter of abortion, reminded many women of the medieval practice of disappearing women into convents and monasteries and later into asylums where they were diminished, demoralized and drugged into passivity.  

RELATED: Republicans’ anti-abortion crusade won’t stop — even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

Imagine this: You are a woman with three children living in poverty when you have a contraceptive failure and are forced to carry the pregnancy to term. You are a woman 19 weeks pregnant with a much-wanted child when you learn that anomalies render the fetus unviable and continuing the pregnancy could endanger your own life, but you are denied an abortion. You are a college student who has been awarded a scholarship for advanced study when you realize you are pregnant. Denied a safe abortion, you schedule a clandestine, illegal one. You are a 13-year-old child who has been raped by her stepfather and is now told she must bear her rapist’s child. 

Try to imagine living with the crippling fear these scenarios engender.

And yet the Supreme Court is trying mightily to hold women hostage because male power brokers are so threatened by female agency that they must control women at all costs and condemn them for believing they are entitled to fully lived lives grounded in equality and human rights. 

There is, of course, one woman among the six justices now chomping at the bit to effect the demise of legally sanctioned abortion. She should have been able to relate to issues relevant to pregnancy, for she too has borne children, felt them wiggle in her belly, done the hard labor of delivering them into the world and loving them when they arrived. Yet she argued that women don’t need abortions because they can easily dump their newborn babies into adoption or foster care like so much detritus, while her male colleagues grappled with numbers, the vagaries of viability and the rights of fetuses over living women.

The reckless and dangerous disregard for women’s lives and lived reality during the justices’ discourse was nothing short of staggering: a showcase for America’s Taliban.

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

It was also shocking to hear Scott Stewart, counsel for the state of Mississippi, which seeks to limit abortion to 15 weeks of gestation — clearly as a gateway to overturning Roe v. Wade. His responses to questions from the justices were befuddled, obfuscating, superficial and just plain ridiculous. This is the man Donald Trump put in charge of immigrant detention centers, despite is total absence of any qualifications for the job. Still, he was kept busy keeping monthly updated logs of females’ menstrual cycles during their incarceration, in an effort to prevent legal abortions from happening. 

The foundation of entrenched, continuing misogyny women face yet again is the same one women like Emmeline Pankhurst and Alice Paul faced when they risked their lives for women’s’ suffrage, the same one Margaret Sanger battled in her fight for contraception and sex education, the same one second-wave feminists fought against when they marched in every country in the world before, during and after the UN Decade for Women. It is what women like Virginia Woolf, Tillie Olsen, Betty Friedan, Carol Gilligan, Carolyn Heilbrunn, Audre Lorde and the multitudes who preceded or followed them wrote about: The trivialization, objectification, marginalization and silencing of over half the population in this country and around the world.

None of us who have been in the trenches for years fighting for equality, autonomy, economic justice, reproductive health care (which includes abortion), privacy, choices and other basic human rights — all of which are at risk with this Supreme Court — imagined we might find ourselves back to square one in this moment, living in fear, facing limited opportunities and the denial of our chosen paths. Never did we imagine that in the 21st century we would again live with the oppression of patriarchal power, such that sexism, racism and violence prevail.

When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked this question during the SCOTUS debate, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” she was asking a question so vital that it could have an impact on the outcome of the case being considered.

That question also invoked the patriarchy and misogyny that once again prevails as a dominating force in women’s lives. Sadly, especially for our daughters and granddaughters, the stench of annihilation is likely to be with us far into the future.

More on the Supreme Court and the possible end of Roe v. Wade:

Reclusive Publix heiress became obsessed with Alex Jones — and wound up funding Jan. 6: report

The reclusive heiress of the Publix supermarket chain helped finance former president Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 rally after she became obsessed with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, according to a report from the Washington Post.

Julie Fancelli, 72, contributed $650,000 to three organizations that helped stage and promote the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceeded the Capitol insurrection, making her the largest publicly known donor to the event.

“In the weeks leading up to the rally, Fancelli frequently emailed to her relatives and friends links to Jones’s talk show, according to two people with knowledge of the emails who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications,” the Post reports. “Jones was a leading proponent of false claims that Trump’s reelection had been foiled by election fraud and that Congress could refuse to certify Biden’s victory.”

Fancelli, who reportedly splits her time between Florida and Tuscan, Italy, had planned to attend the Stop the Steal rally and stay at the Willard hotel in Washington, but ultimately opted not to travel due to COVID-19.

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

“Fancelli was a regular listener to Jones’s show and had an assistant make contact with him at his office in Austin to find out how she could support Trump’s attempt to undermine Biden’s victory, the person said,” the Post reports. “She and Jones talked by phone at least once between Dec. 27 and Jan. 1, the person said.”

Jones, who did attend the rally, has received a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the Captiol insurrection.

Fancelli’s brother-in-law Barney Barnett, a retired Publix executive who describes himself as a conservative Republican, told the newspaper: “I am not tantalized by that fellow (Jones), but apparently she is, and a lot of other people are addicted, to the detriment of the country. Julie is one of the finest people I know, and I am sorry she got tied up with this guy.”

Fancelli’s sister, Nancy Jenkins, added: “He’s kind of a rabble rouser, and I don’t listen to that. I listen to the regular news. That guy is crazy. Everybody knows Trump lost.”

With some shoppers threatening boycotts, Publix has tried to distance itself from Fancelli, saying in statement that the company is “deeply troubled” by her involvement in Jan. 6.

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

Fancelli, who rarely speaks to the media, previously told the Post in a statement: “I am a proud conservative and have real concerns associated with election integrity, yet I would never support any violence, particularly the tragic and horrific events that unfolded on January 6th.”

One prominent Republican fundraiser from Florida questioned whether Fancelli even knew she was “writing checks for Jan. 6.” But the narrative of an innocent grandmother who unwittingly bankrolled an insurrection is undercut by Fancelli’s continued donations to far-right causes this year.

“In September, she gave $5,800 to Rep. Matthew M. Rosendale of Montana, who was among 21 House Republicans who opposed awarding the congressional gold medal to police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6,” the Post reports. “In July, Fancelli gave $1,000 to an unsuccessful candidate for mayor of Lakeland, Fla., who thanked the right-wing One America News for ‘correctly’ referring to Trump as the president after Biden’s inauguration.”

Read the full story.

Marvel reiterates that it will never recast Black Panther

After the tragic passing of Chadwick Boseman in August 2020, one of the biggest questions on the minds of fans was how Marvel would find a way to honor Boseman’s legacy within the Marvel Cinematic Universe, while still finding a way to continue the story Ryan Coogler began in his Oscar-winning “Black Panther” movie.

While recasts are nothing new for the MCU — just ask Terrence Howard — it’s impossible to even entertain the thought of anyone other than Boseman playing T’Challa, for a multitude of reasons. Boseman’s performance as the King of Wakanda will forever be remembered not just as one of the greatest portrayals in the MCU, but as one of the most defining roles of Boseman’s career and for the superhero genre as a whole.

As Marvel mastermind Kevin Feige put it, “His portrayal of T’Challa the Black Panther transcends iteration of the character in any other medium from Marvel’s past.”

Why Marvel won’t recast Chadwick Boseman’s Black Panther character

While there has been a lot of speculation over whether Marvel would recast Chadwick Boseman’s T’Challa in the highly anticipated “Black Panther” sequel, “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,”  Marvel’s VP of Development Nate Moore has once again made it clear Marvel Studios has no intention of ever trying to replace Boseman’s beloved hero. “You will not see T’Challa in the MCU 616 universe. We couldn’t do it,” Moore said on the “Ringer-Verse” podcast.

As Moore revealed, following Boseman’s death the studio sat down with Coogler to discuss how to continue the “Black Panther” franchise without T’Challa. While some decisions like that can take months to make, Moore said it took only minutes to decide that the character of T’Challa would not be recast within the MCU.

“Because I think we all feel so much of T’Challa in the MCU on the screen, not the comics, is tied to Chadwick’s performance, is what he brought to that role, on and off-screen, I would argue,” Moore said. “So as hard as it is narratively to figure out what to do because that’s a big hole, at no point did we consider recasting him.”

“Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” will shift the spotlight to T’Challa’s sister Shuri, played by Letitia Wright.

Jessica Seinfeld on being a part-time vegan: “If I can do it, anyone can do it”

As the best-selling author of “The Can’t Cook Book,” “Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food,” and “Food Swings,” Jessica Seinfeld is all about get getting us to eat well — in every sense of the word. Her newest book is “Vegan, at Times: 120 Recipes for Every Day or Every So Often.”

Seinfeld recently joined us on “Salon Talks” to talk about shaking up the family dinner plate, and why she doesn’t believe in “guilty pleasures.” Watch the episode here, or read a Q&A of our conversation below.

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

In the book, you describe your journey towards a more plant-based diet. In all of your books, you’re about the fruits and vegetables. This isn’t a huge stretch — it’s not like you suddenly went from deep-fried Snicker bars to this. Talk about what pushed you in this direction.

I have been having some health stuff in my late forties. I saw a couple of different doctors, and one of them recommended, “Look, it’s not quantified or even qualified, but a bunch of my patients have tried eating less dairy and tried eating less meat. It’s just something I’m going to say you should try, perhaps.” I did, and I not only felt better, I found that if you’re habitual about it, you crave those foods more than you crave the other ones. That really set me on a path towards just trying this lifestyle without talking about it, without making any grand statements, certainly to anyone in my family. It was really just a quiet pursuit for me just to feel better.

