Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Freddie Mercury 30 years on – remembering the theatrical, eccentric genius

There is no doubt that Freddie Mercury was a genius: it’s clear in his music, his theatrical performances, and his eccentrically stylised persona. These different art forms constructed a full creative package and made Mercury an icon. As we mark 30 years since his death, we should celebrate the revolutionary lyrics, piano mastery and flamboyant show business style that he brought to rock music.

By the time Mercury was 18 years old he was demonstrating the idiosyncratic style that would later revolutionise the music industry. Alongside his love for classical music and opera, he was also a lover of musical theatre, elements of which we can see in his own music and stage presence. Mercury liked “the cabaret-ish sort of thing”. He said: “one of my early inspirations came from Cabaret. I absolutely adore Liza Minnelli…the way she delivers her songs – the sheer energy”. He also “loved the choreography, fluid sexuality and atmosphere of total excess” in Richard O’Brien’s The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Queen’s 1975 song, Bohemian Rhapsody, which was written by Mercury, introduced beautiful melodies, operatic elements, and classical storylines into the rock song. This was the seventies, a time when music genres were merging from all areas, fashion influenced music and music influenced fashion. Rock artists were using the new platform of colour television to be more creative than the previous decade of the smartly dressed Beatles. Inspiration came from superstars such as David Bowie for his inventiveness, Elton John for his showmanship and Robert Plant for his voice.

Bowie was always crossing mediums and when Mercury saw him perform in the stage version of The Elephant Man (1980) he was so overwhelmed with the performance it led to a collaboration on Under Pressure (1981) and a lifelong friendship.

Fashion and music interlinked

Mercury’s music never faltered during his career, and part of his continuing popularity can be accredited to the reinvention of his stage fashions to suit and illuminate the music. Mercury claimed: “we’re not like anyone else. If anything, we have more in common with Liza Minnelli than Led Zeppelin…we’re more in the showbiz tradition than the rock’n’roll tradition”.

This was exemplified through the 1984 release of “I Want To Break Free”, with the band dressed in drag for the accompanying video. This video was banned on MTV in the US. It was considered to promote cross-dressing and transsexualism, demonstrating the manipulative and archaic attitude of an industry that should have supported freedom of expression. Ironically, the ban highlighted the song’s presence, which became a worldwide success, recently surpassing 500 million views on YouTube.

Mercury experimented with costumes and looks even before Bohemian Rhapsody, often breaking rules in fashion at the height of the counterculture revolution. Jessica Bumpus from Vogue notes that “from fashion to film and even the John Lewis ad, Freddie Mercury’s high-glam, theatrical and barrier-breaking style is having a moment, at just the right moment”. Throughout his career, his “costumes” have influenced fashion. Even as recently as summer 2019 Mercury’s music was used for the catwalk by both Balmain and Watanabe. The fashion collections featured demonstrated designs resembling some of the legendary sparkles, shoulder pads and provocative costumes Mercury originally wore.

Mercury’s onstage persona was probably a demonstration of a man trying to “break free” of his own human limitations. Audience members probably saw the real Mercury on stage, rather than the showman. It’s a tragedy that he did not live to witness and benefit from the current openness and understanding of today’s society. He is still an ambassador for excellence in music and entertainment, but possibly more importantly as an influencer of change.

The wider impact of an icon

The impact of such bold experimentation has lived on through modern performance. If you look hard enough, you will see some artists donning his proverbial cap in the form of Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Mika to name just a few. His influence went far beyond the rock world and crossed the borders into opera and musical theatre, where he eventually worked with the Spanish operatic soprano, Montserrat Caballe, to create the Olympic theme song “Barcelona”.

A true tribute to him after his death was made at the opening of the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 as the Olympic flame was lit. Grown men were seen in tears, throwing their expensive dinner jackets into the fountains as a mark of respect during the playing of Barcelona. Caballe and Mercury became very close friends during his last few years and he confided with her concerning his illness – as she explained. “He said, ‘it is my duty to tell you this.’ And I said, ‘no, it is not a duty, but I am very thankful that you told me because it means I have your friendship, and this is most important as anything to me’.”

Mercury died of an Aids-related illness on November 24 1991 and in this case, the statement “he did not die in vain” is truly apt. One last Queen album, “Made in Heaven”, was released in 1995, recorded just before his death, and his bandmates went on to highlight the growing problem of Aids by raising millions of pounds for Aids-related charities.

Mercury was a true artist who touched the world with his gift. I remember clearly that the day he died I was about to start delivering a lecture, and as the students walked in, I noticed a young man sobbing. I enquired if everything was okay, and he related the news to me. That was the effect Freddie Mercury had on his fan base.

In the early days of writing Phantom of the Opera, Andrew Lloyd Webber had only one person in mind to play the Phantom, and that was Freddie Mercury. He was invited to test for the role but never took it seriously, claiming eight nights a week would not suit his voice. Before Mercury died, however, he told Montserrat Caballe he always wanted to sing the aria from Phantom of the Opera with her. Caballe said “I will record it” – and she recorded it in the studio for him. Perhaps one day we might be able to hear it.

Stephen Langston, Programme Leader for Performance, University of the West of Scotland

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

A neuroscientist explains why striving for efficiency is a bad idea

In a data-driven world, Antonio Damasio is one of our best advocates for the power of emotion. In his research and in his popular books like “Descartes’ Error” and “Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain,” the Portuguese neuroscientist accomplishes the neat feat of making a rational case for feeling.

As he says in “Descartes’ Error”: “Feelings, along with the emotions they come from, are not a luxury.” Rather, they guide our understanding and our decision-making, which is why minimizing or suppressing them can lead to poorer choices and behavior. Despite what the Vulcans may believe, feelings, it turns out, are a very logical thing to have.

It makes sense, then, that Damasio’s latest book is one created out of personal desire — the author’s interest in creating a “smaller” kind of book. “Feeling & Knowing: Making Minds Conscious” is at once minimalist and complex, a slender volume that ponders, among other things, the evolution of feelings and the nature of consciousness. And as with all of Damasio’s work, it is beautiful, thought provoking, instructive and affirming.

Salon spoke to Damasio via Zoom recently about “Feeling & Knowing,” his poetic influences and why human intelligence is a “monstrous” thing.

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

I’m going to tell you, this is a challenging one. There are a lot of concepts that I had to really try and work my brain around.

It’s interesting. Sometimes you make things complicated by having a lot of pages. In this one, I had this idea that I wanted to do a haiku of my recent work, and that’s what I tried to do. It’s very compact. It looks very simple, but in the end, it’s not as simple as it appears.


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


I was noticing the way that you reference poetry in it. You reference Dickinson and Auden, and it’s clear that you’re going for something stylistically as well as academically. What was the impetus for trying this new way of communicating, as you said, only the things you really wanted to tell?

It’s a mixture of issues. One was personal. I had the impression that very often when I explained things in previous books that were complicated, sometimes people would say, “I wish I could have understood that differently.” There was a desire to simplify, and to make more crystal clear. To just go at the essentials. At some point, my editor Dan Frank, who has worked with me on previous books, said, “It would be so wonderful if you would just do the summary of your recent work and in a brief book. Instead of being 400 pages or 350 pages, it would be 200 pages and no references.”

I said, “I will not do a book without references, but I will do a book that is smaller.” And that’s how we ended up with the book that you have today. Books are very much a part of my life, and I’m happy that I’ve been able to write a few books that have been very well received by the public and now translated in every conceivable language. But at the same time, that’s not my whole life at all, only a part of my life. My life is really the life of a researcher.

RELATED: “The brain has a backup system”: Why people missing much of their brain can miraculously recover

What I do most of the time is think about problems, either by myself or with colleagues that are also investigators. The science is actually the main part. And I obviously wanted to have in this book several things that would be the most recent science. So in a way it’s a recapitulation of previous work, but enriched by ideas that are very recent. There are some ideas in the book that have appeared in papers that were published just months ago.

Who do you see this as being written for? I recently interviewed the author of “The Embodied Mind,” Thomas Verny. I interviewed Steven Pinker about rationality. There is this groundswell right now about talking about thinking, talking about consciousness and talking about feeling.

It’s a conversation that I’ve been interested in and I have been in a way, provoking or being part of for many years. When I wrote “Descartes’ Error,” which I think is 1994, I wanted to help engender a conversation that was at that point much smaller because there were fewer people involved. So it’s being part of the conversation, but at the same time, being a a summary today of where I am in these ideas. The good thing that I can tell you is that as I have just reread the book, to be ready to answer questions about it. And I shouldn’t say this, but I actually liked it. At the same time, I was looking at all the things that I have already made progress on and so thinking about the next article. And so it is already work that is bubbling up, and that will continue the story that is in feeling and knowing.


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


The message that I got here is the case for a truly deep, semantic understanding of these concepts. To say it’s important for us to recognize when we’re not on the same page when we’re talking about the mind, when we’re talking about consciousness, when we’re talking about imagination and feeling and emotion. These words are so weighted and so personal, yet they have definitions, they have meaning. And they mean something very specific when you’re talking about the neuroscience now.

I think we have fundamentally have a tremendous development in the world of biology in general, and within the world of the biology of mind and the biology connected to the nervous system. More and more, I see myself as biologist and not as a neuroscientist. The idea that the way to understand mind or to understand consciousness is through the study of the nervous system alone, is false. I don’t think that’s the way to do it. I think that you need to approach it from a biological, much wider point of view.

This dovetails with the idea that what we have as consciousness, for example, as feeling, is not about what’s going on in the brain. It’s actually much more about what is going on in the living body. That’s the key. The key to what’s for you and for me is what is going on in life at this moment. And that’s in our living body, with all its complicated processes of regulation that are necessary to maintain it alive in terms so that we can be alive in an hour or in a year. The nervous system has a huge role in that, and it really has decisive contributions to help with that survival and continuation. But it’s not the critical element. It’s important, but it’s an element that came very late in the history of all these biological developments.

RELATED: Diagnoses are “helpful, but unnecessary”: Why we may be thinking about mental health all wrong

You explore this in a way that challenges us as humans to look to these other forms of life to understand what they can teach us about consciousness, about feeling, perceiving and understanding that we’re not so very different from those other creatures.

We are more complicated, we are much more evolved, but in the end the fundamentals are the same. The most fundamental of the fundamentals is life, is the fact that there’s this very special thing and it’s called being alive. When you are alive, you’re not alive diffusely, you’re alive in a body with a perimeter, with a limit. Within that body, they are interesting things that are happening to make that life possible and to make it continue.

The analogy that you use of the recipe was very helpful. You can read a recipe and you can understand and you can project and you can imagine, but it’s not the same as this experiential thing. You still can’t taste the dish, you still can’t feel it.

That’s right. If people think that reading a recipe is the same thing as eating, they’re for a big surprise because it’s not. I think people constantly confuse recipes with a thing. Algorithms allow you to do certain things, but they’re not the things that you’re interested in.

That’s the deep philosophical work here — what is the thing? What is the experience? Is it my perception of the experience? Is it the sharing of the experience? Is it the embodiment of the experience? Is it the consciousness of it? Is it the memory of it? Is the imagining of it? It’s tricky to nail those concepts down because they mean different things to different people.

Your work is always circling back to this idea of feeling, what feeling and emotion mean and the role that they play. There’s the idea that rationality is the highest expression of our humanity. You keep making the argument why it’s much more complicated than that.

It’s a little bit how you carve the problem for a specific purpose or audience. Look, rationality is something that did come after we had life regulatory systems. I sympathize with the idea, especially if you’re trying to get your fellow humans to look at problems, not in a passionate way that goes with the moment, but in something that requires greater analysis and calm. So I can perfectly well sympathize with that. And yet in the execution of that attempt at being rational, we are still drawing on things that are very much related to our feelings.

There’s absolutely no way that you’re going to be a dispassionate decider on a problem. Maybe on a few very trivial instances you could do that. But the majority of cases, your rationality is still bound in its day to day operation to what we are as human beings, in terms of its fundamental regulation. And the passions there are very critical.

I’m perfectly happy to have it both ways, because it depends on what your drive is for. I accept Steven Pinker’s idea that rationality is really a great achievement that we have, and it’s good to make use of it — which is not always the case. It’s not a daily consumption.

A word that you explore is this idea of “efficiency.” What does efficiency really mean? You can look at lower life forms that have as you define it, “intelligence,” and behave with efficiency. But they’re not behaving next with rationality.

Rationality is not the pinnacle of efficiency. However, we equate efficiency with rationality and with intelligence, because we think of efficiency as meaning one particular thing.

That’s why it’s so important to make these comparisons with different living creatures in different habitats and facing different problems. The problems that the intelligence of a paramecium faces are very different from your problems or mine. It’s completely different in the scale of it.

When we talk about our intelligence, well, yes, it’s a monstrous, huge thing that allows us to behave in very particular ways, in different circumstances. And yes, there are issues that have to do with efficiency. It’s so interesting too, how all of this interdigitates with culture in general, and with what the culture drives us for efficiency and cost cutting in the political parlance of the day. But it doesn’t mean that efficiency goes with rationality. In fact, quite all often it can be that the efficiency and striving for efficiency will make you do very irrational things.

And efficiency is not the same as efficacy.

At the end of the book, you talk about hope. It’s a recurring theme in your work. And you kind of back up then, saying, this is why we, as rational, feeling, emotional, imaginative humans with creatures with memories can still hope. Yet it’s very hard for us to feel hope right now. How do we apply the hope and the optimism that you talk about in what we are doing and whatever disciplines we’re bringing our experiences to and our consciousness to?

It’s one thing to have hope, but then there are other things that go wrong. It’s difficult. What’s so interesting is that it’s a constant struggle. You can be hopeful for example, for your own work. You can be hopeful that idea will have a positive effect on somebody else. But then things change. That’s the other theme, is that we’re not for very long exactly the same people in exactly the same circumstance. Things are constantly changing, that’s the nature of the beast. So when you ask me, how do you see this operating? Well, it varies. There are times in which it can be fantastic, and it can be extremely happy with what is happening around you and what’s happening to your work, how you see the world going. Then immediately comes something that destroys that, and then you need to start again. It’s a little bit Sisyphus, over and over.

It’s interesting, making me think about something. The value of discussing these concepts, making these distinctions, is exactly to make you face the continuation of life in slightly different ways. Being a little bit more complex and complete about how you formulate our problems. And they’re huge, you know?

When you look at what has happened in the pandemic in these two years, it’s really extraordinary the awfulness of the thing. But then there’s the ability to respond to it in a way that we had not responded to any prior pandemic, with the development of vaccines so rapidly, with the development of efficient tests. Then at the same time, there’s another loss, the lost opportunity to really take care of this radically and have to face the people that opt to die instead of being treated. It’s quite strange, when you look ay the world right now.

More brain science stories: 

More of our favorite neuroscience stories: 

Live in a pro-Trump county? You’re nearly three times more likely to die of COVID-19

A new analysis of U.S. vaccination data shows the staggering toll that COVID-19 continues to take on the areas of America that voted heavily for former President Donald Trump — a discrepancy that’s largely due to media illiteracy and misinformation that have spread rampantly in right-wing circles over the course of the pandemic.

In fact, data analysts at NPR determined that people living in counties that voted for Trump last year are nearly three times as likely to die from the virus, a statistic that also gets worse as the vote share percentage increases.

The publication looked at the death rate in roughly 3,000 counties across the country, starting in May 2021, when vaccines became widely available to the general public. Specifically, counties that voted at rates higher than 60% for Trump had a COVID-19 death rate that was 2.7 times higher than equivalent counties that swung for Biden. 


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


And in October, the 10% of the country that voted most heavily for Trump had nearly six times the death rate as the equivalent blue counties, NPR found. Today, it sits somewhere around 5.5.