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

I have tons of autoimmune stuff, and I’m already on medication I don’t want to be on. I’m always looking for ways to improve my nutrition and just feel a little less tired. I found that this works, but I also found that it’s really hard as a mother of three and a wife. We talked about it before the interview. We have these boomer husbands who kind of like traditional foods. I think we all grew up seeing our dinner plate look a very specific way with — in America at least — protein and carbs and a vegetable. It’s a hard habit to break.

It was for health reasons, and it was really undeniable how much better I felt. But I also know that this is a very hard lifestyle to commit to 100% for some people — myself included, my family included. I find that with social media and people’s ability to have a voice now, which is a wonderful thing in many ways, it also can be directed at people in ways that make them feel ashamed. I don’t like the shame around food. I think that that has been something that has backfired for the vegan movement. I think people feel like, “I’m not going to be able to do this 100%. I’m not going to be perfect right out of the gate. I don’t want to feel like a failure, so I’m not even going to go near it.”

I say, “Let’s just dip our toes in. I’m on this journey myself.” I’m not 100% vegan. I’m trying. I’m definitely on a good run right now. I feel so much better that I don’t want to eat any dairy, and I don’t want to eat any meat. But that might change over the holidays — and that’s OK. And then the next day, I’m going to start over. And I’m going to do better, and I’m going to eat less meat and less dairy than I did the day before.

RELATED: Upgrade your baking with these inexpensive kitchen tools

Now that you’ve gone public with this, I imagine you’ve heard from some people, “Well then why not go all in?”

I wish I was that person. I’m not that person. Does that mean that I can’t try harder? I think we have that same end goal, right? Which is, let’s all eat less dairy, and let’s all eat less meat for the sake of animals for the sake of the planet. And, of course, for the sake of our bodies. Let’s all get there how best sets us up for success. I don’t respond well to shame. I don’t respond well to this idea of perfection. I completely celebrate imperfection and am far more compelled by people who acknowledge that they’re not perfect and acknowledge that things are hard for them. I respond to that, and I assume that other people do, too. I wrote this book for the rest of us.

Jessica, as a mom and especially as a mom of daughters, I really appreciate that in all of your writing, you understand what it means to have a healthy relationship with food. That can be different from only objectively “healthy” food. There’s fried stuff in this book. There’s sugar in this book — that’s OK. Because as soon as we start to say that some things are bad, that can be so damaging not only to ourselves but also to our children. We want our kids to be able to feed themselves.

As somebody who grew up in a very healthy home, my parents are very counterculture. I’ve been eating brown rice and tofu and have been having embarrassing lunches my whole life. I probably felt very embarrassed at school. I felt embarrassed by the food that my parents served, which was so different from everybody else’s. I always wished like, “Why can’t our cereals come in a box? Why do they all come in bags from a co-op?” I think that I grew up with this idea that shame is very close to food in our minds. When I had my first child, who’s now 21, and she refused to eat any vegetables or refused to eat anything green, that was so shocking to me as someone who eats really healthy and has only eaten healthy.

I grew up cooking, and I grew up having to take care of myself and my family because my mom worked and commuted. I helped get dinner on the table. I’ve always had these habits around eating healthier, cooking for my family, cooking for myself. I never had the money to go out to dinner when I was in high school, in college. I was always working in restaurants, and I was always broke. But I didn’t want my daughter to feel bad about how she ate or what her tastes were because she seemed to have even a textural thing. She was so picky that it was like, “Where does this come from?”

I was curious about it, instead of angry or worried. Well, I was worried. I was worried and scared because we do have these ideas around how we should be raising our children. I saw these other kids eating broccoli and eating all these things. And I was like, “Why is she like this?” I said, “I’m just going to throw vegetables and purée them into all her foods, and I don’t need to really have a conversation about it. Why not?” I treated it as an ingredient, and it struck a chord with people. I wrote that book, “Deceptively Delicious.” To this day, people are like, “You got my child eating vegetables — you. My son has real textural things with autism, and thank you so much. You wrote this amazing book.”

I had no idea. I just was trying to solve a problem. This has kind of been the thread throughout my books, which is I just want to help people eat better. I just want to help make it easier for people. A lot of us — especially right now — we have very complicated busy lives. We have kids we want to feed. We have husbands, or partners or whoever we want to feed. We also have, thankfully, other things that we’re focused on. Maybe making a perfect meal, if that exists, for a family is not on the front burner, so to speak. So how do we do this in a way that makes us feel somewhat successful, everyone’s happy? Because we’re at least eating together or some version of it. That’s really my philosophy around food, which is just “however you can get it done.” If it means you’re cutting corners. If it means you’re not buying organic, but it’s just convenient. If you’re doing something that feels good to you and feels better for your family, that’s the way to do it.

I think that sets up your kids and you, as a woman in the world, to have a healthy relationship with food. To not feel like you’re constantly on the treadmill that I see so many of my peers and their kids getting on out of shame and that feeling of, “This is bad, I’m being bad,” when you’re simply enjoying food. That’s a really sad way to go through life.

As this is my fifth book, I am asked a lot in interviews, “What is your guilty pleasure?” I do not have guilt around anything that I eat. Everything is a privilege and a pleasure to me in food. We’re so lucky not to be worried about it. We’re so lucky not to be worried about the next meal on our table. To even be having conversations like this is an absolute privilege. A guilty pleasure, that does not exist for me. Food is a pleasure. Putting these labels around, “You’re bad because you couldn’t do this or you should be a certain way,” is really why I wrote “Vegan, at Times.”

I understand and respect completely the ideology and the values around eating vegan food, especially as it is protective of animals, which is super important to me. But I do think that the vegan movement would have more people engaged and supporting it and helping to build that infrastructure that is needed if there was a more welcoming, accepting tone. If I’ve made anyone upset or angry in my view of it, I totally hear that. But I think that we’re among friends. Let’s do this together, and we’ll have setbacks — that’s OK. We’re going to have setbacks in everything we do.

And to not even see them as setbacks but rather part of a normal life. Let’s talk about how we get there, especially when we have more reluctant family members. Tell me how you brought your family on board with this. It can be a hard sell. And you don’t start with, “Now we’re going to be vegan.”

I wouldn’t say that my family’s on board. Well, we only have one child at home now because our two are in college. Jerry and I have committed to four dinners a week together that are vegan. Then he goes out with his friends. He loves Chipotle. That’s his thing on a Friday night with his friends. That’s fine. But as a family, we’ve decided, “Let’s do four nights a week, see how it goes.” The other two are not on board, but they will eat the food. When I serve things they don’t ask, “Is this vegan or not vegan?” Most of the times now it’s vegan, but they don’t have a problem with it.

I want to ask you about the food, specifically, because I love so many of the ideas and the recipes in here. They don’t rely on a lot of special ingredients. They don’t rely on a lot of processed food and alternative foods that can taste weird. Talk about the way that you developed the recipes in here to make them accessible and to make them meals that you can make with stuff you probably already have on hand.

It goes back to my original philosophy around that started with “Deceptively Delicious,” which is that people are pretty set in their ways that they like to eat. If you are presenting an idea to them that might be better for them or might feel better for them, you have to do it in a way that feels comfortable and feels familiar.

I started with ideas for recipes that wouldn’t feel way too healthy or way “too elite,” as my kids would say. I felt like, “How do I make my own family not terrified when I bring something out during the pandemic?” And then I felt like I just spent an hour cooking dinner and nobody ate it. That’s also something that I really do not love. I started with a mac and cheese and that — up until that point — I had really been doing by myself and just having tons of sweet potatoes and vegetables and tofu.

I was really quiet about it within my own family because I just didn’t know if I was going to be able to do it. I didn’t want to make any big changes in our house if I couldn’t follow through. I started with this idea that a lot of people are scared to eat this way. They have ideas about it. Sara Quessenberry — who I’ve worked with for 10 years on my last three books and would not do any of this without — she wasn’t at all vegan, and she eats more like Jerry. They’re very close. I had to really get her on board to, “Let’s try to make this a little healthier. Let’s try to take the dairy out.”

She’s a real chef, and she definitely loves comfort food. It was an interesting time for us to really shift because I felt for my health that I had to. Sara’s idea was, “We’re not going to do recipes with processed foods. We’re going to do whole foods only.” I said, “OK, that’s a great idea. Let’s see how far we get.” We got halfway through the book, and we shopped only at Walmart and Kmart and Target and regular grocery stores. We never went to Whole Foods. We never went to gourmet food stores. Then the pandemic hit. We started to see, “Wow, we can order all of these things online, too. They’re totally accessible to everyone.” But she was really stuck on, “I don’t want to add those cheeses, and I don’t want to add those butters. There’s too much — it’s too processed.”

I said, “I get it.” But in our other recipes, we do tell people to eat cheese. And if somebody takes it out of plastic, that’s pretty much how we do it at our house. I’m being real — not fancy over at our house, so we have to compromise. The minute we made this macaroni and cheese, she was like, “OK.” That sold her and my family. My family was crazed about this macaroni and cheese and had four helpings on the first night. I was like, “We’ve got something here.” Then we really shifted gears and started using the butters and the cheeses and definitely the plant milks. We had a real concept that people could relate to, which is food you want to eat but without dairy and without meat.

A lot of us have this concept of what a meal looks like — even our kids do, even our families do. You break free of that. That’s a great way to get a more vegan diet, as well as expand your idea of how people eat around the world. It’s an extremely American-centric idea that there’s a triad on your plate. Talk about opening up what a meal means to us.