After the vaccines became available earlier this year, political affiliation has been by far the strongest indicator of vaccination status — more than any other demographic data point, including age, race or gender. For a time during the first few months, other groups like African Americans expressed hesitancy, but by now those differences have largely been erased, according to NPR.

RELATED: Trump booed at rally after telling supporters to “take the vaccines”

“An unvaccinated person is three times as likely to lean Republican as they are to lean Democrat,” Liz Hamel, vice president of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told NPR. “If I wanted to guess if somebody was vaccinated or not and I could only know one thing about them, I would probably ask what their party affiliation is.”

The almost-lost, cult-favorite Cuisinart magazine

Over breakfast some months ago, my friend Ina Pinkney, former chef-owner of iconic, bygone Chicago breakfast restaurant Ina’s, pressed a small stack of Cooking magazines into my arms. Each 52-page issue, published by Cuisinart, bore a simple, stylized food image on its cover: a bright-red apple, a canelé framed with mistletoe, a wooden forkful of fresh pasta.

“I lived for these magazines,” she sighed. “I would sit down, read the whole thing, and want to make everything in there.”

Why? I wondered at first, when it was created by a brand in 1978 in the service of selling its then-new food processor? But as I flipped through the ad-free, 5½-by-8½-inch pages of Cooking (eventually titled The Pleasures of Cooking), I saw what Ina meant.

Cooking’s star-studded lineup of contributors shared tips on using the food processor in new ways, like making pie crust or whipping up hollandaise (contributor Carl Jerome, James Beard’s assistant in the 1970s, suggested tilting the machine on a 2-inch-thick book, which Ina denoted with a “!” in green marker). In another issue, chef and food writer Abby Mandel — whom James Beard would later affectionately dub the “Queen of Machine Cuisine” — prepared a Middle East–accented French dinner of gougères, courgettes aux fruits de mer, and lamb skewers, making use of every possible setting, speed, and blade. Jane Salzfass Freiman was hired to make public demonstrations and appearances with the machine. Yet this large-format, small-volume cooking magazine somehow added up to more than just 50-odd pages of celebrity-chef-endorsed advertorials. Or maybe I’d been sucked in, too.

“I feel that in general, the discussions in The Pleasures of Cooking and the different people who wrote for it really reflected the world of food at that time in the United States better than any other publication,” said Pépin, who wrote regularly for the magazine, during a recent phone call. “I don’t recall that we got paid very much, but we all liked it. There were no advertisements, so we didn’t have to cower to sponsors. It was serious cooking, and it was the way we wanted it.”

Cooking published for almost 10 years, amassing some half a million subscribers and helping reshape American cooking for decades to come. It traces its origins to a certain retired MIT-trained physicist, inventor, and amateur gourmet named Carl Sontheimer, who developed the Cuisinart food processor in 1971.

Renowned Indian cuisine ambassador Madhur Jaffrey penned a 12-page recipe feature celebrating the summer foods of India — from Moghlai biryani and Hyderabadi-style stewed tomatoes to calf brains in spicy sauce based on siri paya. Jacques Pépin shared the origins of his storied career apprenticing at the Grand Hôtel de l’Europe in Bourg-en-Bresse, France, at age 13. Food writer Barbara Kafka unpacked the historical context and social meaning of the cultural phenomenon of elective vegetarianism. A piece on seven Italian soups by Italian cooking legend Marcella Hazan featured a cheeky sidebar by her husband, Victor, reassuring readers that they could, in fact, drink wine with soup (and a reminder to slightly chill Dolcetto). Full-color photos accompanied ambitious step-by-step guides on how to break down and process whole coconuts, skin and bone ducks, and make fresh pasta from scratch.

It’s hard to imagine a time before food processors occupied shelf space in nearly every American kitchen and made routine work out of everything from pesto to terrines. Sontheimer based the original Cuisinart on the French Magimix, a domestic version of the industrial food processor Robot-Coupe. With its formidable, half-horsepower motor and exorbitant $175 price tag, the Cuisinart didn’t catch on right away.

Ina recalled living in a Manhattan apartment in the mid-1970s when her foodie neighbor ran over with a picture of a food processor from a magazine. Not entirely sure of what it did, though certain they needed one, the women promptly set off for gourmet emporium Zabar’s and got on a numbered waiting list. Ina brought the appliance home, unpacked it, and set it on the counter, where it would remain for seven or eight months before she plucked up the courage to even turn it on.

“It was frightening, really otherworldly,” she said. “I remember thinking, anything that can chop onions in three seconds can’t be right. So I first had to learn how powerful it was.”

But Sontheimer was a savvy marketer, as food writer John Birdsall pointed out in a story for Bon Appétit. He knew that with a bit of guidance, the food processor could transform the cooking and entertaining lives of knowledgeable, curious, and well-heeled home cooks like Ina.

“Carl Sontheimer was very good at understanding marketing and luxury-brand placement, and he knew the food processor’s potential,” said Jerome, who wrote more than half a dozen cookbooks. “He just had to convince people of it. And I’m guessing the best way to start from his perspective was to get Jim Beard and his friends on his side.”

Sontheimer sent free machines to Beard and fellow culinary heavy hitters including Julia Child, Craig Claiborne, and Pépin. They took their food processors on the road, demoing the quick work they could made of the labor-intensive, classical French techniques in style at the time.

“People had never seen that type of machine before,” said Pépin, who recalled showing off the Cuisinart at Gimbels, in New York. “For me, I thought it was a great thing. I used to pound fish or meat into a mortar with a large pestle and push it through a little screen with a wooden mushroom, then work it with cream. Now all that work took two minutes. I’m saying that because at the time people would say, ‘You take some of the joy out of cooking with this shortcut.’ I didn’t think of it that way.”

Elsewhere, Sontheimer hired food writers like Mandel and Beard to develop cookbooks specific to the food processor. Starting in January 1976, every Cuisinart came with a slender, spiral-bound cookbook called “New Recipes for the Cuisinart Food Processor” featuring recipes from Simone Beck, Kafka, and others with “Beardian-approved credentials,” said Jerome, who co-wrote it with Beard. The appliance also came with an invitation to join the Cuisinart Cooking Club, which included a subscription to the club newsletter and, starting in 1978, a couple free issues of Cooking.

Sontheimer named Kafka Cooking’s debut editor. She was a scholarly food writer who would horrify many an American epicurean throughout her illustrious career for embracing shortcut appliances like the food processor and microwave. Kafka turned her apartment at East 97th Street and Madison Avenue into Cooking’s test kitchen, recruiting Jerome to help test recipes. She also selected the magazine’s initial, diminutive size — a brilliant differentiator that allowed it to look more lavish and impressive than its editorial budget allowed, Jerome said.

It wasn’t without conflict, though, with such fiery personalities at the helm. Eventually, Sontheimer took back the reins and moved production to Connecticut; later guest editors would include Beard and cookbook author Paula Wolfert. The magazine sized up to a standard format, and issues grew more recipe-heavy as readers requested ideas for the appliance they could no longer live without.

Indeed, once Ina mastered chopping onions and the subtle art of pulsing, she was off and running. She credits the Cuisinart and its companion magazine with teaching her to bake — a skill that would launch her decades-long career as a baker, caterer, and restaurateur starting in the 1980s. (Her own 2015 cookbook and memoir, “Ina’s Kitchen,” contains a recipe for her famous New Old-Fashioned Vanilla Bean Pound Cake, made entirely in a food processor.)

In the late 1980s, Cooking transitioned to a newsletter format, and then a direct-mail catalog that lasted into the early 2000s, when the internet forever changed the media landscape — not to mention how we learn to cook and buy ingredients. Even in its earliest pages, you can see trends taking shape, like the beginning of a marked shift away from writers and teachers to chef-dominated food media and the embrace of easier entertaining. Jerome’s Cooking column debuted in October 1978 as a comprehensive guide to 30-minute dinner parties decades before anyone uttered the name Rachael Ray. The 14 recipes he proffered included beef batonettes with shallot butter and food-processor chocolate mousse (“I didn’t even know I did that!” he gasped). An accompanying photo spread noted how to artfully mismatch different-patterned plates and glassware — a penchant of Beard’s, and an aesthetic that still adorns many cool restaurant tables in 2021.

“It’s a lost world in some ways,” said Pépin, who has kept most of his issues, too. “A world that could be very useful to young chefs and to cooks, to learn a little bit about where they come from and the way things were.”

Now, some 43 years after Ina, I’m the one sitting down to voraciously read each issue of Cooking cover to oil-splattered cover. However, I make notes on my phone rather than in the margins, getting lost in the prose and delighting in every food-history lesson. (“Somewhere in my mother’s generation, art gave way to convenience,” lamented Salzfass Freiman in a lengthy feature on fruit pies and tarts. “How refreshing to have an eggplant dish without tomatoes and/or parmesan!” wrote cooking teacher Giuliano Bugialli in the headnote to a recipe for eggplant baked in butter that predated tomatoes’ arrival in Italy.)

Of course, these old copies could take a few new stains. Maybe I’ll start with Jerome’s food-processor chocolate mousse.

Free your barley from soup and risotto it instead

What did barley ever do to anybody? You want a side dish, or something to rest your vegetables upon, and you reach for rice. You cook up some beans. But barley is always typecast as that thing from that soup. Even lentils get to branch out sometimes.

This is unfortunate, because flavorful, nutty, easy to cook, easy to store and cheap as hell barley deserves so much more love. In fact, so do a lot of the incredible staples that are household names across the world but can’t ever seem to crack the market here. Barley and friends, you Robbie Williams of foods, how can we make this right?


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


One easy way is to start is by listening to Abra Berens. The chef and author is a champion of seasonal food made simple, and her latest cookbook, “Grist: A Practical Guide to Grains, Beans, Seeds, and Legumes” is an inviting, accessible introduction to the wide world outside of white rice. And while the book is a compelling look at our food system and how we can do better with it, it’s first and foremost an enticing celebration of some of our humblest ingredients. I love its “choose your own adventure” and “without boredom” approach, because it encourages big batch cooking followed by clever riffs throughout the week. There are few things more soothing to the frazzled home cook than that one and done approach, and the Thursday night relief knowing that there are cooked beans or farro in the fridge just waiting to be tweaked for dinner.

RELATED: My dad puts turmeric in his risotto — and now I do too

“I really wanted to talk about in the book is this idea of changing the way that we batch cook,” says Berens. “My poor sister, I don’t know what she was thinking but she made two gallons of lentil soup one time. I just kept getting these text messages from her that were like, ‘I’m in lentil soup purgatory. I’ve been eating lentil soup for ten days.’ That made me think, what if she had just cooked lentils and not lentil soup? And then she would’ve just had lentils to work with. If you prepare the primary ingredient, then let yourself find that creativity of different ways of using it.”

And if you’re looking for creativity, Berens’ way of treating risotto as a verb is tough to beat. That elegant, creamy, comforting dish can be adapted to all kinds of other short, starchy grains — including barley. Risotto-ing is a brilliant technique, the simplest way to get out of a culinary rut and broaden your repertoire of grains.

I rarely make risotto because I’m more of a “stick something on a sheet pan in the oven and walk away with a glass of wine” person than a “stand at the stove stirring stuff for a half hour” one. (See also: polenta.) But when I do, I’m always amazed at how damn good it is. And so, inspired by “Grist,” I cranked up my Spotify playlist the other night and got risotto-ing.

I have scaled back the amount of barley in Berens’ recipe — though not the wine or the garlic, and you’re welcome — because it yields a lot. I have also swapped out regular onions for scallions, but you can use whatever alliums you like best here. I served this up the other night with some slow cooked pork ribs and chipotle hot sauce, and it was so comforting, so damn savory, I forgot for a while how barley could ever have been famous for anything else.

***

 

Risotto-style barley
Inspired by Abra Berens’ “Grist: A Practical Guide to Cooking Grains, Beans, Seeds, and Legumes”
Makes 4 – 6 portions

Ingredients:

  • 1 cup of pearled barley
  • 6 cloves of garlic, peeled and thinly sliced
  • 1 cup of white or rosé wine
  • 2 stalks of scallions (also known as green onions), white and green parts, thinly sliced
  • 6 – 8 cups of water or your favorite stock
  • 1/2 teaspoon of salt
  • Olive oil
  • Hot sauce (optional)

Directions:

  1. In a large pot, heat your water or stock and keep at low simmer.
  2. Meanwhile, heat up a few tablespoons of olive oil in a big pan over medium heat.
  3. Add your garlic, salt, and most of your scallions, reserving some for your garnish. Stir until softened, about 5 minutes or so.
  4. Add the barley and stir until it’s all coated in oil and just a little toasty, about 2 minutes.
  5. Add your wine and keep stirring.
  6. When the barley has absorbed all the wine, add a ladle of the warmed water or stock and stir. Keep stirring, and as the liquid continues to be absorbed, add more, a ladle at a time. Keep going until the barley is plump and tender to the bite, about 20 minutes.
  7. Remove from heat and serve immediately.

More grains-based dishes we love: 

 

GOP civil war set to begin in Georgia as David Perdue seeks to challenge Gov. Brian Kemp

Former U.S. Sen. David Perdue is prepping to announce a long-expected gubernatorial bid in Georgia, as he seeks to unseat current Republican Gov. Brian Kemp and take on the presumptive Democratic nominee, Stacey Abrams, reports said. 

According to GOP insiders who spoke with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he is planning to announce his campaign in an address Monday.

The race is set to be the most high-profile piece of a battle over the future of the state’s Republican party, and comes on the heels of months of far-right attacks on Kemp, who many in the party have criticized for not trying harder to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. Former President Donald Trump himself has been crusading against Kemp for this reason, even at one point saying he would prefer Abrams, a voting rights activist who narrowly lost the governorship back in 2018, to Kemp. The ex-commander-in-chief is widely expected to endorse Perdue.

“The economy is roaring in Georgia. Jobs are great. Taxes are low,” an unnamed Kemp adviser told POLITICO, which first reported the news. “So what’s Perdue’s reason to run? That he’s Trump’s lap dog? That dog don’t hunt. Lap dogs don’t hunt.”


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


The rancor between the two men is relatively new — while Perdue was serving in the Senate they were staunch conservative allies, but that all ended in 2018 when he lost to Democrat Jon Ossoff. Just last week, Kemp told reporters that he had spoken personally with Perdue, who had promised not to run in the race.

“All I know is what Sen. Perdue has told me, I hope he’ll be a man of his word, but again, that’s not anything I can control,” Kemp said.

Perdue has in recent months sought to portray himself as a “unifier,” someone who can rally both Trump’s more hardcore supporters and the so-called “moderates” who propelled Virginia Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin to victory last month. He’s been reluctant to call out Kemp by Kemp by name — but that all changed this week when both sides fired an opening salvo in what is sure to be a nasty year-long fight. In a lengthy statement to the Journal-Constitution, a spokesperson for Kemp called out a number of issues that dogged Perdue in last year’s Senate race, including public uproar over a stock-trading scandal in which the then-elected official made a number of trades that appeared to predict the devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic after receiving confidential briefings on the matter.

“Governor Kemp has a proven track record of fighting the radical left to put hardworking Georgians first, while Perdue is best known for ducking debates, padding his stock portfolio during a pandemic, and losing winnable races,” a spokesperson for Kemp said.

It didn’t take long for Perdue to snipe right back: “If Brian Kemp fought Stacey Abrams as hard as he fights Perdue and Trump, we wouldn’t be in this mess.”

More on the Georgia GOP:

Homemade pork tamales are the ultimate weekend cooking project

I’ve always wanted to learn to make pork tamales. So when I had the opportunity to cook with my wonderful friend Janet, I asked her if she would show me how they are made in her home country of Mexico. Before we started, she warned me that pork tamales are a labor of love: While certainly not a quick dish, they would be worth the work, she ensured me.

Many countries have their own version of pork tamales. Even in Mexico, tamales vary from place to place, family to family: Some wrap their pork tamales with corn husks, while others use banana leaves. Janet told me that where she is from in northern Mexico, corn husks are the preferred cooking sleeve, and she feels that they yield a tender, softer exterior. The fillings for tamales, too, are matter of preference. Some like to add refried beans or chicken to the masa dough, but for Janet’s family, the favorite is slow-cooked pork flavored with ancho chile. (And she uses any leftover pork to make tostadas or fill tacos).

How to make pork tamales

To make the filling for Janet’s pork tamales, you’ll need three pounds of pork butt, white onion, ancho chiles, water, and salt and pepper. Despite the lean list of ingredients, they’re incredibly flavorful. The meat is juicy and succulent and the chiles bring heat (which can be offset by the fresh-tasting salsa verde).

The pork is cooked in a large pot with water and onions. After it’s cooked, save the cooking water! The water has become a simple but spectacular pork stock that can then be used for making the masa. 

Because the pork simmers for three hours, Janet makes it the day before. With the pork shredded and flavored ahead of time, she can focus on making the masa dough and assembling the tamales.

How to make masa

Making the masa is a bit time consuming — but very important. Janet told me that in Mexico, you can go to the mill to pick up freshly ground masa, which is softer and fresher than what we purchase in the grocery store here. In the States, she prefers to buy “instant” masa, as she feels it has the closest flavor to what she was able to buy back home.

To make the masa, Janet shows me how to combine refined lard with baking powder in a stand mixer. The two are mixed for at least 10 minutes until they’re thoroughly combined. Next, the instant masa, reserved pork broth, and salt are added to a separate bowl with the baking powder-lard mixture . . . and this is where things get messy. Janet mixes this all by hand until a sticky dough forms. If the dough is too dry, you can add a little more pork broth; if it’s really unbearably sticky, add another sprinkle of instant masa. Turn the stand mixer back on low speed and slowly add small amounts of the hand-mixed dough back into an empty bowl. Mix this once more for another few minutes until a paste-like consistency is formed.

How to assemble pork tamales

Once the masa is ready, she lays the pliable husk in her hand, using her palm as a base, and spreads the masa up and down. She wants the masa to be thin enough that she can put a generous helping of pork filling down in the middle. Then, she expertly folds it up and ties it with a bow made of corn husk. In Mexico, she would make a simple tie on the pork tamales and a bow on the bean tamales so that her guests would always know what they were going to find inside.

When she’s ready to cook, Janet lines the steamer basket with broken pieces of corn husks before nestling in the tamales — the steam will heat the husks before the tamales, which prevents against soggy bottoms. Then, she places a plastic bag over the top of the tamales to catch the condensation (another moisture protection device), followed by a dish towel and, finally, the top of the pot.

Then, it’s just a matter of waiting two hours — one hour for the pork tamales to steam, and one hour for them to hang out in the steamer with the heat off. Janet covers the finished tamales with homemade salsa verde made with tomatillos, onions, and cilantro. Food52 co-founder Amanda Hesser likes to make her salsa verde with parsley, capers, anchovy fillets, garlic, onion, and lots of olive oil. She simply combines everything in a bowl and serves it in the exact same vessel. The combination of the savory pork, soft corn masa, and fresh salsa verde makes all of the labor worthwhile.

You can make the pork tamales ahead of time, too: Freeze them, steamed or un-steamed, in a plastic bag for up to a month. Defrost the pork tamales before steaming or, if they’ve already been cooked, defrost them in the microwave on a dish wrapped in Saran Wrap for two to three minutes.

Recipe: Cooked Green Salsa (Salsa Verde)

Recipe: Janet’s Mexican Pork Tamales

Inspired by “Squid Game,” here are 6 must-try soju cocktails

I call soju a “sweet bomb.” It comes in a variety of fresh-tasting flavors, ranging from peach and pineapple to watermelon and grape. These smooth out the bitter liquor taste so well, you can’t help but sipping. This is soju’s trick — a sweet taste that seems so harmless that it lures you to have a few shots (or a few bottles) more. It’s not until the next morning’s hangover that you realize, “Dang! It’s all because of the green bottles last night.” I’ve been there a few times before, so my advice is simple: Don’t underestimate those green bottles. 

Soju is the national drink in South Korea, but has become popular in western countries in recent years. People often refer to it as “Korean Vodka,” and, according to The Spirits Business, Jinro Soju, titled “the world’s best selling spirit brand,” sold 86.3 million bottles in 2019. Soju originated in Arabia and was called “araq.”

RELATED: Months after its Netflix debut, “Squid Game” continues to encourage US viewers to learn Korean

After Ghengis Khan first introduced araq to Mongolia, his grandson, Kublai Khan, brought it to Korea during the Yuan Dynasty when he moved into the Korean Peninsula.

A fun fact: Soju can translate directly to “burning alcohol.” But the soju we consume now has largely different alcohol by volume (ABV) from the originals with 35% ABV. Traditionally distilled from rice, this distillation method was banned by the government in 1965 during the Korean War. Due to the prohibition, people started looking for alternatives like sweet potatoes and tapioca, which led to lower ABVs. Today, Jinro Soju only contains 13% of alcohol.

Often seen in K-dramas and films, soju continues to get global attention as cultural phenomena like “Squid Game” and “Parasite” open a window for Korean culture. And sure, you can drink soju straight in the bottle like Sang-Woo does in “Squid Game,” but if you’re looking for a more chill — but still slightly tipsy — night, you should try these easy-to-make soju cocktails that are lighter and taste even better. And don’t be intimidated by soju’s flavors. You can pick any flavor to try out the recipes.

***

Recipe: Soju Slushy
Ingredients

  • 2 shots of soju 
  • Half a mango (or fruit of your choice)
  • 2 tablespoons of mango juice (optional)
  • Splash of heavy cream
  • Ice cubes

Directions

Chop half mango into pieces and blend them well with soju, a splash of heavy cream, mango juice and ice cubes. 

***

Soju Lemonade
Ingredients

  • 2 shots of soju (fresh soju recommended)
  •  A can of Sprite
  • Lemon

Directions

Mix soju shots with a can of sprite. Squeeze fresh lemon juice into it and stir gently. Lastly, you can garnish it with a lemon slice.

***

Lychee Sojurita
Ingredients

  • 2 shots of soju
  • 20 ounces of lychees in syrup

Directions

Freeze lychees for two hours in advance. Blend frozen lychees with two tablespoons of lychee syrup and two shots of soju. Pour the mixture in a glass then top with extra soju, if desired. 

***

Soju Yakult
Ingredients

  • 2 shots of Soju
  • 2 bottles of Yakult (a Japanese sweetened probiotic milk available at most Asian markets)
  • Sprite or lemon sparkling water
  • Ice cubes

Directions

Fill the glass with ice cubes. Pour soju and Yakult into the glass and mix them well. Top with Sprite (or lemon sparkling water if you don’t have a sweet tooth). 

***

Melona Bar Soju
Ingredients

  • 2 shots of Soju
  • Sprite
  • Ice cubes
  • Melona Bar (a Korean ice cream bar)

Directions

Pour soju into a glass with ice cubes. Top it with Sprite. Dunk the melona bar into the mixture. If you don’t have a Melona Bar handy, you can substitute it with any fruity ice cream. Stir the ice cream for a bit until it slightly melts.

***

Watermelon Soju
Ingredients 

  • 2 bottles of soju 
  • A watermelon
  • Ice cubes

Directions

This is a perfect party drink for a crowd. Cut the watermelon in half, scoop out the red flesh. If you want to make it more fun, you can use a melon baller to cut the watermelon into small balls to use as garnish. After blending the flesh in a blender, you can strain the watermelon juice through a sieve to get a clearer juice. Mix four cups of watermelon juice and four cups of soju (you can increase or decrease the recipe as long as you keep the 1:1 ratio) in a container. Pour it into the empty watermelon “shell” and top it with ice cubes. Serve the drink in glasses.

More cocktail stories: 

 

 

Chris Cuomo’s unethical blunder isn’t solely his to own. It’s CNN’s “Epic News Bro” fail also

When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

How strange it is to apply this famous goon’s wisdom to the situation CNN finds itself in with its top-rated personality Chris Cuomo. Strange, but not entirely unexpected.

On Saturday the WarnerMedia-owned cable news channel announced that it has fired the host of “Cuomo Prime Time” after the New York Attorney General’s office presented CNN with a cache of transcripts, texts and emails showing that the anchor assisted his brother, disgraced former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, more extensively than was previously acknowledged.

RELATED: CNN’s Cuomo problem just got worse

Chris Cuomo’s firing comes days after the network announced his indefinite suspension pending further investigation. According to Saturday’s statement, CNN “retained a respected law firm to conduct the review.”

“While in the process of that review, additional information has come to light,” the statement reads. “Despite the termination, we will investigate as appropriate.”

Mind you, an independent review from that respected law firm would have been appropriate and more timely back in May, when  The Washington Post broke the news that Cuomo took part in strategizing conference calls with his brother Andrew, along with members of his staff, attorneys and other advisers.

When Andrew Cuomo resigned in August, Chris Cuomo acknowledged that he provided insight to his brother’s aides until CNN told him to stop, following that story’s publication.

At the time Chris Cuomo apologized on his show, and CNN was content with that, declining to discipline him further. The network also walled him off from coverage of the allegations against Andrew Cuomo citing his inability to be objective.

“When Chris admitted to us that he had offered advice to his brother’s staff, he broke our rules and we acknowledged that publicly,” CNN said in an earlier statement. “But we also appreciated the unique position he was in and understood his need to put family first and job second.”

The statement continues, “However, these documents point to a greater level of involvement in his brother’s efforts than we previously knew.” This is mind-boggling until you allow for Chris Cuomo’s star status.

CNN has had a Chris Cuomo problem for a long time. Until this development, which Cuomo recognized as “embarrassing” in his Sirius XM radio show, it hasn’t been compelled to recognize that.

Cuomo was referring to himself presumably, but CNN’s brass should be embarrassed too. It was scooped twice on a story sitting at their own desk. That didn’t have to happen the second time if it engaged the most basic review it claims to be engaging in now back when the first story came out.

Included in the latest batch of documentation were texts between Chris Cuomo and the former governor’s top aide Melissa DeRosa, back in March, when the first sexual harassment allegations against Andrew Cuomo were becoming public. “Please let me help with the prep,” Chris Cuomo texted to DeRosa on March 3.  So that additional information must really be something.

The outcome might have been the same. Or Chris Cuomo and CNN could have spun the situation into a teachable moment knowing his viewers probably wouldn’t care. To everyone impotently bellowing, “But . . . but . . . ethics!”  I acknowledge that’s a depressing supposition. And you’re right.

But that ignores the reason that this situation went unaddressed for so long: Chris Cuomo was CNN’s most popular anchor.

Cuomo is combative and brash, styling himself as the network’s Rocky Balboa to Fox News Channel’s stable of Ivan Dragos – more character than journalist. “The Daily Show” awarded him the title of Epic News Bro, partly referencing the meathead comedy routine he created with his brother, New York’s top government official, across multiple “Cuomo Prime Time” episodes back in 2020.

The public ate it up, growing a loyal fanbase that defends Chris Cuomo even now – and after he was the subject of his own sexual harassment allegation, don’t forget.

Variety’s Daniel D’Addario wrote a scathing analysis of how Andrew Cuomo used the media to gild his reputation as being tough on coronavirus throughout 2020, rising to national prominence as an exemplary public official and a voice of reason.

As his administration contended with mounting evidence that it underreported COVID-related deaths at nursing home facilities, the media glommed on to the odd “Cuomo-sexual” movement further establishing Andrew as a tough, level-headed hero while the White House doubled down on dispensing dangerous misinformation.

This was already in progress when Chris had his brother on the air multiple times to joke and banter, capitalizing on his direct family connection to a prominent politician.


Want more insightful political opinion? Subscribe to Amanda Marcotte’s newsletter Standing Room Only.


Journalists who adhere to ethical standards would be right to flinch at all this, unless the goal is become bigger than the news itself and above the standards to which your peers are held. That bravura worked for Chris Cuomo’s erstwhile boss Jeff Zucker, the former top NBC executive who brought Cuomo to the network in 2013 shortly after he was named the president of CNN Worldwide in 2012.

Among Zucker’s greatest accomplishments at NBC was to elevate a couple otherwise average entertainers by providing them with a national broadcast platform. One is former “Fear Factor” host Joe Rogan. The other said the two sentences that open this article while boasting about groping women. He went on to become President in 2016 and lost re-election in 2020.

Zucker followed that up by coddling a cable news anchor who goes shirtless and gives fitness tips on an Instagram feed that John Oliver dubbed a “thirstpit” that “feels a little desperate for approval” back in 2018.

That very same social media trap helped establish Cuomo’s popularity. His CNN show recently attracted an average viewership of 959,000, with 212,000 of those viewers fitting within the advertiser-attractive 25-to-54 demographic.

Nevertheless, it’s extraordinary that Chris Cuomo copped to what his bosses deemed to be a misdemeanor level of unethical behavior and no one at an organization with a wealth of resources and investigative talent thought to do more than simply take him at his word for half a year. With a little digging, they could have made sure Cuomo wasn’t under-representing how extensively he crossed lines he should not have.

Worse, perhaps it did and assumed none of what was discovered would ever become public. Either way, we have yet another very public example of an institution risking its reputational integrity by trusting in its star’s power.

“You’ve got media critics condemning Chris calling on CNN to take action,” CNN’s chief media correspondent Brian Stelter says in a report that aired in the wake of Cuomo’s suspension. “You have some colleagues here at CNN who are mad at Chris Cuomo for putting the network in a tough spot and wanting to see action. You also have a lot of viewers though, who love Chris Cuomo and are now ticked off that he’s off the air and they want to see him back. So there’s a mixture of relief, disappointment.

“It’s a complicated situation,” Stelter adds.

As it turns out, not really.

CNN, like MSNBC, has blurred the line between news and opinion/entertainment for many years. (Fox News has erased it almost completely, although its execs will claim it hasn’t.) That means Chris Cuomo’s dedication to performance isn’t anything that anchors who came before him, and a few who are still employed at CNN, haven’t done in some fashion. He was simply more bald-faced about it.

Cuomo may a punchline now, but he remains very famous. It’s tough to say what moral future cable news hosts will draw from this story, aside from an unequivocal caution to never use one’s position as a newscaster to assist corrupt family members.

That, and the lesson to avoid unfortunate catchphrases.  Chris Cuomo’s was,  “Let’s get after it.” The New York Attorney General’s office took him at his word . . . and look at him now.

Watch this clip of “The Daily Show-ography of Chris Cuomo: Epic News Bro” on YouTube.

More stories like this:

Stress in utero: COVID chaos and babies’ future health

Erin Bascom’s job in HIV prevention training shifted to work-from-home in mid-March 2020, around the same time that she and her husband decided to keep their daughter, then 2, home from daycare out of concern over COVID-19. Initially, the plan was for the parents to take turns, one caring for the toddler while the other worked. But then Bascom’s husband, who serves in Maryland’s National Guard, was called to active duty for pandemic response. He was gone 12 hours a day at first. Then, to prevent disease transmission between soldiers and their families, his unit was assigned to stay at an area hotel. By that time, the daycare had closed its doors. Sending their daughter was no longer an option, even if the couple had wanted to risk it.

Then Bascom learned she was pregnant. She struggled to care for her 2-year-old while keeping up with work but soon discovered that to fulfill one duty completely necessitated failing completely at the other. Stress was piling on top of stress, and Bascom was frequently nauseous.