I always say I’m very grateful to ramen because ramen was really what broke my kids out of this idea that we always have to have chicken, or we always have to have some protein on our plate. I started to make ramen for them, so it was vegetables and protein and noodles, which is of course, in a bowl. It tasted really good, and it was spicy and we could add things in it. That opened their minds up to this idea that we can be a little looser about how things look and taste.

Then I experienced it myself. I made dinner for my family, and they all had a plate that looked like that. I wasn’t eating like that. I had lots of sweet potatoes, and I topped them with different things. I would have some kind of stewy beans with bread, and that’s when my husband was like, “Wow, that looks really good.” He kept seeing that my meals looked really different from theirs because I would pull it together at the last minute after I got theirs on the table. I’d sit down and everyone had the same thing, and then I looked different. He responded to that like, “Well, it’s so colorful.”

One night, I had beets and spinach. And I still wasn’t fully in it, but I was at least trying. That’s just an interesting pivot for people, which is, “Oh, wait, I don’t need to do what I’ve always done, even though we’re all so connected to these traditions and how we grew up and how our plate always looked.” There are so many ways to fill up your plate that are nutritious. I think the key is really satisfying and not feeling like you walked away from the table needing another meal in an hour. This book has plenty of those ideas.

Was there one thing that made you feel, “That was a surprise hit with my family and a surprise hit with my husband”? As we try to persuade the more traditional among us, what would you say was your sleeper hit?

Well, the sweet oat crepes. I put them first in the book because they’re so easy to make — and they’re shockingly delicious. Maybe they weren’t a sleeper, but they are such a hit at my house that it constantly reminds me that I can do this. There are ways, because we’re big pancake eaters at my house. It was just an easy recipe to adapt. I have it first for not only for people who buy the book but for myself to just remind me, “This started somewhere, and it was an idea. And I never thought I’d get my family on board.”

Again, they’re not 100% on board. Neither am I. I’m not 100% vegan. I don’t know if I’ll ever get there. I feel great right now. It’s been probably a month since I’ve had a bite of cheese or anything dairy. I’m not forcing myself, but I do feel I’m on a good path. I don’t crave it. Let’s see how long it lasts. So, yeah, the sweet oat crepes. Not a sleeper but a home run. It just reminds me, “If I can do this, anyone can do it.”

More of our favorite conversations about food: 

Madison Cawthorn may have broken the law during meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago: report

A flier that North Carolina GOP Congressman Madison Cawthorn shared with former president Donald Trump and others during a meeting at Mar-a-Lago on Saturday appears to violate House ethics rules.

“The document, titled ‘Congressman Cawthorn’s Plan for North Carolina,’ contains a map of North Carolina’s newly approved congressional districts,” Raleigh-Durham’s WTVD Channel 11 reported Wednesday. “The map also contains the names and pictures of the candidates Cawthorn envisions running for 11 of 14 districts, all of which are forecasted to be either landslide victories for Republicans or in just one case, a highly competitive race.”

During the meeting, Trump “brokered a deal” to clear the North Carolina Republican Senate field for GOP Rep. Ted Budd, his endorsed candidate, according to Politico. The former president agreed to endorse former GOP Rep. Mark Walker, who is currently in third place in the Senate primary, if Walker leaves the race and runs again for the House instead.

“This is the flier Rep. Madison Cawthorn passed out at the meeting with Trump, Mark Walker, Bo Hines and David McIntosh (Club for Growth) on Saturday,” Natalie Allison wrote on Twitter, above an image of flier.

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

According to WTVD, “a source close to the North Carolina GOP confirmed the validity of the map, which features the official seal of Cawthorn, his official photograph, and the official portraits of incumbent candidates, including Rep. Dan Bishop, Rep. Virginia Foxx, Rep. Richard Hudson, Rep. Patrick McHenry, Rep. Greg Murphy and Rep. David Rouzer.”

The station reports that while official congressional portraits are in the public domain, House ethics rules prohibit their use in political or campaign materials.

“The use of the congressman’s seal might be the most serious issue with the document, however, as the manual states ‘a provision of the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. 713, prohibits the use of certain governmental seals on, among other things, stationery, for the purpose of conveying … a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof,'” the station reported. “It’s unclear at this time whether there has been a complaint filed related to this document.”

RELATED: MAGA moms meet Madison Cawthorn’s challenge: Why right-wing women raise their sons as “monsters”

In related news, Cawthorn likely violated House rules when he brought a GOP congressional candidate onto the House floor on Tuesday night, according to the Hill.

“Cawthorn was able to do so by telling House security that his guest, Tennessee Republican Robby Starbuck, was one of his House staffers, according to a source familiar with the situation,” the site reported.

Rebel Wilson on the pressure to stay “the funny fat girl” & our obsession linking weight to identity

In Season 4 of “Gilmore Girls,” main character Lorelai is introduced to a minor character’s cousin, Shel, for a possible and disastrous blind date. Lorelai cracks a joke, and Shel says, “You’re funny. She’s funny. You know, they say pretty women usually aren’t funny because they never had to be. Were you a fat child?”

In an interview with BBC Breakfast, comedian and actor Rebel Wilson spoke openly about reactions to her weight loss, one result of her so-called “year of health” she decided to undertake in 2020, according to The Guardian. Wilson did not set out to lose weight, but simply to live healthier, eat better: “I knew deep down inside some of the emotional eating behavior I was doing was not healthy,” Wilson said, a coping pattern that she said began after her father’s death in 2013. She documented her health journey on her Instagram, more than 10 million followers watching, responding, and liking as she posted about playing tennis with friends, rising early to “smash a beach run,” doing a workout up and down the stairs of the Sydney Opera House.

The response from followers has been largely positive. But the reactions from Wilson’s team, not so much. Those who work with and for Wilson, and who stand to profit from her image, were against her changing it, according to Wilson, even if it meant she felt physically and emotionally healthier. “And they were like, ‘Why? Why would you want to do that?’ Because I was earning millions of dollars being the funny fat girl and being that person.”

RELATED: The shaming of Brooke Shields: Actress addresses backlash after her sexualized ’80s Calvin Klein ad

In Hollywood, women are supposed to look a certain way. Funny women are supposed to look a different, certain way. Comedian Aditi Mittal told Elle, “For the longest time I was told not to project myself as ‘too feminine.’ You have to desexualize yourself as much as possible because you don’t want to be viewed as a sexual creature, you want to be viewed as funny.”

Sexy women can’t be funny. This pressure also conflates weight with sex appeal.

In a New York Times article “Female Stars Step off the Scale,” that briefly introduces Wilson, then appearing in “Bachelorette,” Alessandra Stanley writes, “There was always room in comedy for a fat friend,” but calls the starring turns of comedians like Mindy Kaling “refreshingly unusual. There’s little comic shock value left in profanity, obscenity or intolerance, but it’s still quite rare and surprising to see a woman not obsess about her waistline.” 

This piece, published in 2012, also describes weight gain by Lady Gaga as “the most outrageous stunt.”

While Stanley argues that comedians, unlike other female performers, have “more power to break rules: by writing their own material and creating shows inspired by their lives, they can set their own standards of beauty,” comedian Supriya Joshi was body-shamed on and off stage. Online commenters have pestered comedian and “Nailed It!” host Nicole Byer, asking if she’s lost weight. Mittal started dressing a certain way to try to hide her body, yet was still introduced as “the best tits in the business.”

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

Comedians have lost roles after weight loss or gain — witness the scrutiny paid to Jonah Hill. Fans (and critics) publicly asked if a slim Hill is still funny, similar to incredulous criticism Adele faced, questioning if she could still sing after losing weight (spoiler alert: she can). This pressure is more intense for women, with so much more attention paid by the media to women’s physical bodies. 

Wilson, for her part, has expressed frustration to be receiving so much attention now, simply for physical reasons, asking, “Why are people so obsessed with it? Like, with women in particular about their looks?” Wilson said she spent a lot of time feeling “invisible,” even when she had performed in blockbusters like “Bridesmaids” and the “Pitch Perfect” series and produced an Oscar-winning film, yet her weight was different at those times. This scrutiny on women performers’ weight can overshadow their accomplishments. Whatever you do, as a woman in Hollywood, your body can’t change, not when audiences, casting directors — even a performer’s own team — feel like they own it. 

More stories to check out:

Simon Rex on playing a washed-up porn star in “Red Rocket”: “He’s an aging narcissist”

Simon Rex delivers a career-defining performance in Sean Baker‘s “Red Rocket” as Mikey Saber, a washed-up porn star. He shows up at his wife Lexi’s (Bree Elrod) house in Texas City, Texas hoping to crash “for a few days,” but Mikey really has nowhere else to go. After wheedling his way into her home — which she shares with her no-nonsense mother Lil (a terrific Brenda Deiss) — Mikey’s restlessness sets in with a vengeance.

He tries to find work and ends up selling weed. He soon befriends Lexi’s neighbor, Lonnie (Ethan Darbone), who has a car, and eventually meets Strawberry (Suzanna Son), a 17-year-old donut shop employee. Mikey thinks Strawberry could be his ticket back into the adult film world in California, and she seems to have a sexual interest in him, too. 

Rex is fantastic as the motormouthed Mikey, a not-so-young man who is looking for a comeback. As he hustles and lies, playing the ends against the middle, Mikey hopes to come out on top. The actor makes this loser not necessarily lovable, but certainly fascinating to watch as he encounters various situations that test his resolve. 