For more than 18 months, current and expecting parents in the U.S. have found themselves whipsawed by work and child care, isolated from social supports, and worried about the virus, their children, and their future children. OB-GYNs have noticed. “I see serious effects, like an uptick in severe mental health difficulties,” said Marta Perez, an obstetrician-gynecologist in St. Louis who was herself pregnant for much of 2020. Though Perez noted that pregnancy is a risk factor for mood disorders, she said that pandemic stress may have compounded that effect. Some patients at her hospital who had a history of mild depression or anxiety experienced exaggerated symptoms; others without a mental health history developed symptoms. She noted that vulnerable populations with barriers to mental health care were particularly at risk.

Researchers are only now beginning to quantify the toll. An initial review of data from a survey of approximately 500 new mothers and pregnant people living in Oregon found high rates of pandemic-related stress. Several published studies have also found higher rates of maternal depression and anxiety among pandemic cohorts compared to similar pre-pandemic cohorts.

And experts in the field point to another reason for concern: A large body of research going back decades indicates that stress of the type Bascom experienced can affect the fetus, causing physical and psychological harm that lingers throughout the child’s lifespan. With its chaotic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States has unwittingly subjected more than a year’s worth of newborns to conditions resembling an enormous experiment on the long-term effects of stress during pregnancy.

Researchers note that no individual child born during the pandemic is necessarily doomed to a lifetime of poor health. Many babies will experience no harm from their mothers’ stress, and for those who do, the effect is likely to be slight. But small individual effects multiplied by 3.5 million — roughly the number of children born in the U.S. between March 2020 and March 2021 — can have a large societal impact. In fact, experts in the field warn that the U.S. may be facing a looming public health problem.

Examples of short- and long-term effects that pediatricians and psychiatrists might expect to see in at least some children exposed to the pandemic include “developmental delays, stunted acquisition of executive functions, changes in mental health, changes in metabolic states, and obesity,” Tom Boyce, a professor emeritus of pediatrics and psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote in an email to Undark. Jennifer Ablow, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Oregon and co-lead of the survey of new mothers and pregnant people in Oregon, predicts “a great increase in depression and anxiety” in COVID-era children resulting in part from their mothers’ pandemic-related excess stress.

That’s why experts say it’s important to identify affected kids as early as possible. Pediatricians already ask about a child’s health, diet, and habits such as screen time. Adding a short set of screening questions about mental health could open doors to treatment at the first signs of anxiety or depression for even very young children. In addition, child development specialists say, the U.S. should follow the lead of other wealthy countries and implement policies that ease the burden on parents and poor families, so that any gestational effects are not compounded by extreme stress during childhood. Doctors could also furnish parents with nutritional education and resources to reduce the risk of their child developing obesity and diabetes, which cost the U.S. health system hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

Whether such a prescription will become widely accepted and followed is far from clear, but many experts insist that it would be foolish to ignore the potential impacts on a generation of children born to parents like Erin Bascom, whose pregnancies were buffeted by the unique and compounded anxieties of a global pandemic.

To balance parenting and work while her husband was away, Bascom redesigned her daily routine, taking her daughter outside each morning to play and burn off energy before returning home, where she would ask the toddler to sit quietly for hours — usually facilitated by more screen time than she felt appropriate. One morning, during COVID’s earliest months, she was running late for a virtual meeting as her daughter dawdled on their walk home from the park. When Bascom picked her up to hurry home, a tantrum ensued. By the time she showed up on Zoom, Bascom was sweating and still out of breath from carrying her wailing child into the house.

Bascom recalled her boss “nicely asked how I was doing, and I just lost it.” She said she broke down and began to weep. “I cried a lot during those few weeks.”

***

For more than 30 years, researchers have observed a link between a pregnant person’s external environment and the health of the developing fetus. Maternal exposure to stressful events like grief and marital strain, for example, can increase her offspring’s risk of long-term disease and of lower cognitive ability. The American Academy of Pediatrics asserted in a 2012 policy statement that all doctors should be trained in how childhood toxic stress can negatively affect physical and mental health in adults.

In 1989, British epidemiologist David Barker published a foundational study in The Lancet showing that among thousands of men born in Hertfordshire, England, between 1911 and 1930, those with the lowest weights at birth and at one year had the highest mortality rate from coronary heart disease. The following year, he hypothesized that slow fetal development, along with low birth weight and premature birth, which research would later show can all be influenced by the pregnant individual’s environment and circumstance, can cause high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes.

Barker’s finding and subsequent theory set off a wave of research into what has become known as the developmental origins of health and disease. But it can be tricky to determine causality in this field: It wouldn’t be ethical to run an experiment in which some pregnant people are intentionally exposed to hardships that might harm their future children. So researchers began to study natural experiments — real life events experienced by only a portion of a given population — to see if one group fared better than another.

A calamity from World War II provided a disturbing example. When Nazi occupiers punished the Netherlands’ resistance with a blockade on food shipments to the country during the winter of 1944-45, a famine ensued. Five decades later, Hans W. Hoek, of The Parnassia Psychiatric Institute, and collaborators at Columbia University, compared the children of individuals who had been pregnant during the famine with those of women who gave birth just before the blockade, or more than 40 weeks after Allied troops drove out the German occupiers, ending the famine.

The findings were sobering. Rates of schizophrenia and central nervous system abnormalities in adults born during those months were nearly double those among people born just before or after. As a group, these children grew up to have higher rates of obesity. They also died younger. Some effects cascaded into their own children.

The process believed to be at work is known as fetal programming. “Recent findings suggest that many human fetuses have to adapt to a limited supply of nutrients and, in doing so, they permanently change their physiology and metabolism,” Barker noted in a 1994 lecture for the Wellcome Foundation, a charitable organization that supports scientific research. “These ‘programmed’ changes may be the origins of a number of diseases in later life.”

The programming occurs with the help of the placenta, an organ that develops during pregnancy and supplies oxygen, nutrients, hormones, antibodies, and other substances that both nourish the fetus and provide it with information about the mother and the external environment into which it will be born. For example, a pregnant person living in a low-calorie environment may have lower levels of nutrients to pass on to the fetus. This scarcity sends a signal to the future child that it would be well served to hoard calories — to slow its metabolism.

Research on the influence of nutrient levels on fetal development got scientists wondering: To what extent could psychological stress contribute to behavioral and other health problems that developed in some children? In the 2000s, they started to find higher rates of behavioral and emotional problems in children of pregnant women with anxiety (even controlling for postpartum depression), suggesting that the fetus also receives signals about the mother’s psychological stress.

Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have since substantiated the association between maternal stress during pregnancy and the risk for neurobehavioral or mental health problems in the children they will bear. Among the field’s most notable research projects is the Danish National Birth Cohort, a longitudinal study of approximately 100,000 mother-child pairs that began in 1996 and has observed the same set of variables in the subjects at repeated intervals. Scientists have used some of that data to show that increased stress during pregnancy is associated with a higher risk of the child developing an infectious disease or mental health disorder.

In 2016, a group of researchers led by Catherine Monk, a professor of medical psychology at Columbia University Medical Center, explored a potential mechanism to help explain these negative outcomes. The researchers surveyed 61 women mid-pregnancy and collected salivary samples to measure cortisol, a hormone the body produces when the brain perceives a threat. A little cortisol can be beneficial, helping the body negotiate a stressful situation like giving a speech or taking a test. But too much, or too frequent, production of cortisol can negatively affect health. One reason is that cortisol triggers the release of glucose, increasing blood sugar levels and contributing to high blood pressure and increased risk for diabetes.

Monk’s team hypothesized that if the pregnant individuals experienced high levels of stress, then excess cortisol would pass through the placenta to the fetus. This, in turn, would cause changes to the expression of a fetal gene responsible for deactivating, or neutralizing, cortisol in the body.

Genes can be turned off or on through chemical processes known as methylation and demethylation. In adults, methylation patterns are influenced by environmental factors such as diet, stress, exercise, and exposure to pollution. In fetuses, methylation patterns are influenced by the environment of the womb — the particular mix of nutrients, hormones, and other substances that pass through the placenta from mother to child.

Monk’s study showed that in pregnant individuals, self-reported heightened stress (though not as measured by salivary cortisol) was associated with increased methylation, effectively turning off the gene responsible for deactivating cortisol. The fetus of an extremely stressed mother, therefore, could be exposed to higher cortisol levels in the womb, which might then affect its development and make the child less able to tolerate stress. This could then make them more susceptible to long-term behavioral and other health problems, such as obesity. Changes in such observable characteristics that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence are referred to as epigenetic changes.

According to Monk’s study, it was the first to link pregnant individuals’ stress with changes in the expression of placental genes. Separate research groups at National Institutes of Health and the University of Florida have since found associations between pregnancy stress and methylation changes in the placenta. Other work suggests that if a girl, for example, grows up to enter a pregnancy overweight, perhaps in part owing to her mother’s stress levels during pregnancy, that, along with a confluence of other factors, could make her own child more prone to obesity. So some epigenetic changes, such as methylation patterns, might have intergenerational effects, even though the child’s DNA never changes. And while it remains a matter of debate whether the epigenetic changes themselves — the particular methylation patterns developed in utero, for example — can be passed down in humans, studies in animal models provide additional evidence that maternal stress can trigger in-utero epigenetic changes that then influence the offspring’s health later in life.

One of the most robust studies of extreme stress during pregnancy focuses on children born during an ice storm that struck eastern Canada in 1998. In Quebec, more than 3 million people were without electricity, some for over a month. Like the Dutch famine, this provided an opportunity for a natural experiment: look at the children who were in utero during the power outage, and compare them to those born just before or more than 40 weeks after electricity was restored.

Suzanne King, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry at McGill University in Montreal, followed ice storm kids for 20 years. She and colleagues have found that the more stress a person who was pregnant during the ice storm experienced, as measured by such factors as the number of days they went without electricity and loss of income, the greater the chance their child would have poor language, motor, and intellectual development. Those children were also at a higher risk for obesity. PTSD symptoms while pregnant, meanwhile, predicted a greater likelihood that their child would have behavioral problems. What’s more, the methylation of the children’s genes, which tracked closely to the number of days their mothers went without electricity, affected the children’s immune systems, body mass index, and metabolism at age 13.

“Objective hardship predicted just about everything,” King said.

Other natural experiments have since validated the link between pregnancy stress and poor long-term health outcomes in children. Researchers at New York University found in 2012 that women who experienced earthquakes early in their pregnancies went on to have higher rates of preterm delivery. Israeli scientists, two years later, showed that women in a small city near the Gaza Strip that had experienced rocket attacks had more preterm births and lower birthweights than women in a socioeconomically similar town without rocket attacks. Premature birth can set up a child for high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease, and other conditions in adulthood.

The COVID-19 pandemic is another such natural experiment. “In all of our studies, when we look at objective hardship, we’re looking at the level of threat, the level of loss, the level of change, and the scope — the duration and the percentage of the community that is affected,” King said. The pandemic has burdened the U.S. population with high degrees of all of these.

In interviews, Bascom and many others spoke of elevated levels of stress, saying that for months they often felt unable to cope. Yoko Lytle, a Brooklyn-based doula (a professional who supports and advocates for people giving birth), said she “felt so wound up trying to get my two kids on homeschool and also being able to rest and think about my own body.”

“I was most days in tears,” she added.

Erica Krin, a sales manager in Parkland, Florida, said “most of the time I feel like I’m failing.” The morning she spoke to Undark, back in January, she had trouble locating her medication. “I’m looking for an antibiotic for 30 minutes and throwing things. The smallest things can get very stressful” she said. “It boils over probably every day at some point.”

***

The responses of Bascom’s, Lytle’s, and Krin’s children are unlikely to resemble one another precisely. And earlier research suggests that because these babies are middle-class and not Black or Latino, they will probably face better odds than those from less privileged backgrounds. Boyce, of UCSF, said that because children respond differently to environmental exposures, “there will be tremendous variation in the impact of the epidemic” due to age, socioeconomic status, race, and other factors.

Studies have shown that, as a group, Black Americans experience more stress than others, stemming from discrimination and racism. And data further suggest that chronic stress accounts for much of the disparities in birth weight, which can be a precursor to chronic disease, among White, Latino, and Black infants.

Neisa Nelson, a 27-year-old Black woman, lives in Connecticut. Though she and her husband both held onto their jobs and never became sick from SARS-CoV-2, she still experienced elevated levels of stress during her pregnancy. During the pandemic, Black Americans have been more likely to serve as essential workers — one of the factors contributing to their elevated risk of exposure to the virus — and Nelson was among them: She works as a nurse in the pediatric ICU at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan.

In the spring of 2020, when New York City became a global hotspot, averaging more than 5,000 cases per day, Nelson was in her third trimester. She came into close contact with colleagues who treated COVID patients, and she said her hospital saw some pregnant women die of the disease. Nelson feared the same fate for her and her future child. “It was very, very stressful,” she said. “When the spikes were high, and people were getting symptoms and things of that sort, it was really, really bad.”

Then, on May 25 of last year, George Floyd, an African American man, was murdered in Minneapolis by police officer Derek Chauvin, and the nation erupted in protest. Nelson hadn’t felt racism among her colleagues before, but some of her White colleagues, she said, would “make little jokes about it, and sometimes it’s offensive because they don’t quite understand what they’re saying.”

Researchers are asking whether experiences like Nelson’s reflect a broader link between race, pandemic stress, and fetal outcomes. Prior to the pandemic, the NIH had launched a program called ECHO (Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes), which includes one of the largest cohorts ever for studying the health of U.S. children. Six research groups won special funding for time-sensitive studies related to COVID-19, one of which is co-led by Johnnye Lewis, founder and director of the Community Environmental Health Program at the University of New Mexico’s College of Pharmacy. She and colleagues are comparing Indigenous, Black, and White communities to understand how the various stressors of the pandemic, as well as racial and social inequality, affected mental health and neurodevelopment.

“The beauty of ECHO is it lets us compare across several different populations,” Lewis explained in an email. During the pandemic, Black and Latino communities have had higher rates of hospitalization and death than White communities. Meanwhile, Black communities were also more directly affected by police brutality and the anti-brutality protests. A preliminary review of the ECHO data used in Lewis’s study found that the Black and Indigenous communities surveyed reported more pandemic-related stressors compared with a rural White community. Based on the research linking stress to disease, behavioral health, and neurodevelopmental problems, this could mean poor outcomes for babies in those groups.

Nelson gave birth in June 2020, and described her new baby as “very much healthy.” (The other mothers interviewed by Undark also reported that their infants are healthy.) Still, she vividly recalls how difficult it was to cope in the final months of her pregnancy. During one period, she said, she cried every night.

“I was so stressed out to the point where I had to tell the doctor I wanted to go on bed rest,” she said. “My poor child. It’s my first baby.”

***

There is still time to ameliorate the effects of pregnancy stress on the millions of children born during the pandemic, but experts warn that it’s crucial to act quickly. With the right intervention at the right time, they maintain, children and populations can be healed. “If you can do interventions early when systems and organs are most plastic, then it’s easier,” said Matthew Gillman, program director of ECHO.

Monk, the psychiatric researcher at Columbia, said there’s no such thing as too early. “Babies are in utero right now. We could be paying attention to what’s happening to the pregnant person and their partner in this time,” she said. Post-partum depression, moreover, is associated with pregnancy distress, and babies can pick up on cues from depressed moms even when very young. Monk pointed to a program, HealthySteps, which pairs a childhood development expert with pediatric care and links those in need to services, as one successful model. Ablow, similarly, said pediatric visits could include screening for early signs of anxiety; it and other emotional disorders often begin very early in childhood.