RELATED: A male porn star speaks

Rex, a former MTV VJ, who appeared in hit films like “Scary Movie 3,” can relate to Mikey’s up and down career arc. In a recent Zoom interview, he spoke with Salon about playing Mikey, an aging narcissist with a dad bod, and making “Red Rocket.” 

Is Mikey a bulls**t artist, who hopes that folks buy his lies? What do you believe about him? Did he really have success in the industry and win all those film awards or not? We only have his word on that. Why do you think he thinks he can convince other people of his fame and success? 

Whether he’s lying or not, he is basically hustling and conning everybody. Whether or not he’s exaggerating how many [laughs] — I mean, now that you mention it, [Mikey says], “If you can’t compete with someone who f**ked over 10,000 bitches, bro . . . ” That’s pretty ridiculous. He couldn’t be Wilt Chamberlain. But who knows? I just think the guy is so full of s**t that he believes his own lies. I know people who are compulsive liars, who believe their lies and those are dangerous people. We all know those people. We went to school with them, we worked with them. I’ve probably been guilty of that, too. When I was kid, I was a big fibber. I would lie. I would visit my dad in Hawaii, and I would say my name is Chris because I hated my name, Simon. It’s very childish. But yes, that’s how [Mikey] survives and operates. He is so full of s**t that he believes his own bulls**t and just talks and doesn’t listen. That’s a fun character to play.

Mikey wants control and thinks he can control people, like Lexi and Lonnie and even Strawberry. His thinks his charms or his looks will win them over, but they see through him. He’s a case of arrested development. How did you find sympathy with a narcissist who torches everything he touches? 

That’s why I made the choice to simply make him boyish and charming, and maybe he doesn’t know what he’s doing. That was to keep the audience on board. If he’s just an a**hole, and his intentions are pure evil, it is hard pull off a two hour movie and for the audience to care what happens to him in the end. It is a character study, and he is an antihero.

There are not enough movies like this anymore. And I love these kinds of films, personally. It’s a throwback to the movies I grew up watching, like “Taxi Driver” and “Bad Lieutenant” — but this is different because you had to make him likeable — those were murderous, horrible people. But there are little things in the script that give him a glimmer of hope, like when he gets mad at [folks] for doing drugs. Does he care about them, or is he just taking the moral high ground? “Real nice life decision, guys!” It is that oscillating, back and forth teetering, you don’t know what his intentions are. It is all about intentions. Maybe he doesn’t have bad intentions, and that’s enough to make you stay on board.  

What about his body and looks? Mikey is proud of his, ahem, talents, and Lexi and Strawberry both appreciate him, while others, like Lil don’t. [Rex laughs] He needs Viagra and sleeps au naturel. But he is bruised and beaten up. What are your thoughts on Mikey’s body, and being objectified in the film? 

I think he’s an aging narcissist. I can, quite frankly, relate to that. My whole life I floated by being able to be an ectomorph who is lean and in shape and never had to work out and stay ripped. I’ve been lucky like that — not to sound like a d**k. I’ve always been kind of lean, and now I’m sort of getting dad bod in my 40s. I can relate to that where it is starting to slip away but he is holding onto the past. That is funny and interesting and relatable and sympathetic and pathetic.

I don’t think I gave it much thought. I just had to plow through at 100 miles per hour with this guy and not care about other people’s feelings and just survive and hustle and do whatever it takes and not listen and just blah blah blah blah blah. And that’s a lot of fun to play. Physically, he’s just going, man. You see him working out and he is selfishly hogging the workout [bench] the whole time. He gets beat up. He’s sweaty and dirty and wearing the same outfit for the whole movie. It was kind of liberating. I did not have to have hair and wardrobe perfect. We let all that go. He could just be a piece of s**t, and that’s fun!

Mikey finds himself at a low point in his life. He wants a comeback. Can you discuss how you identify with his character, from taking risks to make money to the highs and lows of fame? You’ve had experience with that.

My whole life has been taking risks — sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. I definitely have that personality trait. I just would never do it like Mikey does where he is hurting other people in the process. I’ve only hurt myself in the process. I don’t have intentions to ever do wrong to anyone else. That’s a big difference, but again, that’s why this was so much fun to play. I would never do that. I like to think I’m a self-aware person who isn’t trying to f**k other people over. I probably would have had a lot more success in my life if I was like Mikey, because I’ve seen people in Hollywood who will do whatever it takes to get to the top, sever friendships, be ruthless. Those people quite often make it. Maybe I haven’t had more success is because I’ve not like been like that. 

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

His relationship with Strawberry is interesting. Mikey’s expression is priceless when Strawberry reveals she knows about Mikey’s career. He sees her as a ticket out of town, but she is arguably smarter than he is. How do you see their relationship? Are they each using and exploiting the other? That was one of the ambiguities of the film.

Yes, she does have agency. All the women in the film are strong women. They are not pushovers. Mikey thinks he is taking advantage of Strawberry, but she makes the first move aggressively and sexually on him, and he is taken aback. As much as he thinks he’s hustling her, she’s one step ahead of him. She is almost like Mikey when he was younger and she is using him to get out of that s**tty little town and chase their dreams and go to Hollywood — chase some fantasy, and that is the American Dream: opportunity! She’s a very strong character and she is hustling as much as Mikey is. Maybe, on the rollercoaster, when she says, “I watched your scenes,” she could have known earlier. You don’t know. And that’s good writing because there are all these windows open where you can look back and say maybe this or maybe that . . . it is not forced on you. That is a credit to cowriters Chris [Bergoch] and Sean [Baker].

What are your thoughts on the film’s morality? Mikey is not the only one who resorts to doing questionable things. Lonnie is no saint, either. “Red Rocket” is not exactly a redemption tale — or is it?

The morality thing — look, we’re certainly not condoning any of this. It’s more of a character study. This exists out there. People are struggling and surviving and hustling and doing what it takes. It is sort of like the American Dream — or is it the American Nightmare? There are all these American flag joints, and the political stuff, and it’s loaded with that American Narcissistic Big D**k Energy Dream Delusion, right?  Maybe America isn’t as great as it seems? I don’t know. You can look at it however you want. I’ve seen the film six or seven times and I’m still trying to figure it out, and I’m in it!

As far as his moral compass goes, he gets mad at them doing drugs, or at Lonnie for pretending to be something he is not. And he says, “You can’t do that around me. People know who I am!” So, then it becomes about him. It’s a fun look at some of the people out there — take it or leave it — this ain’t a Disney movie.  

His friendship with Lonnie is interesting because he buys into Mikey’s bulls**t. Lonnie is lonely, and he sees Mikey as an ally.

Mikey is lonely, too. That’s why he befriends Lonnie. He is sitting on the porch bored out of his mind, and when he sees that car go by, he sees an opportunity for a ride and someone to spew his bulls**t to because he wants to get out of the house. He can’t be around his mother-in-law, his wife is annoying, and he doesn’t want to f**k her anymore; that’s old news. He’s looking for some new girl, a ride, someone to talk to, and to make some money. He is using everybody. He needs an audience. He is the loneliest character in the movie. He shows up with nothing. What I like about “Red Rocket” is that so many movies have a character arc where someone begins somewhere and ends somewhere different, and you watch the transformation. Mikey, you keep thinking maybe something is going change . . .

Early on in the film, Lexi says to Mikey, “Nothing with you is unexpected.” Do you think people will expect this kind of all-in performance from you? Are you trying to impress people in a role they wouldn’t expect from you?

I don’t know that I am trying to do that. That’s a byproduct with me doing this movie, which fell into my lap. I wasn’t actively calling Sean Baker to prove the world wrong. He called upon me and gave me an opportunity. I knew I had to deliver. I didn’t want to let him down. I knew this was my one shot at possibly having another chance in this career. The stakes were high. In that sense, I tried, and I worked my ass off, and I did my job. But it wasn’t like I went into it with that intention. I was just lucky to get the job, and I just did my job. Whatever else happens from there, just happens.

It is not like I was trying to prove people wrong. It was more that I always believed in myself. I knew I could do this. Hollywood never gave me a shot. But Sean Baker did, and this is a cool story within itself. America likes a comeback. Though I don’t know that this is a comeback because I never made it big enough to call it a comeback like you would say about John Travolta or Mickey Rourke, because those guys were huge and disappeared and came back in a Tarantino movie. I was always floating under the radar and now I have this moment.

At one point, when everything is going his way, Mikey proclaims, “Life is sweet.” How is your life these days? What does all the attention you’re getting from this performance mean to you? 

I learned a long time ago that money and fame do not make you happy. I know that sounds bulls**t cliché because that is what everyone wants. But that is a metaphor for this movie; that is what Mikey is all about. But I got to the top of the mountain when I was doing studio films like “Scary Movie 3” and making a lot of TV shows and doing late night. I’ve been there before, and it doesn’t make you happy.

If anything, it makes your life more complicated, and brings weird energy at you. You are working, and to everyone else you’ve made it, and it is magic, but to yourself, I am just sitting in a hotel room, being me. Everything is kind of the same. I’m not thinking that now all of a sudden, my life is going to be magical because I’m working again and I’m going to get some notoriety.

I just want to do good work and do more movies like this and keep surprising people because that’s cool. My intention is not fame and money, it’s just to do good work. That’s the high I’m getting. People coming up to me and saying how I moved them, or how this movie touched them. I just met Nicholas Braun who plays Cousin Greg on “Succession” at the Gotham Awards last night. He said, “I haven’t stopped thinking about your movie. It’s haunting me.” He is someone I look up to as an actor. That’s cool. That gives me the juice: my peers and people in the business being moved by my performance. That’s what’s jazzing me and inspiring me right now.

“Red Rocket” is in theaters Friday, Dec. 10. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

More stories you might like:

Wisconsin election “audit” run by conservative group finds no evidence of fraud

A conservative group investigating allegations of election fraud in Wisconsin was unable to find any evidence of wrongdoing or miscounting that would have affected the state’s 2020 results.

Wisconsin Institute for Liberty and Law (WILL), the group in charge of the 10-month investigation, examined nearly 20,000 ballots and 29,000 absentee ballots, writing in a report that it found “no evidence of widespread voter fraud,” according to Forbes. Just 42 ballots were confirmed to be someone voting on behalf of someone who was deceased, and 130 ballots were found to come from registered felons. 

The group also found no evidence of “ballot dumping” for President Joe Biden. 

The group also spent months investigating accusations from MyPillow CEO-turned-election conspiracy theorist Mike Lindell, including the claim that technology made by election security company Dominion voting systems was hacked or otherwise manipulated. But, unsurprisingly to elections experts who had been sounding the alarm for months that Lindell’s claims were bogus, WILL was unable to substantiate those claims.

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

In fact, the group even noted that Democrats underperformed expectations, on average, in areas that used the Dominion Voting machines in question. 

WILL’s investigation comes after Wisconsin bankrolled a separate non-partisan investigation into election fraud claims — one that cost taxpayers more than $600,000 and also found no evidence of widespread fraud. Republicans in Wisconsin have repeatedly called for investigations into spurious allegations of election fraud over the past year. 

Trump and his allies still maintain widespread election fraud contributed to his loss to President Biden — though similar audits across a number of other states have repeatedly debunked these claims. The most high profile of these came earlier this year in Arizona, where a first-time conservative election audit group called the Cyber Ninjas also failed to substantiate a number of claims about widespread election fraud in the state.

Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman, who was tapped to head the taxpayer-funded Republican-led audit, courted controversy earlier this year when his ties to Lindell surfaced. Gableman even attended Lindell’s heavily mocked South Dakota “cyber symposium,” which also failed to prove election fraud had occurred. 

Moving forward, a major fissure in the Republican Party is forming over how much emphasis to put on false allegations of election fraud — and with Trump eyeing the 2024 nomination, it’s a problem that won’t be going away anytime soon.

Even after these high-profile defeats, elected officials like Rep Brian Babin of Texas have said things like: “We need to make sure that we’re getting to the bottom of some very abnormal, anomalistic, strange or irregular things that happened, so that we don’t have a repeat of that. We’ve got to have confidence in our election.” 

Other Republicans, like Rep. Dan Crenshaw, have said that they’ve grown tired of the investigations into the 2020 election. He said Trump’s obsession over his loss is “absolutely unhelpful,” to the GOP, adding that “When I talk to voters, I am very blunt with them. I say, ‘Stop being self-defeating. Get out and vote.”

“You shouldn’t listen to anyone who tells you not to.”

CORRECTION: A previous version of the story erroneously stated that WILL’s election audit was funded by taxpayers. The Associated Press reported that a different Republican-led audit cost taxpayers more than $600,000. Salon regrets the error. 

More coverage of Republican-led state election audits:

What to do with all those extra egg whites

We’re a little obsessed with eggs around here. OK, a lot. We like eggs for breakfast and dinner. (Honestly, we’ll put an egg on almost any meal.) We’ve talked about how to fry, bake, boil, and poach them. We’ve covered how to separate eggs and how to temper them. Together we’ve learned about the best way to crack an egg, what to do with extra egg yolks, and picked up tips for baking with smaller (or larger) eggs. Now we need to talk about what to do with extra egg whites.

Recently, our community member Undeniably Rachael made a recipe calling for nine egg yolks, and she’s wondering what to do with all of those extra egg whites. Straight from the Hotline, she’s already gotten some egg-cellent ideas. From lemon meringue pie to meringue cookies inspired by our favorite ice cream flavors, here are our go-to egg white recipes for home cooks everywhere.

1. Meringue Cookies Swirled with Jam

The best use for leftover egg whites is meringue, and these jammy cookies are an extra sweet take on the classic French cookie thanks to a swirl of your favorite fruit preserves.

2. Effortless Angel’s Food Cake

If you have a lot of leftover egg whites (in fact, a dozen), put them to use in this soft, tender angel food cake recipe.

3. Yogurt Marshmallows

Just a single egg white adds a little bit of body to these homemade marshmallows that are dusted with powdered sugar and cornstarch.

4. Double-Chocolate French Macarons

French macarons can be quite temperamental, due in part to their list of delicate ingredients like almond flour and egg whites. The whites are whipped until they hold stiff peaks and are then mixed with almond flour, powdered sugar, and cocoa powder. Bonus: they’re gluten-free!

5. Sprinkle Macaron “Cake”

If you’re like Erin Jeanne McDowell’s niece, you’d rather eat a dozen French macarons on your birthday instead of a traditional yellow or chocolate cake. Turn the petite pastry into an all-out party-ready cake with layers of large macaron shells and confetti-style cake batter frosting.

6. Chocolate Soufflé

You’ll need six large egg whites to make this delicate, decadent dessert. Once whipped, they give the soufflé its signature cloudlike texture and airiness, and the chocolate flavor will melt in your mouth (especially if the soufflé is served warm, which it should be).

7. Minty Oreo Meringue Cookies

Two desserts folded into one! Inspired by a few scoops of mint chocolate chip ice cream (the green-tinted version, of course), these meringue cookies are the perfect excuse to use up some leftover whites. 

8. Berries and Cream Pavlova

If you’ve never tasted pavlova before, you’re in for a real treat. Swirled into a crunchy meringue shell is the most luscious whipped cream you’ve ever tasted topped with macerated strawberries.

9. Italian Meringue

Recipe developer Erin Jeanne McDowell turns to this Italian meringue time and time again for cake and pie toppings. “I love it because it’s so stable and it whips up so beautifully glossy, thick, and shiny. It’s made by cooking a sugar syrup, then adding that hot syrup to whipping egg whites,” she writes.

10. Lemon Chiffon Layer Cake

The wonder of a chiffon cake is that it manages to taste light as air and is dependable as it bakes (meaning no tragic sinking). The extra-lemony cake is layered with lemon curd, lemon buttercream, and lemon syrup.

11. Alice Medrich’s New Classic Coconut Macaroons

Always a fan favorite, these-four ingredient coconut macaroons get their body from whipped egg whites, which form stiff peaks and are then folded with shredded coconut, sugar, and vanilla extract. 

12. Edna Lewis’ Cheese Soufflé

A lot of people are intimidated by cheese soufflé, but with this trustworthy recipe and Sohla El-Waylly’s guidance, you too can master the art of a sharp soufflé that will soar, not sink.

13. Layered Nougat

Unlike most candy recipes, nougat is surprisingly easy to make, according to our Resident Baking BFF Erin Jeanne McDowell. All it takes is egg whites, granulated sugar, corn syrup, and a vanilla bean.

14. 3-Ingredient Oreo Meringues

“With just three ingredients (egg whites, sugar, and Oreos), the easiest, chewiest pantry dessert is yours at the flick of a whisk,” writes recipe developer and all-around sweet tooth Eric Kim.

15. Fresh Cherry Slab-Pavlova (Slablova)

Somewhere in between a slab pie and a pavlova is this cream-filled, crowd-friendly dessert studded with macerated cherries. 

Study says third shot of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine protects well against omicron variant

Fears about the omicron variant’s ability to evade vaccines may end up being overblown — at least, if enough humans are inoculated with a third dose of Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine. 

According to Pfizer-BioNTech, the third dose or “booster” dose of their patented vaccine protects patients against the mutant SARS-CoV-2 virus strain with an effectiveness comparable to how two doses defend against other common strains.

The company determined this based on laboratory studies which revealed analogous levels of neutralizing antibodies, or the proteins produced by the immune system to identify and kill pathogens. There was a 25-fold drop in these neutralizing antibodies among patients who had only received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, suggesting that the omicron variant may be able to more easily evade the protections in people who lack the extra dose. By contrast, if future research replicates these results, it indicates that three doses of the Pfizer shot will likely be enough to keep the vast majority of patients from developing serious infections.

The challenge when fighting an infectious disease like COVID-19 is making sure that vaccines can protect patients even after the pathogens have evolved. Vaccines work by training the immune system to identify specific markers within a given pathogen; if that pathogen mutates beyond recognition, it weakens the body’s ability to detect and stop invading viruses. 

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

Experts are concerned about B.1.1.529 (the omicron variant’s formal name) because it has 50 mutations, 32 of which are in the spike protein. The spike protein is so-named because, like spines on a sea urchin, it pokes out from all sides of the SARS-CoV-2 virus; such proteins are intrinsic to the virus’ ability to enter and infect human cells. The mRNA viruses work by training the immune system to identify those proteins, meaning that any alterations to their structure could theoretically help the virus beat the vaccine’s protection.

“The 32 mutations across the spike protein doesn’t mean that it evades immunity, but it is the most [mutations] we’ve seen,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon last month. “In one region in South Africa, cases [of omicron] are going up really fast — it’s really just dominating the screens there — and that made some people say, ‘it looks like this is really transmissible’ because we thought that delta was the pinnacle of being transmissible right now.”

The new research about the latest Pfizer study follows up an earlier announcement in which scientists revealed the company’s vaccine offered at least partial protection against omicron. The leader of that study team, Dr. Alex Sigal of the Africa Health Research Institute in Durban, noted that humans are lucky the omicron variant infects cells through the ACE2 receptor. This allows existing vaccines to still partially work against the variant.