A raft of studies have pointed toward other interventions worth trying. Data from randomized controlled trials — the gold standard in health research — show that simply providing cash to families reduces stress and boosts children’s school achievement. Parental training, psychotherapy, and better health care can produce similar results. Hard data has demonstrated that the kinds of chronic diseases linked with toxic stress in utero are also associated with lower educational attainment, lost work days, and income differentials, suggesting that early interventions may be cheaper than doing nothing.

Researchers are already finding effects of pandemic-related stress in infants. Elinor Sullivan, a psychologist and collaborator of Ablow’s, found that one-year-olds who were in utero during the pandemic had higher sadness scores as assessed by an infant behavior questionnaire, compared with one-year-olds born before the pandemic.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Werner, an assistant professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University, working with Monk and colleagues, has found that fetuses whose heart rate accelerated when the mother experienced stress went on, at 4 months old, to react with greater motor activity when confronted with something new. By school age, Monk said, “We might see some attention problems in part related to this jitteriness around the environment.” And such children, when they grow up, are at heightened risk for anxiety disorders.

King, Ablow, and Monk each agreed that policy changes could ease the burden on pregnant women and new mothers — pandemic or no pandemic. The U.S. is alone among 41 countries of comparable wealth and culture in not requiring companies to provide new parents with paid time off to care for a newborn. Parental leave is linked to healthier children, Ablow added, so it ultimately results in less economic burden on the health care system.

Widespread, quality, affordable daycare might also help. Perez, the St. Louis OB-GYN, said she had patients leaving the hospital after childbirth against medical advice because they needed to care for other children. “Because they’re just trying to survive,” she said, “they had to sacrifice their own health or their pregnancy’s health to care for others.”

***

Late last summer, Hurricane Ida tore through the Eastern U.S., from New Orleans to New York. At the time Ida made landfall on the Gulf Coast, the Dixie wildfire had been burning for over six weeks across northeastern California, fueled by high temperatures and dry woodlands affected by an exceptional drought. Evacuations were ordered in four counties, and smoke from the fire spread more than 1,000 miles.

Climate scientists expect a warming atmosphere to continue to bring stronger, more frequent storms to the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast regions, and continued drought conditions to the West, priming it for ever-greater firestorms threatening homes and lives.

This would suggest that even after the COVID-19 pandemic is brought to heel, Monk and other researchers might have plenty of opportunities to continue studying the effects of extreme stress on pregnancy. “When we think about this generation that was in utero during the pandemic, we also have to think about the Earth that they’re inheriting in 20 years,” she said. Climate change “is affecting the air their mothers breathe while they’re pregnant, and it’s going to be affecting their development in so many ways, and the quality of their lives in the future.”

Bascom knows those stressors, too. Her home in Northern Virginia was placed under a state of emergency during Hurricane Ida. Her family was out of town for most of it, but the storm killed 82 by some estimates and caused power outages in at least eight states. Nine days after coming on shore in Louisiana, more than 400,000 state residents were still without power.

Still, Bascom considers herself relatively fortunate. After the birth of her second child, she was able to take 18 weeks off, cobbling together the eight weeks of paid time off the District of Columbia requires her employer to provide, along with sick leave, disability leave, and vacation days. (Parents in the European Union get a minimum of four months, paid).

She reports that she and her children — now 11 months and almost 4 — are doing well. “It was a nice reward at the end of it to have a baby to snuggle,” she said. She didn’t lose her job, like so many millions, and her employer was very supportive.

“I know that, despite the stress I was under,” she added, “I also was really, really lucky.”

# # #

Paul Tullis is an Amsterdam-based journalist whose work has appeared in the The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Scientific American, Bloomberg Businessweek, National Geographic, and others.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

“The organ that makes us human”: How skin conditions shape our relationship with the world

There’s a fascinating chapter in the book “Skin,” by Spanish author Sergio del Molino, about the skin problems of Joseph Stalin. The Soviet political leader who governed the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953 suffered from psoriasis his entire life. The extremely unpleasant ailment causes the skin to become inflamed, turn red or purple and feel itchy, scaly and dry. It can cover mere patches or consume the body. Intriguingly, when Stalin carried out his great purge from 1936 to 1938, he entrusted its execution to two other men afflicted with the skin disease, public prosecutor Andrei Vishinski and secret police chief Nikolai Yezhov.

In his book, del Molina, who also has psoriasis, speculates about “the likelihood of a dictator with psoriasis recruiting two henchmen with the same illness to carry out his most ambitious extermination plan.”

Speaking to Salon, del Molino described this section of his book as “poetic suggestion.” It is a phrase that accurately describes “Skin” as a whole. Alternating between meditations on his lifelong struggle with psoriasis and the stories of other famous psoriasis-sufferers, “Skin” is engaging on three levels: As a casual stroll through the intrinsically fascinating scientific facts pertaining to our skin; as a look at one man’s tongue-in-cheek introspection of his own medical frailty; and as a history of a group of people not commonly thought of as marginalized. The end result is a book that reads more like a series of accessible intellectual essays, stuffed with nuggets about well-known figures from author Vladimir Nabokov and drug kingpin Pablo Escobar to pop singer Cyndi Lauper.

“We can’t conceive our identity without thinking about our skin,” del Molino explained. “The choices we make around it determine our relationship with the whole world. When we think about the body-and-mind dilemma, we are really thinking about the skin-and-mind dilemma. Skin is the only organ that makes us humans for the eyes of others, so it has a deep iconic power that nobody can obviate. That’s why you find a rich stream of art, literature and philosophy around the skin.”

He added, “The rules of every religion contain many indications regarding its cleaning or the ways to show it in public. Almost every religion thinks skin diseases are a form of sin. Purity is linked with health and young skin. We didn’t think much about these matters in our daily life, because these matters are second nature.”

Our skin does not merely determine how we are perceived by others, del Molino’s book argues, but also our relationships with ourselves. Take Stalin and his infamous purges. Writing to Salon, del Molino explained his “poetic suggestion” is that there may be “a link between sickness and evilness. Not an obvious link, not in the way I suggested in my book, but tyranny emerges from body discomfort. The conditions that Stalin, Vishinski and Yezhov share make them ideal tyrants. Someone at peace with himself doesn’t have dictatorship attitudes.”

This analysis is echoed in the book, where he writes that “it was all down to a skin irritation, rheumatic pain, shame.” Because we are covered by our skin, it is profoundly difficult to compartmentalize or ignore it when it cries out for attention. And because the rest of the world sees more of our skin than anything else, it is impossible to fully disentangle how the entirety of you interacts with the world with how your skin alone does so.


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


“Skin” speaks both to people who have been spared serious skin conditions (and want to learn more) and those who already have them. For the latter, del Molino dives into his own soul to share what he has learned with those who might find value in it.

“Most of the time I think the embarrassment is in the sick person’s mind itself, not caused by society,” Del Molino told Salon. “Sometimes I find myself suffering from an imaginary contempt. Maybe these people had looked at me in an unpleasant way, maybe they were gazing at something else or they were minding their own business without taking care of my presence. Sick and disabled people usually develop some kind of soft paranoia, regardless of how many times they are right.”

He also warned against misleading advice that, in his analysis, has the effect of blaming patients for their own skin disorders. His criticisms of Lauper, who talks about personal care and practices like meditation and healthy eating when describing skin conditions, stem from concerns that her approach unfairly places the onus on patients and ignores that “the more successful treatments are based on some kind of immunosuppression.”

“I think that this kind of approach restates a story that blames the patient for his own sickness,” del Molino explained. “In short, it says: you can control your sickness, it’s up to you. Of course, healthy food and healthy habits can bring comfort, but nobody gets a skin disease by getting stressed at work.” Throughout his book, and in our interview, del Molino talks about using science to precisely ascertain the causes of a disease, an approach that far more often than not both helps the sick and clearly establishes that the afflicted do not deserve to feel guilt. If someone has sick skin, the chances are that it isn’t because they are immoral or impure, but because they simply have a disease.

His advice?

“Find a good dermatologist, trust him and don’t be ashamed,” del Molino explained. “Accept your body and don’t hide from the world.”

Chris Cuomo accuser offered sexual misconduct evidence to CNN just one day before firing

Attorneys for a former CNN employee were ready to provide the network with evidence that then-host Chris Cuomo had engaged in sexual misconduct before he was fired over the weekend.

The New York Times reported that attorney Debra S. Katz had informed CNN of the allegation on Wednesday. The network fired Cuomo on Saturday, citing his defense of his brother, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (R-NY), who has also been accused of sexual misconduct.

In a statement released on Sunday, Katz revealed that her client had offered to provide CNN with evidence of Cuomo’s sexual misconduct on Friday before he was fired.


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


“By Friday, I was in discussions with CNN about providing documentary evidence of my client’s allegations and making my client available for an interview with CNN’s outside counsel,” Katz said in a statement. “Last night, CNN acted promptly on my client’s complaint and fired Mr. Cuomo.”

Katz said that she first contacted CNN about the allegations on Wednesday, Dec. 1.

RELATED: Chris Cuomo’s insulting sexual harassment apology shows just how little he thinks of women

“My client came forward at this time because she felt in sharing her story and related documentation, she could help protect other women,” the statement added.

Ilhan Omar calls Kevin McCarthy “a liar and a coward” for refusal to condemn Boebert’s Islamophobia

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar castigated House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Sunday morning, calling the Republican leader both “a liar and a coward” for refusing to condemn recent Islamophobic comments and behavior by Rep. Lauren Boebert, a freshman Republican from Colorado.

Speaking with CNN‘s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union,” Omar—who Boebert joked about being a suicide bomber and repeatedly says is a member of the “Jihad Squad” due to her Muslim faith—said that the GOP leader has shown his true colors as fellow members of Congress have demanded Boebert be censured and stripped of her committee assignments due to her hateful rhetoric.

After watching footage of McCarthy on Friday defending Boebert and explaining why no public condemnation of her was warranted from his perspective because she had already apologized, Omar said, “McCarthy is a liar and a coward.”


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


“He doesn’t have the ability to condemn the kind of bigoted Islamophobia and anti-Muslim rhetoric that are being trafficked by a member of his conference,” she added.

Asked why that is, Omar responded, “Because this is who they are. And we have to be able to stand up to them. And we have to push them to reckon with the fact their party right now is normalizing anti-Muslim bigotry.”

Watch the exchange:

Asked to describe how many death threats she has received recently based on her faith, Omar told Tapper it was “too many to count.”

When Tapper asked Omar if she fears for her life, Omar responded by saying that while she and her staff do have a “general fear” for their own safety it is also the safety of the wider community that is vital to understand.

“We constantly hear from so many people across the country where there are children whose hijabs have been pulled off—my own daughters have experienced this. I have experienced this as a young person in this country. And we know that kind of language this member is using leads to,” she continued, referring to Boebert.

Speaking off specific death threats directed at her, including a recording of one she recently played during a news conference, Omar said, “We know that the kind of man who leaves that voicemail for a member of Congress is not going to spare a young Muslim girl when he sees her taking the bus or walking home from school or when he runs into her in the grocery store. So we have a responsibility as leaders. Words matter. And words can cause violence. And [Boebert] knows that the language she’s using—the audience that she’s using it for—is going to incite violence against myself and my community.”

Since Boebert’s comments about Omar surfaced last month—and as subsequent exchanges and an aborted phone call between the two last week in which Omar said she was forced to hang up because it was so “unproductive” and hateful—numerous fellow lawmakers and outside groups have come to Omar’s defense and demanded that Boebert be held to account.

RELATED: Ilhan Omar hangs up on Lauren Boebert after anti-Muslim attack

On Tuesday, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) urged the House Democratic leadership to remove Boebert from her committee assignments and take “all other appropriate measures” in response to her continued bigoted attacks on Omar.

That GOP leaders like McCarthy have refused to condemn the behavior has stirred deeper outrage.

In a series of tweets on Friday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) slammed McCarthy and other GOP leaders for their refusal to condemn Boebert or support the call for her committee assignments to be stripped.

“It’s embarrassing that there is any hesitation on this,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “How can we have different consequences for different kinds of bigotry or incitement? This should be treated equally and consistently. Incite against a member and you’re stripped. End of story. She refuses to even apologize.”

“It’s a pretty simple question: does the House accept violent Islamophobia or not?” she continued. “We should feel ashamed every time Congresswoman Omar or anyone is forced to defend themselves against threats in their workplace alone bc the institutions they serve in won’t protect them. It’s messed up.

The “Guarantee Clause”: Could this one weird trick save American democracy?

The past decade has seen voter suppression and partisan gerrymandering grow dramatically worse, while the Supreme Court has undercut efforts to fight back through litigation — both by striking down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and by declaring that partisan gerrymandering is not a matter for the courts. But the courts aren’t the only avenue for protecting America against democratic erosion. Congress has a key role as well — in fact, it has an urgent duty to act, according to a recent article about the U.S. Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” by Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. 

Democrats in the Senate are reluctant to act, because that would mean altering or ditching the antiquated filibuster, which has been tinkered with repeatedly before. What they haven’t taken seriously, at least so far, is the constitutional obligation enshrined in the Guarantee Clause, a topic also recently addressed by New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” 

For more than a century, courts have refused to act on this clause, viewing it as a “nonjusticiable” political question. As Shapiro notes in the abstract of her paper, “many see the Clause as purely vestigial.” She continues: “But nonjusticiable does not mean toothless, and this view fails to recognize the Clause’s grant of power to Congress,” which the framers included, she argues, “because they feared that some forms of government, such as monarchy, were incompatible with republicanism, which they understood as representative self-government.” 

RELATED: Will Arizona’s relentless Republican gerrymander decide the 2024 presidential election?

Those fears “appear prescient” in light of the democratic erosion we’re seeing now, Shapiro argues: “Fortunately, the Guarantee Clause allows — indeed, requires — Congress to address these antidemocratic state-level practices.”

Shapiro’s case amounts to the claim that congressional action on this issue is a crucial constitutional duty, clarified and reinforced by our history, which has seen the meaning of “republican” government evolve, even as the core rationale remains the same. This dual reality — an evolving meaning with a stable rationale — illustrates the logic of living constitutionalism and the folly of “originalism,” while the plain language of the Guarantee Clause refutes the right-wing trope that “states’ rights” must be seen as the antidote to a tyrannical federal government. The danger of state-level tyranny was clearly recognized by the Constitution’s authors. 

The need for such action has never been more urgent, as reflected in a recent statement by more than 150 scholars of American democracy, calling on Congress to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, “if necessary by suspending the Senate filibuster rule,” and warning that if it fails to act, “American democracy will be at critical risk.” Shapiro casts things in an even sharper light by elucidating the constitutional duty — which was vigorously fulfilled by the Reconstruction-era Congress, even before passage of the 14th and 15th amendments. Salon recently asked Shapiro to explore her argument in depth. This transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

The Guarantee Clause promises that the United States “shall guarantee to every state in the Union a Republican form of government.” That part of the Constitution gets relatively little attention. Why does it deserve our attention now?

Well, it deserves our attention because it was created, in part, for a moment like the moment we’re in, where we have movement away from compatible forms of government between the states. The “republican form of government” is a very broad term, it can mean a lot of different things at different moments in history. 

But the framers were very worried that there would be certain forms of government that would just be incompatible with each other, and that the country would fall apart. A situation we are in now — where we have some states that do not appear to be committed to democracy, and are working to undermine democracy in some pretty significant ways — that’s exactly the kind of situation that the Guarantee Clause speaks to. 

You write that “making sense of the Guarantee Clause today requires recognizing that republicanism means something broader and more democratic than it did at the founding.” So, first of all, what’s the core meaning that’s still applicable? And how has it broadened and changed?