“Imagine if this virus had found a different receptor to bind to,” Sigal commented. “Then all of our vaccines would have been trash.”

It remains to be seen if the news about the Pfizer booster is a game changer in the fight against the omicron variant. Before the news was announced, virologist Dr. Jesse Bloom from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle told The New York Times that “given the very large drop in neutralizing antibody titers that are seen here with omicron” it makes sense to move “as fast as possible with making omicron-specific vaccines, as long as it seems like there’s a possibility it could spread widely.”

Have we been making poached eggs all wrong?

I’ve been poaching eggs at least once, if not four or five times, a week for decades. That’s how I know there’s way too much overthinking, and just plain silly thinking, around poaching eggs. They are the easiest (and best) eggs you can make!

An old boyfriend taught me how to make poached eggs. Rather, I watched him do it. He’d crack and ease the eggs one by one into a shallow pan of simmering water, place the lid on the pan, turn off the heat, push toast in the toaster, and go shave. He’d stroll back into the kitchen clean-shaven, retrieve the toast, and plop the eggs on top. Nothing to it — and a nice memory.

I do it the same way, 50 years later — only I sip my coffee and listen to NPR instead of shaving.

I know may be thinking that I forgot to mention putting white vinegar in the pot of water to firm up the egg whites, or custard cups, or salting the water, or swirling the water to wrap the whites around the yolks, or even pre-straining the eggs to remove the thin watery portion of the whites to prevent that stringy mess in the water.

I do none of these things — not because I’m lazy, but because I’m fussy as hell about my poached eggs. And I’m also rather efficient. I’ve tried and discarded all of the poached egg “improvements,” “hacks,” “tips,” and whatever. And yet, my eggs are trim and shapely and perfectly cooked, with tender silky whites and yolks as runny (or firm) as you like them.

How to poach eggs, once and all

I poach eggs cold, right from the fridge. Practice poaching two to four eggs at a time and you’ll gain confidence enough to handle a dozen! If you do not feel confident about cracking and slipping eggs into the pan quickly, break each one into a ramekin before you start. Then simply slide eggs from the ramekins into the water one or even two at a time.

To poach eggs, start by heating a skillet with about 1-1/2 inches of water until it’s simmering gently. One by one, working close to the water rather from a height, either crack and slip each egg into the water or slip them in from ramekins. Add eggs starting at 12 o’clock and working clockwise around the pan so you can identify and remove the first egg first and the second egg second, etc. When all of the eggs are all in, turn off the heat and cover the pan. You can start toasting English muffins or a hearty piece of sourdough bread during this time, if you didn’t start it earlier.

Poached eggs should take 3-5 minutes to cook, depending on how you like them and on how many eggs are in the pan. If you prefer a runny yolk, take them out of the water after just a few minutes. Slip the slotted spoon under the first egg and lift it slightly. Assuming it looks done to your liking — if not, cover the pan and wait a little longer — trim any raggedy edges hanging over the spoon by pressing the edge of the spoon again the side of the skillet, or by running a knife around the edges of the spoon.

Nestle the spoon in the folded dish towel or paper towel, tilting it as necessary to blot excess liquid from the egg before depositing it on toast or a plate. Let guests salt and pepper their own eggs at the table. If anyone misses vinegar, let them drizzle some over their eggs now, along with hollandaise sauce or a drizzle of ketchup — when it won’t do any harm! Bon appétit.

How not to poach eggs

Vinegar in the water: Never. Vinegar firms up the whites, but the viscous portion of the whites are going to firm up anyway (and the runny portion is still going to be stringy). The whites always cook faster than the yolks. Firming the whites faster with vinegar simply overcooks them before the yolks are ready. Whites cooked in vinegary water will appear opaque rather than shiny, and they are tough and chalky rather than tender and silky. This is one reason I rarely order poached eggs in restaurants — I can spot an egg cooked in vinegar water immediately (or at least before I take a bite).

Salt in the water: Salted water also seems to make the eggs whites slightly chalky. People should salt their eggs at the table!

Swirling the water: This is supposed to wrap the yolks in the whites to make a lovely shape. But what this means is that you have to cook one egg at a time. If you’re cooking for a crowd, you have to pre-cook and reheat them. Who needs that? Plus, swirling doesn’t improve the shape of the poached egg either. The firmer portion of the egg whites stay with the yolks whether or not you swirl, and the runny ones will still float around.

Straining the raw eggs to remove the thin runny whites: You must be kidding. An extra step like this doesn’t hurt anything — unlike the addition of vinegar or salt to the water — but it’s unnecessary and very likely to dissuade you from making poached eggs on a regular (much less every-day) basis because, well, it’s an extra step! I let the runny part of the egg whites float around in the pan while the more viscous part naturally forms a lovely oval around the yolk. When the eggs are done, I trim the raggedy whites easily between the edge of the slotted spoon and the sides of the pan as I remove each egg from the water. Like I said, my poached eggs are quite shapely, thank you.

Tool for poaching eggs

A frying pan or skillet with a lid. It should be deep enough to hold 1 1/2-2 inches of water. (Actually, my skillet only holds only 1-1 1/4 inches of water, and it works perfectly, even though I have to set the lid slightly ajar to prevent the water from flowing over the pan when I cover it.) An 8″ pan is fine for two to four eggs and a 12-14″ pan works for up to 12 eggs.

A large slotted spoon: The bowl of my spoon is four inches long and a generous 2 1/2-inches wide. This dimension makes it easy to trim raggedly whites between the edge of the spoon and sides of the skillet as you lift the egg from the hot water.

A clean dish towel or folded paper towel: This is essential to blot excess water from the eggs. The second reason I often shun poached eggs in restaurants is that they always come in a pool of hot water.

Good eggs: The fresher, the better, for both shape and flavor. (If eggs are less than great, poaching may not be the best choice for them anyway.) Plus, good-quality eggs from a small, local farm will have an intensely orange yolk, versus pale yellow.

* * *

Poached egg recipes

Avocado Toast Eggs Benedict

If you’re poaching eggs, there’s a good chance it’s because you want to make Eggs Benedict for breakfast or brunch. If that’s true (and I bet it is), try this two-for-one special, which marries the classic eg dish with the ever-popular ‘cado toast so you never have to choose between the two again.

Poached Eggs with Miso–Browned Butter Hollandaise

It doesn’t take much to make Eggs Benedict feel like an entirely new dish. In this case, all we’ve done is added a couple of tablespoons of miso paste and browned butter to the blender hollandaise for an umami-packed brunch dish.

Mackerel and Poached Egg on Toast

If you can find mackerel, particularly mackerel packed in whole grain mustard, stock up. This prized tinned fish will instantly upgrade old favorites like Eggs Benedict.

Roasted Asparagus with Poached Egg and Lemon-Mustard Sauce

Every year, we ask ourselves the same question — how can we make roasted asparagus more interesting? The answer. Topping a bunch of asparagus with poached egg will not only impress any brunch guests that you’re hosting, but the runny yolk serves as the easiest-ever sauce.

Kale and Borlotti Bean Soup with Poached Eggs

“A cozy soup with kale and beans cooked in a hot, clear broth is the perfect cure for winter blues. When you cut through the yolk, the golden liquid sinks into the vegetables, lending an almost creamy feel to the soup,” writes recipe developer Meike Peters.

The midterms will be decided by swing voters ready to reward the GOP for trying to kill them

My faith in democracy is being tested. Three public schools in New Haven were locked down Monday and today after a gun report in one and threats of violence in two more. These were part of a wave of school threats throughout Connecticut coming days after a high schooler in Michigan attended class to shoot four students to pieces. (Police are investigating, but luckily the local lockdowns ended without incident.)

This morning, I read about the Republicans planning to use “education” as the platform from which to reclaim white suburban voters and thus retake Congress. “Republicans say their message is resonating among parents, whose frustrations have boiled up during the coronavirus pandemic, and now include the quality of classwork, mask mandates, and transgender rights,” according to Bloomberg. It worked in Virginia. The Republicans think it can work around the country.

Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, is feeling so good about the GOP’s chances next fall that he’s crafting what he calls a “Parents’ Bill of Rights” for campaigning. The idea is that parents should be the ultimate authorities over their child’s education. That might sound principled except that, according to the Republican view, such authority ends where the rights of guns-everywhere begins. That might sound noble if not for the fact that gun owners in America have a higher claim to government protection than parents with children.

Things like this get me to thinking the founders were right. Democracy is its own worse enemy. It gives degenerates and fools equal power in deciding the republic’s business. I mean, what do you do with people who are more afraid of totally made-up threats (“critical race theory”) than of totally real threats, such as an irresponsible mom and dad buying their teen son a semi-automatic handgun for Christmas before the boy takes it to high school to murder and injure his classmates. What do you do with people who look at the face of death and shrug?

With those white suburban voters in mind, McCarthy said Friday the reason the pandemic continues to rage nationwide is due to Joe Biden’s failure to contain it. “I know President Biden promised America that he could handle COVID,” he said. “More people have died from COVID this year than last year.” The former president piled on: “They’ve lost more people this year than they did last year,” Donald Trump said. “And we have the vaccines and we have the therapeutics and we have the Regeneron and we have all the different things, and they lost more.”