At the founding, the idea of republicanism was actually quite malleable. The real vision of republicanism had to do with trying to prevent corruption, prevent anarchy, to promote virtue, in a way that political thinkers thought of as being similar to the Roman and Greek republics, which is where the term republicanism comes from. They had very different ideas about what that might look like. So, in Britain, they thought it could be compatible with monarchy, whereas in what became the United States, that was absolutely rejected as a possibility. 

There were some core features of republicanism, and one of them was representative democracy, with some level of representation by whoever they consider to be the people. Of course, we think of “the people” today as much broader than they did at the time. But that came out of this desire to promote virtue and prevent anarchy, and try to prevent corruption among leaders — that there was always a danger of self-interest getting in the way. So you wanted to promote virtue among the leaders, among the people who were making decisions on behalf of the people. And one way to do that was to make those leaders answerable to the people. 


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


So how has that broadened and changed? 

We would not today consider what they saw at the founding as representative democracy. At the founding, only white men, and in many places only white men who were property owners, were allowed to vote, and that continued well into the 19th century in some states. Rhode Island had extremely restrictive franchise rules well up until the 1840s. So we wouldn’t recognize that as a kind of representative democracy. 

The other piece of what is important about the Guarantee Clause has to do with this idea of a structural guarantee — that it’s about making sure that we can be a cohesive country.  There are limits to what can happen in one state without it affecting the governance in another state and the cohesion between states. 

You can see that with what happened with slavery. At the founding, there were people who were against slavery, but there was a general acceptance that it might be at least possible or even likely that we could have a country where slavery was legal  in some states and illegal in other states. What happened over time is that it became clear that was untenable. In order to enforce slavery in the slave states, it was impossible for the free state to protect their own people. It was impossible for the free states to have their own laws. 

RELATED: The Roberts Court is destroying voting rights — winning back state legislatures is the only answer

We saw that in cases like Prigg v. Pennsylvania, where slave-catchers could come into a free state and abduct people, including people who were born free in Pennsylvania, and say, “Well we own these people, and we’re going to take them back to Maryland,” and there was nothing Pennsylvania could do, even with a law that says you can’t kidnap people, even under claim of ownership. So slavery became inconsistent with national cohesion, and at the same time with republicanism, because it undermines the whole notion of a functioning representative democracy.  

You write that “the story often told is that the Framers were determined to protect the states from the federal government, or the parts from the whole, in order to protect against tyranny” but that in fact the protections “run in several directions.” How should the Guarantee Clause be understood in this context? 

It’s in a part of the Constitution that generally talks about those relationships. It includes a variety of different promises that the federal government is making to the states, not just a guarantee of a republican form of government — for example, a guarantee of protection against invasion. There’s this promise that if New York invades Pennsylvania, the federal government will aid Pennsylvania. It’s about trying to find that balance in doing something quite new, in having this country made up of sovereign states that have given up a fair amount of their sovereignty, and in exchange are getting these promises. 

In your paper you talk about the “spillover effects” that laws in one state can cause in others. Can you explain what those are and why they’re such a concern? 

Spillover effects is a concept not necessarily related to the question of a “republican form of government.” That arises from the notion that sometimes things decided upon by the government of one state can have negative — or, for that matter, positive — effects in another state. So, the easiest one to think about is pollution. If I’m in a state with not much regulation of pollution and we’re throwing a lot of stuff into the water and it’s going downstream into the next state, the next state is experiencing, quite literally, a negative spillover effect. 

But it’s not limited to pollution, that’s just the easiest concrete example. What I argue in the paper — and this is not my idea, it comes out of the work of many other scholars on democratic decline — is that there can be a negative feedback loop related to anti-democratic or pro-authoritarian impulses. So if one state is bound and determined to not allow a certain set of people to vote, or is going to gerrymander its legislature in such a way that it is highly unrepresentative, that has effects that go beyond that state itself.

Some of those effects are kind of literal: That gerrymandered legislature, in turn, is going to gerrymander the congressional delegation, which is going to affect everybody in the country, for example, through how they choose their presidential electoral votes. But the democracy scholars talk about the tit-for-tat situation that develops over time, where states begin to respond to each other: “Well, the other side is doing this. If they’re gerrymandering so extremely, then we better do the same,” for example.  That can really devolve into an anti-democratic spiral, which I think we’re seeing.

RELATED: Michigan GOP plans “shocking” scheme to ram through voting restrictions over Whitmer’s veto

You argue that the Guarantee Clause “may require a federal legislative response to state-level actions when they threaten antidemocratic spillovers” — not just “justify” but “require,” you say. Why should we see it this way?

Well, it’s a guarantee. It’s a promise. It’s not an enforceable requirement. You can’t go to court and make Congress do it. But I think it is an appropriate way of thinking about the clause. “Guarantee” is a big word. It’s not like you know, “the United States shall facilitate,” or “shall promote.” It says “guarantee,” and I think thinking about the reasons behind such a promise is so important. 

I don’t think it’s to be taken lightly. I don’t think that I would support an argument that the Guarantee Clause allows Congress to come in and do anything it wants in restructuring state government. I don’t think that’s what it says at all. I think it’s specifically about the kind of danger that we are currently facing. 

Obviously there’s room for debate, and there would be judgment calls about exactly when we’re in such a situation, and what types of responses are justified. But I don’t think that changes the reality that this promise is premised on the challenge of having a diverse country, even though the diversity at the time of the founding was very different. There was still worry about different states not respecting their place as coequal states, coequal members of this new country, that there could be expansionist tyrannical efforts to overtake other states’ interests. I think that fairly describes a lot of what we’re seeing today. 

The Guarantee Clause was largely unused before the Civil War, as you discuss. What lessons can we draw from that time period?

We can draw a number of lessons. One is that if it’s unused, of course, it’s not very meaningful. We can see it was unused for reasons that were not necessarily very good. I talk in the paper about some of the reasons why, in the most crucial moment, around the Dorr Rebellion in Rhode Island — when the president was approached and Congress was approached and then later, the Supreme Court was asked to weigh in — there really was resistance to doing anything. Many historians think that was in part because the slaveowners and the slave states understood the Guarantee Clause as a threat to them. Because if it was taken seriously, it was not going to be possible to reconcile a republican form of government with slavery. And abolitionists in the 19th century were making this argument, they were arguing that’s what the Guarantee Clause had to mean. 

So there was great reluctance on the part of the Supreme Court, which was dominated by justices from slave states — some of them slaveowners themselves — and from the president at the time, who was from the South, to do anything that might open the door to relying on the Guarantee Clause to undermine slavery. 

The Civil War obviously brought about a sea change, but the role of the Guarantee Clause is usually obscured in that history. What should we know about that?

The Reconstruction Congress relied on the Guarantee Clause to do a number of things before they enacted or sent to the states the 14th and 15th amendments. For example, they refused to seat delegations from some states unless and until they thought the states complied with having the type of government that they considered to meet the Guarantee Clause requirements. That meant things like universal male suffrage — and that was before the 15th Amendment was ratified. So they saw the Guarantee Clause as a crucial piece of undoing slavery, just as the slaveowners had worried that it would be. So it’s very consistent. 

But ultimately when the 14th and 15th amendments were ratified, a lot of attention, understandably, shifted to those amendments. One of the arguments I make is that an unanticipated consequence of those amendments has been that a lot of the debate we have about voting and election law is bound up in those amendments, which are really understood to provide individual rights and protect people’s individual rights, whereas the Guarantee Clause is not about that. As I’ve argued, it’s a guarantee about the relationship between the states. Even though the 14th and 15th amendments on the one hand and the Guarantee Clause on the other may address very similar concerns, they do so in a very different kind of way. 

That leads into my next question, about how things have developed since the post-Civil War era. One was that shift of focus, but you also talk about the development of our national identity as a democracy. What’s important about this for us today? 

I think it’s important for a couple of reasons. One is that the more cohesive we are as a country, both in terms of political culture and national identity, but also in terms of how the federal government operates in general — it is a much more significant force than it was at the founding — all speak to the potential dangers of the negative spillover effects that the Guarantee Clause was designed to address. So it’s not necessarily better or worse. It’s different. 

I talk about how people today, as a general matter, are more likely to identify as Americans than, say, Illinoisians. I talk about how with massive immigration, with massive internal migration — where people are really moving from state to state but maintain connections with people in other states — the distinct state cultures which were very important at the founding have fallen away. And of course we have technology and an ability to travel that completely eclipses anything that was the case at the time. In essence, we function much more as a single political entity than we did at the founding. 

At the same time, the history of the country is a history of moving towards increased democracy. Even in the 19th century, when you start to have people in Rhode Island during the Dorr Rebellion, say, “No, it’s not OK for only men who have $134 worth of property and their eldest sons to vote. Other people should be able to vote too.” And it’s not OK to have a state legislature so malapportioned that rural towns were able to dominate the increasingly populous cities in Rhode Island.

Now, that’s long before the Supreme Court started weighing in, that was 120 years before the Supreme Court weighed in on “one person, one vote,” it was before the 14th Amendment itself.  But that’s part of this ongoing trend, right through to the abolition of slavery, to the 14th amendment, the 15th amendment and the 19th amendment, all of these different amendments about expanding democracy. So there’s an increased constitutional commitment to popular, representative democracy that really does allow for full participation among the citizenry. That’s been a pretty consistent trend. 

We didn’t always live up to it. The end of Reconstruction was a big backslide. But I talk in the paper about all these examples of presidents claiming, “We’re going to make the world safe for democracy” or “We’re going to bring democracy to the Middle East” or “The Axis Powers of World War II are trying to undermine democracy.” It’s a rallying cry for the country and has been for well over a century, at least since the Civil War. So I think those two put together, when you have a national identity focused on democracy and when you have that being undermined in individual states, that is a dangerous situation. 

That brings us to the current moment and the threats we face now. How should they be understood in terms of the Guarantee Clause? 

Well, they should be understood, in terms of the Guarantee Clause, exactly as a true threat to the ability of the country to function as a single country and as a democratic country. Federalism is often used when people talk about how states get to decide who votes and how they vote and how elections are run, and that the Constitution gives that power to the states. But the Guarantee Clause is like the safety valve on the other side, to say that we could go too far in allowing each state to decide what to do. 

If a bunch of states were to say, “You know what, we’re not going to have popular elections of presidents anymore.” If they were to say that through gerrymandered legislatures that are themselves not democratically elected, enough states with undemocratic gerrymandered legislatures decided to take the vote for president away from the people — and they had enough votes among themselves to elect a president — it’s hard to imagine that that presidency would be understood as fully legitimate by all the people who weren’t for that president, whether in those states or in the other states. So that’s an example where antidemocratic actions in one state, if there are enough of them, can completely undermine our national government and our ability to accept our national government.

You write that in interpreting and enforcing the Guarantee Clause, “Congress is due more here than the limited deference the Court gives to congressional efforts to enforce individual rights” under the 14th and 15th amendments — which is exactly what happened with the Shelby v. Holder decision. Do you think that would protect against the court invalidating congressional action based on the Guarantee Clause? 

It’s a fool’s errand to say for sure what the Supreme Court is going to do. So I don’t think there’s a guarantee, no pun intended. I think they are very different, and I think the arguments are powerful — let me put it that way. I I think that if the Supreme Court decides it’s not going to define the scope of the Guarantee Clause, which it has decided, and if the Guarantee Clause is directed to the government as a whole, which it is, and if Congress makes meaningful findings — and I don’t think Congress can act willy-nilly; an appropriate use of the Guarantee Clause requires a thoughtful explanation for why they’re doing what they’re doing — but if Congress does that, I think a significant deference is owed to their judgment. 

It’s exactly the kind of political judgment that led the court to decide it couldn’t weigh into the Guarantee Clause in the first place. And since it hasn’t provided any definition of the scope of what that clause means — unlike the rights protected by the 14th and 15th amendments — it would essentially be like a guessing game: “No, that one didn’t work. Try again.” That’s not the way coequal branches are supposed to operate. 

So, can I tell you the Supreme Court would agree with me and would do what I suggest here? Of course I can’t make that promise. But I think the arguments are powerful. I think there are very meaningful differences between the different clauses and the amendments. Some of them have to do with the way they are written, and some have to do with how the Supreme Court has interpreted them, or declined to do so.  

When it came to extreme partisan gerrymandering, until Anthony Kennedy left the court, it looked like they might say, “Yes we can and should do something about it,” and then they pulled back. By the logic that you’re proposing, this would strengthen Congress’s hand in acting, correct?

This is a key: Under the elections clause, Congress can outlaw extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional elections. I think that’s widely accepted. But I think under the Guarantee Clause they can actually do it for state legislatures, and there is no other part of the Constitution that provides for that power. In fact, at the time of the founding there was a genuine fear that some states would try to establish monarchies in their own state. And if you think about it, if enough states were to say tomorrow, “We’re not going to call it a monarchy, but our governor is going to serve for life and the governor gets to pick their successor, and then that person serves for life, etc.,” would we stand for  that? What if the state said, “We’re also going to allow for that governor to handpick the members of the legislative body’? Would that be OK? 

I don’t think that would be OK. Congress could refuse to seat a delegation from a state that looks like that, but that could actually undermine the only small-d democratic function that the state might have left. So I think it would be well within Congress’ power to say, “No, states must have a popularly elected governor and a popularly elected legislature,” without a lot of detail. If a state decided to have a parliamentary form of government, that would not violate the Guarantee Clause because we see that as an appropriate form of representative democracy today. But monarchy or aristocracy? I don’t think that is consistent with our understanding of republicanism. 

So we’re at a point of crisis now. More than 150 scholars of democratic backsliding just issued a statement in support of the Freedom to Vote Act and setting aside the filibuster, saying  that if Congress fails to pass the act, “American democracy will be at critical risk.” How should we understand the relationship between your argument and this call for action? 

I think they come from the same place. We are in a really dangerous situation where a lot of significant efforts are being made in many states to change the way we choose our leaders, to exclude significant numbers of people from being able to have a say. We look increasingly like a country close to what we looked like before the Voting Rights Act, in terms of large parts of the country not having a government that is in any way responsive to and or elected by the people. It’s elected by a subset of the people, and responsive to a subset of the people. In turn, because the legislatures in most states draw the maps for the legislature, and in most states draw the maps for Congress, and in all states get to decide how presidential electors are chosen, there’s a whole series of knock-on effects that become very, very hard to undo over time. 

In your survey of threats that we face today you don’t just mention extreme gerrymandering and voter suppression. You also talk about anti-democratic lame-duck lawmaking, which we’ve seen in Wisconsin and North Carolina. How might Congress respond? 

This really is most relevant in states that are pretty purple, that could go either way. You have this heavily gerrymandered supermajority Republican legislature and in statewide elections Democratic statewide officials are elected — whether the governor and the attorney general, as in North Carolina, or Supreme Court justices in some states — and then in the interim period, before the new governor comes in, the state legislatures have enacted laws that change the structure of government in a meaningful way, taking power away from the incoming Democratic officeholders and reallocating it to the legislature. 

In the case of Wisconsin, one particularly outrageous thing was that one of these laws had the intent and effect of making it impossible for the new Democratic governor [Tony Evers] to fulfill one of his primary campaign promises, which was to get out of the anti-Obamacare lawsuit. He supported Obamacare, and withdrawing from the lawsuit was a big issue in the campaign, not a small thing. And then the legislature enacted a law, which the outgoing governor signed, that prevented that from happening. To me, that’s particularly outrageous, because we had a small-d democratic election, people said, “This is what we want,” and then an undemocratic gerrymandered legislature with an outgoing governor undermines that.

I think one way of addressing that is that if a legislature is passing laws in that lame-duck period that reallocate authority within state government in some way, those laws have to go through some form of pre-clearance to establish that it’s not an attempt to undermine the democratic decisions of the people of the state. I would argue that it should be nationwide. I think it would be a pretty deferential standard, because there’s lots of things that state legislatures can and should do in that context. But as a nationwide system it would at minimum discourage that kind of democratic undermining. 

In two respects your paper goes against conservative constitutional mythology. First, you reveal the obvious shortsightedness of regionalism and, second, by focusing attention on the text you push back against the states’ rights ideology, making it clear that the Constitution grants federal power to protect against tyranny coming from the states just as much as it protects the states against federal tyranny. Do you have any broader thoughts about the importance of freeing ourselves from these kinds of partial and misleading myths?

That’s a big question. I am not an originalist, that’s pretty obvious. But on the states’ rights side, that is, I think, a really crucial contribution, in the way I think about the Guarantee Clause. There’s this whole long saga about how a big central government is tyrannical, by definition, that the states are closer to the people and can prevent us from tyranny. That’s the story that we get told. I teach a version of that story when I talk about what the founders were thinking, but they weren’t oblivious to the danger that tyranny could come from within a state. They thought there were some forms of government that are incompatible with democracy. You can’t have unlimited states’ rights. 

Finally, what’s the most important question that I haven’t asked? And what’s the answer? 

The most important question is, “What do we do to try to protect democracy in our country?” And I think the answer is enormously complicated. I think Congress should absolutely pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and should pass some of the ideas I propose in the paper. Of course I think that. 

But I also think ordinary people should take responsibility for talking across ideological divides, promoting meaningful civic education that teaches young people how to do that. It’s something I do as faculty director of the Constitutional Democracy Project at Chicago-Kent. One thing democracy scholars talk about is that an antidemocratic spiral arises out of this belief that if the other side wins it’s the worst thing that could happen. I think we are in a moment in our country where both sides think that — it’s an existential threat if the other side wins. I don’t know the answer to that, but I don’t think the answer comes from Congress. It has to come from people.

Alice Sebold’s “Lucky” and the problem with memoirs with happy endings

I knew very little about memoir when I began a graduate program in nonfiction. I thought I would study personal essays and narrative journalism. Most of my classmates, however, wrote memoir, works of nonfiction that unfolded like novels, about substance abuse or spiritual journeys, world travel or doomed marriages. Some of my classmates had survived or done great feats, experiences they believed were worth writing a whole, true book about. 

Though true was a thing we kept arguing over in class. 

Last summer, Timothy Mucciante, executive producer on a planned Netflix adaptation of Alice Sebold’s acclaimed 1999 memoir “Lucky,” about her rape as a 18-year-old college student, hired a private detective to look into what Mucciante believed were some discrepancies in the book. Because the memoir wasn’t just about Sebold’s rape; it was also about the trial, conviction, and imprisonment of a man called Gregory Madison in the book. In real life, it is Anthony Broadwater who was identified by Sebold — wrongly, it turns out — as her rapist, convicted for the crime and sentenced to eight to 25 years, the maximum sentence. 

Released in 1998 and forced to register as a sex offender, Broadwater’s conviction was overturned last week, after Mucciante’s detective shared his findings with lawyers, who took them to the New York Supreme Court. Broadwater had spent more than 16 years in jail, always maintaining his innocence, and had been denied parole five times.

RELATED: A timeline of Alice Sebold’s “Lucky” saga, from a wrongful conviction to a redemptive documentary

Most of the initial conversations around this revelation have rightfully centered racial justice and false convictions. Sebold is a white woman. Broadwater, a Black man. Black men serving time for sexual assault are three and a half times more likely to be innocent than white men convicted of the same crime, with the major reason for their false convictions being misidentification by victims who are white, according to The National Registry of Exonerations at the University of Michigan Law School. 

But not everyone who ends up helping send an innocent man to jail writes a book about it —and profits hugely from it, as Sebold did. “Lucky” sold over 1 million copies. “The Lovely Bones,” Sebold’s follow-up novel about a teenager who is raped and murdered, sold over 8 million, and was made into an Oscar-nominated film.

Part of the success of “Lucky” was that it had a happy ending. Along with exploring the darkness of trauma and its aftermath, the memoir dramatizes a court case that ends in conviction. “Exhilarating to read!” Francine Prose wrote in a blub on the back cover of the paperback. This memoir of rape purported to have what most experiences of rape never have: consequences.  

But that ending, it turns out, was not the end at all. And happy for whom? One of the strengths of Sebold’s memoir was that it did dwell in darkness; it didn’t pretend that everything was fine even after the case had been allegedly solved. Sebold wrote frankly about her continued struggles with addiction and depression. But as for Broadwater? His story in the memoir simply ends, having never been told. 


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


My former classmates who have published memoirs spoke of their editors’ desire for the books to have a resolution, to have everything be better by the conclusion. The reader wants to feel like the writer has grown and changed, they said the editors insisted, that the author has made it through something. 

So, the very line last of James Frey’s “Million Little Pieces,” the bestselling addiction memoir, once lauded by Oprah, is: “James has never relapsed.” Joyce Maynard’s “At Home at the End of the World,” a memoir about a relationship the author had with J.D. Salinger when she was only a teenager, ends with Maynard as an adult, happy at the house of friends, where they’ve put up streamers for her and made cake: “In ten minutes, it will be my birthday.”

Memoir readers want to be taken on a journey — often, a journey of intensity and struggle — but at the end, they want to rest assured that everything is fine now. 

Everything is rarely, actually fine. Frey famously fictionalized large chunks of his memoir, which had originally been shopped around as a novel. It’s a not uncommon fate for memoirs: “Love and Consequences” by Margaret B. Jones and “Misha: A Memoire of the Holocaust Years” by Misha Defonseca are only a few of the many memoirs later revealed to have been fabricated or falsified.

There’s going through an experience — and then there’s going through a book of the experience, a process of revision after revision, layers of combing through a text that can take years. In the whole process of taking a memoir like “Lucky” from draft to publication, did no one question the events, not of the rape but of what happened after the rape? What happened with the court case; what happened with the man Sebold admitted in the memoir she was unsure she had identified correctly? 

It’s significant that the holes in the court case of “Lucky” were uncovered not by the publisher of the book, but the producer of the would-be film adaptation, an adaptation that has now been canceled. 

As a writer, someone will likely always say you’re wrong, even if you’re writing from your own lived experience. But what if, as “Lucky” does, that lived experience includes a lot of another person’s lived experience? What if it’s wrong? What if it changes their life, harms, or ends it? How many memoirs, like Sebold’s, end with an uplifting resolution that, in retrospect, feels forced upon the story? The last line of “Lucky” is “I live in a world where the two truths coexist: where both hell and hope lie in the palm of my hand.” 

The two truths she is specifically speaking of are that, long after her rape, having sex with a friend felt like the first sexual experience for her, even though it wasn’t. But the line takes on new resonance given what we know now about the case. 

Like some popular memoir, “Lucky” reads like a novel, like a crime novel. Fast-paced, propulsive. Perhaps a memoir shouldn’t read that way, shouldn’t be so quick to sum up. Real life is confusing, and there are no easy answers. Often, there are no answers at all. In the rush to find an ending, to wrap everything up in a bow, what innocent life might be tied up too?

As with “Lucky,” Sebold’s novel “The Lovely Bones” has an impulse to answer everything, the main character helping to solve her own murder from beyond the grave. But healing is not linear, and neither is justice — and there really is no resolution for either of these violent acts: sexual assault or a false conviction. There is a strong outcry for Sebold to do much more for restorative justice than to simply release an apology statement to Broadwater (which reads as heavily vetted), and for Broadwater to be given the chance to tell his own story.

A terrible thing happened. Another terrible thing happened after. It’s the thing that happens next that we watch for now. 

More stories to check out:

Scientists who study boredom can help you channel your feelings into something productive

As pandemic lockdowns swept the world, those who were stuck at home reported feeling increased levels of boredom. Our collective boredom was reflected in online kvetching and solace-seeking; the phrase “I’m so bored I wish I was hungry” became a meme, as did the idea that boredom can spur culinary exploration.

Experts say the sustenance parallel is apt: Boredom functions like pain or thirst, signaling us that something needs to change. But the theory that boredom spawns creativity turns out to have “pretty slim” evidence to support it, according to James Danckert, Ph.D., a cognitive neuroscientist who co-authored “Out of My Skull: The Psychology of Boredom.”

Though the direct experience may be dull, the scientific study of boredom is full of surprises. For starters, boredom isn’t the low-motivation state most of us see it as. Rather, being bored means wanting to connect and interact with someone or something, but finding no outlet for that activation energy. Seen this way, boredom’s dissatisfied, itchy feeling comes from having extra capacity, not too little. 

Thus, the adage “only boring people get bored” couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, pretty much everyone experiences boredom. What differentiates us is how often and how intensely we perceive it, and to what end. Understanding boredom’s eccentricities reveals why some common attempts to deal with it backfire, while other coping strategies turn itch into opportunity.

The essential feeling, and origin, of boredom

We all know what boredom feels like, and yet, there’s disagreement over what boredom really is. Why do some people prefer to administer an electric shock to themselves, as one study demonstrated, rather than be unstimulated for 15 minutes? Why did 32% of participants in another say they cheated when asked to entertain themselves with their thoughts for that long? (They listened to music or checked their phones.)

At base, it’s about a search for personal meaning, said Lars Svendsen, Ph.D. author of “A Philosophy of Boredom.” He defined boredom as “ultimately about not caring for whatever is around you” and placed it among the seven deadly sins. “Sloth” is apparently a mistranslation: “When you read these descriptions of acedia, it’s patently clear that what these early Christian writers are writing about, it’s boredom. The things they have around them are deprived of all life, of all substance. They find nothing in them.” The literal meaning of acedia, derived from Greek, is something like “not caring,” which explains why “boring” is subjective. Watching ballet may be riveting for some, while it makes Svendsen yearn for an early demise.

“Sometimes people say boredom is about not having enough to do,” he said, “That is silly, because you can really work your butt off and be so bored.”

The “people” he’s talking about could very well be Danckert and his co-author John D. Eastwood, Ph.D. In “Out of My Skull,” they concluded, “[A] lack of engagement is more central to boredom than a lack of meaning.” Their case for that stance? “Just as we feel hungry when our body is malnourished, we feel emotional discomfort when our mind is undernourished.” 


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


And that comes to pass when our strengths lay untapped, such as when we’re assigned easy, redundant tasks. Yet too much information and stimulation can leave us overwhelmed and paralyzed. There’s a Goldilocks zone, Danckert and Eastwood write, “where the match between the challenge level and our own skill set is ‘just right’ to push our limits and lead us away from boredom.” 

Sandi Mann, Ph.D. doesn’t seem to think much of this debate. “Regarding engagement versus meaning, I think they are both the same thing,” said Mann, the author of “The Science of Boredom: Why Boredom is Good.” “We are often more engaged with something that has meaning to us.”

Knowing what boredom is not could help pin things down. For starters, it’s not apathy. As Danckert and Eastwood put it, “When apathetic we do not care, but when bored we care deeply.” It’s not ennui. “Ennui might be a learned helplessness in response to boredom or failure to deal with boredom,” Danckert said, “but it’s not boredom.” And it’s not depression, though again, it’s related. Mann explained: “Remember, boredom is a search for neural stimulation. If we’re not searching for that stimulation anymore, then that’s probably more depression.”

The experts also seem to agree about smartphones. Since they bring the potential for meaning and connection to our fingertips, you might expect phones to be a boredom slayer. Instead, they instill a mindset that begets more boredom: “The belief that we are entitled to and capable of engendering a constantly changing, endlessly stimulating and compelling experience dooms us to continual struggles with boredom,” Danckert and Eastwood wrote. 

Imagine you’re watching a typical couple sitting on the couch. When one person leaves for the bathroom, Svendsen said, “How many times out of 10 does the person who remains seated go for their phone immediately rather than endure those dreadful two and half minutes of nothingness?”

Who experiences boredom most? 

So is boredom increasing as tech permeates our lives? The answer to that question remains unclear, but we do know a bit about who experiences it most often and most intensely.

Traditionally, psychology researchers divided boredom into “trait” boredom — specifically, those who are boredom prone — and “state” boredom, the temporary variety owing to one’s situation. More recent iterations of boredom theory use a “person-environment fit model,” which is a fancy way of saying it’s usually some of both. Still, some psychologists think boredom is more about what’s going on in your life than who you are, while others disagree. 

In one study of nearly 4,000 adults, survey participants reported boredom only about 3% of the times they were asked, but over a 10-day period, 63% said they’d felt bored at least once. Though there’s no definitive proof that the difference is innate rather than socialized, men have consistently been shown to be more prone to boredom than women. (In the electric shock study, 67% of men gave themselves at least one shock, while only 25% of women did.) Research also suggests that those who are open to new experiences and lower in neuroticism tend to experience lower levels of boredom. Poor emotional awareness has also been linked to more boredom, and Danckert and Eastwood think that is likely because avoiding feelings often means avoiding experiences. 

Levels of boredom change over the course of the human lifespan. Because boredom strikes the “underchallenged and unaroused,” and because boredom has also been tied to a lack of agency and a feeling of being entrapped, it makes sense that it plagues adolescents and the elderly most. Teenagers have increased cognitive capacity, a relative wealth of free time, and desire to explore, but they’re constrained by parental and institutional rules. “Under these circumstances,” wrote a different set of scholars, “the sense of having a direct and immediate impact that derives from knocking over someone’s mailbox is at least a bit easier to comprehend.” 

Boredom levels rise in the mid-teen years, and then start to drop off in the late teens to early twenties. In middle age, boredom levels are quite low, as, in Danckert and Eastwood’s words, a “set of responsibilities descends on us . . .  With careers, spouses, children, and mortgages there may simply be less opportunity to feel bored in our middle decades.” Boredom continues to decline into our 50s, but beyond the 60s, with new physical constraints, retirement, and losses of opportunity, “boredom levels started to gradually rise again, particularly in women.” I can’t help thinking of my own grandmother and how losing her driver’s license put an end to post office trips, volunteer work, and pretty much all social engagement.

This variation over time, Danckert and Eastwood conclude, suggests that boredom is ultimately more about our circumstances than our personalities. 

Is boredom to be avoided?

Think back to a time when, in a brief moment of solitude, you found yourself reaching for your phone. “If you are constantly reaching for all those stimuli,” Svendsen said, then paused. “I mean, I’m not condemning it on moral grounds. I’m just saying you are living your life as a junkie, always going for the next fix. Of course, you can do that, but it’s probably not a brilliant recipe for the good life.”

Indeed, being bored can lead to lapses in judgment, inability to engage in goal-directed planning, poor risk assessment, procrastination, trouble focusing, agitation, and losing control of our emotions. Being chronically bored has been tied to a laundry list of additional bad outcomes including loneliness, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, anger, hostility, and poor school and work performance. We saw rising levels of pretty much all of these starting in the spring of 2020. And guess who violated quarantine regulations more frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic? The boredom-prone, just as they did during the SARS outbreak of 2003.

Professor Danckert told me we all probably get the boredom signal with similar frequency. How deeply we feel it and how much boredom affects us largely owe to how we respond to it. 

There are three choices, really, and the first is just to suffer. You can lurk in an uncomfortable limbo state, feeling at loose ends. The other two options both involve taking action. The “maladaptive” response to boredom includes impulsive behavior, risk-taking, and misuse of drugs and alcohol. These folks are finding a sense of purpose; it’s just not one society considers ideal. Others can be so adept at responding to the signal in quick, prosocial ways that they barely even register feeling bored. Experts say that’s easier for individuals who already have high levels of self-control, but it’s a skill that can be developed.

Since psychologists tend to focus on pathology, Danckert said, maladaptive responses like avoidance and aggression get loads of study, but research on positive responses is less plentiful. Still, we know that certain feelings are “in some way incompatible with boredom,” including connection, curiosity, interest, relaxation, control, and “flow” (that “in the zone” feeling of complete absorption where you lose track of time and place). 