While it’s true more people have died this year than last, it’s also true the majority of deaths were among the unvaccinated living in mostly rural counties won in 2020 by the former president. That they refused vaccines is a direct result of propaganda efforts by Republican elites to discredit the vaccine among Republican voters. According to NPR:

Recent polling data that show Republicans are now the largest group of unvaccinated individuals in the United States, more than any other single demographic group. Polling also shows that mistrust in official sources of information and exposure to misinformation, about both COVID-19 and the vaccines, run high among Republicans.

As was the case in Virginia, the next year’s midterms are going to be decided by swing voters who can’t or won’t figure out for themselves that Kevin McCarthy, the former president and the rest of the GOP are knowingly hurting their own supporters for the purpose of prolonging the pandemic in order to blame the damage done on the Democrats. Control of Congress will be decided by voters ready to blame the people trying to save them instead of the people trying to kill them.

There’s one thing that tests my faith in democracy more than anything else, though. All the above information? Widely available. Anyone who wants to know the truth can know. But what if voters don’t want to? What if it feels better to believe lies than to believe truth? In that case, democracy isn’t its own worst enemy on account of degenerates and fools getting to decide the republic’s business. It’s its own worse enemy because it rationalizes the feelings of degenerates and fools.

The political divide in the United States has become irreconcilable, study says

Politics in the United States have become an increasingly polarized affair for decades, driven largely by the right moving further to the right. Observation of political polarization is not merely anecdotal; studies repeatedly bear this out.

Now, some researchers say the partisan rift in the United States has become so extreme that the country may be at a point of no return. 

According to a theoretical model’s findings published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the pandemic failing to unite the country, despite political differences, is a signal that the U.S. is at a disconcerting tipping point.

“We see this very disturbing pattern in which a shock brings people a little bit closer initially . . .  but if polarization is too extreme, eventually the effects of a shared fate are swamped by the existing divisions and people become divided even on the shock issue,” said network scientist Boleslaw Szymanski, a professor of computer science and director of the Army Research Laboratory Network Science and Technology Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. “If we reach that point, we cannot unite even in the face of war, climate change, pandemics, or other challenges to the survival of our society.”

As I’ve reported before, sociologists and experts in disaster resilience studies often observe that a “therapeutic community” surfaces in the wake of a disaster — whether that’s a hurricane, wildfire, or a terrorist attack. While that was the case to some extent after 9/11, the pandemic hasn’t united the nation the same way. Experts have argued that any possibility of unity was doomed from the start of the pandemic, in part because of how politically divided and polarized the nation was before the novel coronavirus began spreading. This latest paper adds to this theory, and suggests that the U.S. is so divided that it is at an irreparable point at which unity is not possible. 

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

Szymanski and fellow researchers reached their conclusion by simulating the views of 100 theoretical legislators around 10 polarizing issues. The researchers had their theoretical legislators interact and network with theoretical neighbors and like-minded groups to see the influence these interactions had on polarization, too — akin to a “Sims”-like video game. When manipulating the group’s “control parameters” — such as increased party identification, intolerance for disagreement, and extremism — the model found that polarizing behavior among politicians is one reason why the country is as politically divided as it is today. 

At various points, the research team introduced an outside threat, like a pandemic, and then recorded how the group behaved. Interestingly, it appeared that when the group introduced an internal threat that failed to unite the country, that meant that the level of polarization was beyond repair.

“If the polarization is very, very deep in these 10 issues, then we are at the very dangerous stage in which it is very difficult to reverse polarization by democratic means,” Szymanski told Salon.  “When that tipping point is passed, there are no constitutional means that can reverse polarization.”

RELATED: 9/11 brought Americans together. Why is the pandemic tearing them apart?

Indeed, graphs displaying the relationship between polarization and the control parameters showed that in many situations a high amount of polarization that couldn’t be rectified by an external threat meant that a society was in a “phase transition,” where measures of polarization began to increase exponentially. In some scenarios, if the polarization was dialed down the trend could be reversed. In other cases, a recovery wasn’t possible.

“Although political polarization is nothing new, expanding political division is creating an unpredictable environment that threatens the capacity of government to respond rationally in a crisis,” said Curt Breneman, dean of the Rensselaer School of Science. “This research is designed to enhance societal resilience by predicting when the level of political polarization within an influential group is nearing the point where a sudden threat will no longer produce collective action.”

Szymanski said he hopes people take away from this study that this “theoretical model confirms intuition.”

“If the external strong signal does not unite people, we are in danger of getting into this  irreversible polarization,” which Szymanski alarmed is bad for democracy. “In a divided society, it’s of course very difficult to maintain that democracy which requires agreements of all people and the people who win elections and lose elections.”

Szymanski added that the research shows the U.S. is at a “dangerous level of polarization,” but perhaps electing less polarizing politicians could reverse the trend the U.S. is facing.

“It’s almost the last call,” Szymanski said.

More stories on political polarization:

 

Jan. 6 committee reveals Mark Meadows’ role in election overthrow plot as contempt charges loom

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot is moving forward with contempt charges against former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, saying in a letter that it has “no choice” after he decided to stop cooperating with the Democratic-led probe. 

According to the letter, which contains a number of new details about Meadows’ previous cooperation with the committee, the Trump Administration official has already turned over thousands of documents, including numerous emails and text messages. But he’s also withheld thousands more — and refused to sit for a deposition scheduled for Wednesday — using claims of executive privilege that the committee says are spurious at best.

“The Select Committee is left with no choice but to advance contempt proceedings and recommend that the body in which Mr. Meadows once served refer him for criminal prosecution,” committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., wrote in the letter Tuesday. “There is no legitimate legal basis for Mr. Meadows to refuse to participate in a deposition.”

Included in the documents Meadows handed over to the select committee is a powerpoint titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN” that was intended for distribution “on the hill,” according to the letter. Thompson also revealed the contents of a Nov. 6, 2020 email to an unnamed Congressperson in which Meadows replies “I love it” in response to a “highly controversial” plan that would have appointed alternative electors in several states that Trump had lost. 

Meadows was also allegedly in contact with one of the organizers of the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally which preceded the riot.

These were among the more than 6,000 files Meadows gave the committee, though he also included a log of more than 1,000 text messages and hundreds of emails that were withheld “based on claims of executive, attorney-client, or other privilege.”

Thompson’s letter also raised another point about Meadows’ data collection — since so many of the documents were from personal accounts, Thompson questioned whether Meadows had transferred the proper documents to the National Archives “in compliance with the Presidential Records Act.”

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

For his part, Meadows looks ready to fight the contempt charges in court.

“We now have every indication from the information supplied to us last Friday — upon which Mr. Meadows could expect to be questioned — that the Select Committee has no intention of respecting boundaries concerning Executive Privilege,” Meadows’ attorney George J. Terwilliger III said in a letter to the committee last week.

Thompson’s letter was in part a response to these assertions, and in particular addressed previous comments by Terwilliger in which he accused Thompson of believing “that a witness’s assertion of 5th Amendment rights is ‘tantamount to an admission of guilt.'”

“That is not an accurate characterization of my position on the 5th Amendment, nor is that interpretation of my comments consistent with our discussions about the purpose of tomorrow’s deposition — i.e., a proceeding in which your client can assert privilege claims with sufficient particularity for further consideration,” Thompson wrote.

It’s unclear whether Meadows will seek to use his 5th Amendment rights — though at least two other witnesses under scrutiny from the committee have said they will: longtime GOP operative Roger Stone and ed-DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. 

More news from the Jan. 6 committee:

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

You have to give it to Axios: They know how to throw out some tasty bait. Their latest is irresistible for conservatives, who love any story that frames them as victims, and gives them the chance to blame the left for “incivility.” Never mind obvious counter-examples such as the storming of the Capitol, gun-waving Christmas cards, and the entire person of Donald Trump. 

“Young Dems more likely to despise the other party,” blares Tuesday’s Axios headline, noting in the article that “5% of Republicans said they wouldn’t be friends with someone from the opposite party, compared to 37% of Democrats,” and “71% of Democrats wouldn’t go on a date with someone with opposing views, versus 31% of Republicans.”

Unsurprisingly, this delicious bait worked exactly as intended, at least in social media reactions.

On the right, there was a lot of trumpeting how this supposedly proves the left are the ones who are “really” intolerant. Radio talker Matt Murphy whined that liberals “don’t believe in our republic cannot abide people who think differently than them.” As if not getting to have sex with or go to parties with liberals is exactly the same as having your basic rights as a citizen stripped from you. “This doesn’t bode well,” complained GOP lawyer and ABC commentator Sarah Isgur, who previously defended the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border as a former spokesperson in the Justice Department. 

 RELATED: Young Trump staffers say they are having a hard time dating

“My most fascinating friendships have always come from ‘the other side,'” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tweeted, noting that, as a Republican, he “always benefitted” from those conversations. As many people pointed out in response, however, that a Republican like Scarborough gained from friendships with people like “John Lewis, Elijah Cummings, Ron Dellums, and Maxine Waters” doesn’t mean the reverse is true. And that is most likely what this polling is picking up. 

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

This is about desirability, not “tolerance.” Democrats are desirable as friends and lovers, not just to their fellow party members, but to Republicans, as well. But Republicans? They apparently don’t have much to offer to Democrats as friends, and certainly not as lovers. Digging into the polling shows why this is.

As the Axios write-up by Neal Rothschild notes, young Democrats believe that GOP positions “spearheaded by former President Trump — are far outside of the mainstream and polite conversation.” In particular, “human rights, and not just policy differences, are at stake.” Which, no duh. Just last week, the GOP-controlled Supreme Court made it clear they plan to strip basic bodily autonomy rights from everyone with a uterus. The Republican Party is rallying around violent and white supremacist rhetoric. 