The most obvious boredom coping mechanisms are self-motivating tactics that spur you toward productivity. For example, you can keep handy a list of little tasks for when boredom strikes — like, say, reorganizing a kitchen drawer. But some common self-control strategies, like rewarding oneself with a handful of M&Ms for every page of homework completed, don’t work as well as others to alleviate boredom, research suggests.

The more effective type of self-motivation enhances autonomy. If work feels like a slog, think about what new task or role would be most energizing and rewarding. Svendsen, the philosopher, went so far as to say, “You can see boredom as a voice of conscience.” As things lose significance to you, he said, “you will be thrown back upon yourself” in a man-in-the-mirror sort of way, forced to face the questions, “What do I care about? Do I care about what I should care about?” When you figure that out and then deploy your skills and talents to their optimal capacity, right in that Goldilocks zone, you lose yourself. For some, that type of flow can be found during a run or other physical activity. For others, a cognitive challenge is the ticket. Sometimes it’s one, and other times the other. And sometimes it’s using a scalpel to perform a “c-section” on an orange, like one medical student did at the outset of the pandemic.

In a study published in 2000, socializing effectively warded off boredom for college students. Deep learning is another “antidote to boredom,” Dr. Mann said, saking as it does our needs for curiosity, meaning, and flow. Reading for enjoyment has also been found to ward off the pitfalls of monotony. Or you can be like David Morgan, the Brit who leaned into his traffic cone fascination, acquiring a cone from about two-thirds of all styles ever made.

Notice what’s not included in this list? So-called “situation-irrelevant activities,” like turning to Netflix. People who are bored don’t need to be entertained; they need to be engaged, Danckert said. “There is nothing wrong with watching TV, but it’s a really, really temporary solution,” Svendsen agreed. 

Anyone who has engaged in a cycle of rumination — where thoughts run on a loop in your head, getting more intense, convincing, and dramatic with each iteration — knows it’s neither fun nor fruitful. So you would assume thinking about how bored you are would be a big no-no. And yet, “the more we fear and attempt to flee from boredom, the more distressing it becomes,” Danckert and Eastwood wrote, while “accepting a boring situation gives us what we need to be free of it — the chance to identify our desires and goals.” At least one pandemic-era study suggests they’re right.

“What you should do is not just escape from boredom,” Svendsen said, “but rather do something slightly insane: embrace it. Let boredom hit you.”

Major fashion brands linked to deforestation in the Amazon, report finds

Major fashion brands like Zara, Coach, Adidas, Dr. Martens, and at least 80 others may be indirectly driving deforestation in the Amazon due to their relationship with vendors that source materials from “opaque supply chains,” according to a new report from the research firm Stand.earth. 

The analysis took a look at the last links of the long, complicated supply chain for leather goods — tanneries, leather processors, and manufacturers. Researchers wanted to figure out if popular fashion companies were receiving leather from suppliers with ties to deforestation in the rainforest, companies like JBS, Brazil’s largest leather exporter. Stand.earth looked into 500,000 rows of customs data, including exports and imports from countries like Brazil, Vietnam, China, and Pakistan. Analysts then cross-referenced it with information such as fashion brands’ voluntary disclosure lists of their manufacturing providers. 

The researchers found that more than 50 brands have been linked more than once — either directly or via intermediaries — to JBS. The leather company pledged to eliminate deforestation-related activities from its supply chain by 2035, but has been repeatedly linked to illegal clearing of the forest. Another 25 fashion companies were linked potentially to vendors engaged in deforestation activities in Brazil at least once. 

​​”The fashion industry is known for deliberately obscure supply chains that hide massive human rights and environmental abuses,” Colin Vernon, co-founder of Slow Factory, a nonprofit that collaborated on the report, said in a statement. “Given the very lax standards and enforcement on the part of the Brazilian government, we are calling on global brands to make sure that they can prove that their supply chains are clean, without relying on the word of their suppliers, or standards that have massive loopholes.” 

Nearly two-dozen of the companies found to have links with illegal logging and land clearing — brands like Fendi, Louis Vuitton, and H&M — previously pledged to develop transparent supply chains. The new findings signal they are potentially breaching their own commitments. The other companies named in the report have no policies addressing deforestation-linked leather supply.  

“The truth is, the Amazon is being burned down to raise cattle for meat and leather, and brands have the power to stop it,” Vernon said.

The origins of leather goods have been in the spotlight recently. A recent New York Times investigation on the supply chain of leather for luxury cars found that there are regulatory loopholes being exploited by key players of Brazil’s slaughterhouse industry, allowing them to hide where cattle are raised on illegally deforested land. The Times analysis found that JBS suppliers include ranches that overlap with at least 2,500 square miles of Indigenous lands and illegally deforested areas.

Advocates are pushing for stronger measures to tackle deforestation in supply chains. Two weeks ago, European Union parliamentarians proposed a law to stop the import of deforestation-linked goods into the EU, which would force all imports of goods like cacao, soy, beef, palm oil, wood, and coffee to provide geographic information on their origin, among other measures. Even if it’s the most ambitious legislative effort currently being discussed anywhere, its impacts are likely to be very limited, Rachael Garrett, an environmental policy professor at ETH Zurich, told Grist.

That’s because of the limited market share of the EU, as well as “the high potential that companies will just avoid high deforestation risk areas, rather than working with those countries to reduce deforestation,” Garrett wrote in an email. Instead, she said, companies and governments should try to identify risk areas on a very small level — working with local farmers and smaller suppliers to find viable alternatives to deforestation.

 

“Assassins” is Stephen Sondheim’s killer musical that we don’t talk about

I first saw “Assassins,” the late Stephen Sondheim’s musical, in high school at a theater festival, after sneaking inside. I was at the festival because I had won a playwriting contest, and I was supposed to be at a rehearsal for my own play. But as soon as the music of “Assassins” started, a circus-like tune, I was spellbound. I couldn’t leave.

Sondheim composed the music and wrote the lyrics for “Assassins,” with a book by John Weidman, and the show premiered Off-Broadway in 1990, closing after only 73 performances and mixed reviews. Sondheim’s name may have helped the performances to sell out, but as the legendary Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times: “‘Assassins’ will have to fire with sharper aim and fewer blanks if it is to shoot to kill.”

After Sondheim’s death on Nov. 26 at the age of 91, tributes poured in about the musical theater legend, with many praising his passionate songs, his twisty lyrics that play so much with language, his love of writing showstoppers. Obituaries and odes to Sondheim highlight “Company” (1970), 1979’s “Sweeny Todd,” and “West Side Story” (1957). 

Not many people bring up “Assassins.”

NPR’s list of “10 Stephen Sondheim’s Songs We’ll Never Stop Listening To” doesn’t include a single tune from the show. It wasn’t exactly a flop, but it’s not exactly celebrated, either.

RELATED: Bet your bottom dollar that NBC’s “Annie Live!” will usher in a new inclusive era for an old classic

Through vignettes, “Assassins” tells the stories of presidential assassins and would-be assassins from John Wilkes Booth to John Hickley Jr. As with Sondheim musicals like 1986’s “Into the Woods,” a narrator, called The Balladeer, loosely strings the tales together. A bleak sideshow provides the staging inspiration. The set often has the feel of a shooting gallery with bells that ding or buzzers that blare. The calliope-heavy incidental music sounds like a carousel. It’s “Something Wicked This Way Comes,” but for presidential murder.

The songs are just as catchy, melodic, and surprising as most Sondheim — even if a bit reminiscent, sometimes startlingly so, of “Into the Woods,” especially its prologue and “Last Midnight.” The rhymes sound just as strong with couplets like, “Some guys think they can’t be winners./First prize often goes to rank beginners.” And Sondheim’s work is certainly no stranger to violence. “Sweeny Todd” has a murderer — has cannibals even. 

But “Assassins” has only murderers. 

Even the Balladeer doubles up on roles and plays Lee Harvey Oswald in most productions. Early reviews criticized all that violence, with some accusing the show of being “unpatriotic” in the midst of the Gulf war. “Talk about bad timing,” is the first line of a Los Angeles Times piece about the show.   

But is there ever a good time to mount a musical in America about assassins? 

In the show, assassins hang out through space and time in a kind of killers’ clubhouse where they encourage each other. Charles Guiteau (assassin of President James A. Garfield in 1881) gives 1975’s Sara Jane Moore shooting practice. Moore and Squeaky Fromme, a Manson girl who, with Moore, attempted to kill President Gerald Ford, take shots at a bucket of chicken.

A lot of guns go off onstage in “Assassins.” Characters wave guns in the melodic “The Gun Song Ballad.” Guiteau points one at the audience. Guns seem to always be in the hands of the characters, less of a prop and more of an extension of their bodies. A dog is shot, a child crying for ice cream threatened with a gun by his mother, Moore.

There isn’t really a central story to “Assassins.” It’s more like a central feeling, which, unfortunately, is one echoed by some modern-day mass shooters. The assassins feel alone, alienated by sadness, unrequited love, their failures. They think killing someone known will make them famous, happy. Make them known by proxy. Or, that it will change the world they’re so unhappy with: “We do the only thing we can do./We kill the president.”

In the ’90s, “Assassins” productions were cancelled after school shootings. Productions were cancelled after 9/11. But a revival is on Off-Broadway right now, with the same tepid reviews that dogged the original, including one from the New York Times that mentions the most recent shooting at the time of print, the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Alec Baldwin “Rust” set.

Of course, there has been another shooting since that review. Of course, there will be another before I finish writing this.

In an America after a Donald Trump presidency, it’s hard not to draw contemporary parallels with lyrics like, “What I did was kill the man who killed my country,” and the constant sadness of the characters, mostly men, that they are alone, being left behind by a world that they feel no longer has a place for them. 

Only one scene shows an aftermath of violence: the assassination of JFK, the climax of the show. And even the bystanders singing about where they were when they heard the news eventually come to a kind of grim resolve by the end of the song: “Nothing has really ended/just suspended.” It feels like a weird justification for the musical itself. 

 


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


 

In parts, “Assassins” can feel extremely dated. Several of the assassins are immigrants with heavy accents. The mental health issues of characters like Moore and Guiteau are played for laughs. Just a few months ago, the Shaw Festival canceled an upcoming staging after rights holders refused to allow the production to change the n-word, sung by Booth in a tirade against President Abraham Lincoln.

A few months after seeing “Assassins” as a high schooler, I saw a then-new play called “Front” at a university. Written by British playwright Robert Caisely, “Front” tells the story of Londoners during the Blintz in WWII. Though not a musical, the characters sing wartime songs a capella in starkly stunning moments. And the story focuses on women: women working in bomb factories, women left behind as husbands go to war, a daughter growing up alone.

Both “Front” and “Assassins” taught me that history is alive, still happening. That history can be sung, and that stories are not only to be found in imagination (“Company”), other art (“Passion,” “Sunday in the Park with George”) and faerie tales (“Into the Woods”) — but in the past. Decades before “Hamilton” dominated musical theater, we had “Assassins,” which uses some historical text, including a poem Guiteau wrote the morning of his execution and read aloud at the gallows.

Perhaps Sondheim’s musical has not aged well and should not be staged lightly. I wonder, for example, about the line asked by Oswald, “What should I do?” And Booth, who the characters describe as their “pioneer,” answering: “You should kill the president of the United States.” 

Does the line get a laugh, as it did in the video of a 2004 production on YouTube? Or, is there silence in a newly opened theatre in 2021, knowing that this dark joke isn’t a joke at all, that violence like it keeps on happening. I may never know, as the revival of “Assassins,” lukewarm reviews and all, has sold out its extended run after the composer’s death.

Sondheim was always at his best when writing about darkness, composing terrible things in beautiful, soaring melodies. Terrible things are a lot of history. It’s what we endure. And as we know, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Or, to sing it.

More stories like this:

Sit-down strikes revolutionized the labor movement — could it happen again?

Joe Biden frequently says that he wants to emulate Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president most revered among American liberals (along with John F. Kennedy and, latterly, Barack Obama). In one way he no doubt laments, Biden has indeed emulated FDR — by seeing a pair of “centrists” from his own party (in this case, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema) undermine his agenda. Roosevelt faced some of his fiercest opposition from conservative Democrats, including his own vice president, John Nance Garner, whose nickname really was “Cactus Jack.”

Somewhat like Manchin and Sinema, Garner mouthed platitudes about tradition and limited government to mask his allegiance to what today would be dubbed “the one percent.” For most of Roosevelt’s first term, Garner watched in silent dismay as FDR sloughed off the Democratic Party’s ideologically muddled history and moved sharply to the left, at least on economic policy. Garner had initially supported Roosevelt for the reasons many conservatives did, because he believed that saving democracy depended on easing the social unrest caused by the Great Depression. Once the immediate national distress began to ease, Garner reverted to being as dogmatically pro-business as any modern-day Republican. 

In the months after Roosevelt’s landslide re-election in 1936, however, Garner reached his breaking point. There was an issue where FDR took a stand that Garner saw as completely unacceptable, and that ruptured their relationship permanently. Not only was Cactus Jack off the ticket when FDR sought (and won) an unprecedented third term in 1940, Garner actually ran against Roosevelt for the Democratic nomination. 

RELATED: A short history of the filibuster: Rarely a tool for good — and never a tool of democracy

What was the issue? Roosevelt refused to take a strong stand against the “sit-down strike,” a controversial labor tactic that posed a direct challenge to major industrial employers. In a sit-down strike, workers would literally (if only temporarily) seize the means of production, “sitting down” in a factory, for example, and refusing to budge. This made it almost impossible for employers to replace the strikers with scab workers or remove the equipment, at least not without resorting to physical force. Any strike that physically prevents employers from producing or marketing commodities without literally going through their workers could be described as a sit-down strike, but the term is generally used in factories or other large industrial facilities. 

The U.S. experienced a wave of sit-down strikes in the 1930s, but the concept seems to have emerged in France, where in June 1936 many workers occupied their factories. This inspired American organized labor as well, and Georgetown history professor Joseph A. McCartin explained by email that a turning point came on Dec. 30, 1936, when workers at General Motors seized control of their complex in Flint, Michigan:

The activists used the tactic in Flint because they knew it was the crucial node in the GM system and they believed they had enough organization in the plants there to pull it off. Everyone was excited by FDR’s recent landslide reelection, which seemed to ratify public support of the Wagner Act [a landmark 1935 labor law] and other New Deal measures. And organizers were growing impatient with GM’s constant stalling and resistance to unionization. So they decided to force the company’s hand.

Conservatives like Garner were intimidated because the strikes both challenged the core concept of industrial capitalism — the sacred character of private property — but also got results. FDR refused to order the workers removed from the Flint plant by force, and the strikers ultimately achieved their primary goal: a union at GM. McCartin again:

Without the Flint sit-down strike, it might have taken many more years to unionize General Motors and the entire industrial union movement might have failed to mature. The breakthrough boosted the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) and helped make other victories possible. Indeed, U.S. Steel decided to voluntarily recognize the CIO’s Steelworker Organizing Committee (SWOC) in hopes of avoiding the kind of disruption GM had experienced. Both GM and USS capitulated to the CIO before anyone even knew whether the [Supreme Court] would uphold the constitutionality of the NLRA (Wagner Act), which it later did on April 12, 1937. This was a testament to how [much] leverage the sit-down strike gave workers.


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


The Flint sit-down strike, McCartin concluded, “was certainly the single most pivotal strike of the era.”  

Those were heady times for American labor, but they didn’t last long. By 1939, the political tide had begun to turn against Roosevelt, and the Supreme Court effectively declared sit-down strikes illegal. Internal conflicts among