RELATED: Right-wing Twitter imitations don’t work — and Trump desperately wants back on real social media

Relatedly, a Harvard poll from last week shows “[m]ore than half of young Americans feel democracy in the country is under threat, and over a third think they may see a second U.S. civil war within their lifetimes.” This isn’t about a dispute over marginal tax rates. If you — quite correctly — believe that Republicans are plotting to destroy democracy, then why would you want to be friends with people who support that? 

Unsurprisingly, female Democrats were more likely than male Democrats to reject dating someone who “voted for the opposing presidential candidate,” i.e. Trump. Which isn’t just about personal taste, but safety. Trump not only bragged about how he likes to “grab ’em by the pussy,” but has a long track record of aggressively defending men who have been accused of sexual or domestic violence. It’s just common sense to refuse to be alone with men who are fine with that attitude, and no different than watching your drink at a party or having a friend walk you home at night. In addition, having sex with men who back the party of forced childbirth is just ill-advised. 

And that gets to the crux of it: Dating and friendship aren’t about merely tolerating someone, it’s about inviting someone into your life, as a confidante or even on an intimate level. Relationships take work to maintain. Why waste that effort on someone who can’t meet the baseline requirement of seeing you or the other people in your life as full human beings? And no, being “personally” pro-choice or pro-LGBTQ rights hardly counts, when you keep voting for the party that opposes both. 

RELATED: Bari Weiss’ field of right-wing dreams: Will the “University of Austin” ever actually exist?

The anger on the right over this polling, in turn, shows that this isn’t really about liberal “intolerance,” but an ugly sense of entitlement among conservatives. It’s fueled by a belief that they should be as obnoxious, cruel, and bigoted as they want, without having to pay any social penalty for it. That attitude is especially troubling when it comes to dating, and is tied to long-standing sexist assumptions that women owe men their time and attention, even when they don’t find them attractive. Indeed, this entitlement itself is a red flag. Someone who doesn’t respect the right to choose who you spend time with is someone who is likely to violate other boundaries. 

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

That’s what all this whining and crying about “cancel culture” from the right is about. It’s very rarely, if ever, about actual government censorship. On the contrary, conservatives are all for government censorship, especially of books and other materials that tell the truth about American racism. Conservatives are angry rather over the social penalties for their repulsive opinions, like being criticized publicly, being excluded from certain conversations, and generally being disliked. It’s conservatives in D.C. whining to the press that they can’t get hot dates.

Sure, conservatives can and occasionally entertain the idea of creating their own social networks and even universities, so they can hang out with each other, instead of constantly demanding attention from liberals. But apparently, they don’t like each other’s company any more than liberals do, and so they always circle back to yelling at liberals, accusing the left of “intolerance” for finding right-wingers unpleasant people to be around. 

Ultimately, however, it comes back to this: No one is entitled to anyone else’s social attention or friendship, much less a dating relationship with them. If friendships and romantic relationships with progressive are so desirable — which, as a progressive, I totally agree is true! — then the way to obtain them is to suck less. (Which yes, starts with not voting for Donald Trump.) The strategy of whining about “cancel culture” and scolding Democrats for “intolerance” isn’t going to open up those cocktail party invitations any faster. Yelling at people to like you isn’t a way to be liked. It just reaffirms to progressives that, for mental health reasons, time exposed to right-wingers is best kept at a minimum. Good on young Democrats for seeing clearly what the Joe Scarboroughs of the world don’t want them to see. 

Meghan McCain suggests Fox Christmas tree arson attack is worse than GOP’s assault on democracy

Meghan McCain, a former host of ABC’s long-running talk show “The View,” is getting raked through the mud over a now-deleted Wednesday tweet comparing the GOP’s right-wing extremism to “lunatics” who allegedly set Fox News’ Christmas tree on fire. 

“I don’t want to hear anything about how radical some of you believe republicans to be when there are lunatics running around New York City setting Fox News Christmas tree on fire,” McCain tweeted.

On Wednesday, a 49-year-old man was taken into custody by the NYPD on suspicion of committing what the network called a “malicious” attack against its Christmas tree, just outside the News Corp. building in downtown Manhattan. The man was first spotted climbing the tree minutes after midnight, and shortly fled the scene before being apprehended by police authorities. The fire was quickly put out by firefighters, leaving the tree only partially scorched. According to NBC News, the man stands charged of “criminal mischief, reckless endangerment, arson, criminal nuisance endangering others, criminal trespass, criminal tampering and disorderly conduct.”

The channel called the apparent arson a “brazen act of cowardice,” saying that it would replace the tree with a newer one “as a message that there can be peace, light and joy even during a dark moment like this.”

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

McCain, a former Fox News contributor herself, was immediately panned for appearing to prioritize a relatively small local arson to the problematic behavior of an entire political party. 

RELATED: It’s not even Halloween, and Republicans are already claiming Biden is “stealing” Christmas

“That’s right, nobody can talk about ‘white supremacy’ or ‘attempted coups’ because of a minor property crime in midtown manhattan,” Bobby Lewis, a writer at Media Matters, subtweeted to McCain on Wednesday, later adding: “lmao she deleted it.”

“‘I don’t want to hear about Congressmen who attempted a coup and post murder fantasy videos about other members of Congress because a tree was burning,'” user Devin Duke echoed, mocking McCain’s perspective. “Meghan McCain is quite possibly the most dense person with a voice in politics.”

Journalist Victoria Brownworth also joined the chorus, saying that “you have to wonder how the women of #TheView could stand this.”

RELATED: Meghan McCain has already had a meltdown about the alleged “war on Christmas,” and it is only August

It isn’t the first time that McCain has aired out her grievances over the left’s alleged crusade against Christmas. 

Back in 2018, the conservative commentator declared a “War on Christmas,” backing remarks Trump made during a campaign rally about the left’s alleged attack on saying “Merry Christmas.”

“I think I’m a christian and I celebrate Christmas,” McCain said in an interview. “And I’d like to wish a Merry Christmas to everyone.”

A “nightmare scenario”: Twitter disturbed by Matt Gaetz’s 2022 GOP prediction

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., shared his prediction on the possibility of an extremist Republican majority taking over the House oversight committee and critics are disturbed by the lawmaker’s words, HuffPost reports.

“We are going to take power after this next election and when we do, it’s not going to be the days of Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy and no real oversight and no real subpoenas,” Gaetz said during a press conference as he insisted lawmakers like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and himself would be the new faces of the political party.

Almost immediately after Gaetz made the remarks, Twitter users began weighing in with deep concerns about what extremist representation could mean for the political party.

One user wrote insisted that its “a nightmare scenario that should send us all screaming to the polls.”

Another user wrote, “I thought I hated Paul Ryan, but Gaetz, Jordan, Greene, Boebert, and Gosar make Ryan look good by comparison.”

Another pointed out, “you can’t conduct oversight effectively without subpoena power, and they’ve significantly weakened that power,” one user wrote.

Democrats have also been urged to use Gaetz’s unhinged remarks to their advantage.

“This is a powerful campaign ad for the Dems,” one user wrote. “If they can’t use this against the Republican then no point campaingning [sic] for the Dems.”

Martha Stewart’s skillet chili nachos are a perfect game night bite

Whether it’s a game night or a movie night, nachos seem like a  perfect fit. One crunchy chip can carry multiple layers of flavors — cheese, avocado, chili sauce — and turn any night into a party (even if just for your taste buds). For an easy weeknight bite, try Martha Stewart’s skillet chili nachos. 

With a few simple ingredients and some pantry staples, these nachos will take only 20 minutes to prepare. 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUOGqWLL4Xf/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

First you’ll make Martha’s easy beef chili, which is the key to making these nachos special. All you need are two pounds of ground beef, two minced onions, three cloves of garlic, a jalapeño pepper, chili powder, cocoa powder, tomato paste and chicken broth. 

RELATED: What’s better than nachos or tater tots? Totchos, and you can eat them at Disney’s Hollywood Studios

Brown the beef in a large skillet and then place it on paper towels, allowing the fat to drain. Then, saute the onions, garlic, jalapeño along with the chili powder and tomato paste. Here comes the key part: Two tablespoons of cocoa powder distinguishes this chili from most varieties. In Martha’s words, the ingredient adds more depth of flavor. 

Finally, everything is added back into the skillet, along with the tomato paste and chicken broth. The chili cooks down until it is thickened and perfectly spiced. The steps may look long and intimidating, but I promise it’s totally worth a try. Like Martha said, It’s a beef chili, very simple and straightforward.”

More importantly, this beef chili isn’t just for nachos. Serve it in bowls with your favorite chili toppings or alongside hot dogs for a tailgating-appropriate treat. 

For the perfect nachos, it’s all about layering, layering  and more layering. Preheat the oven to 425 degrees. Spread 5 cups of chips in a heavy-bottomed cast iron skillet. Top with 1 cup of easy beef chili, half cup of the beans and 1 cup of shredded cheddar cheese. Layer with another 5 cups of chips, 1 cup of beef chili, the remaining beans, and 1 cup cheese. Bake in the oven for five to seven minutes, until the cheese is melted. Martha suggests topping with radishes, cilantro and jalapeño, but you can customize toppings to suit your needs. 

Bang! Easy and delicious Chili Nachos are ready for a taste bud party. Feel free to serve with or without sour cream, salsa, and avocado. Full recipe here.

More Martha Stewart recipes we love: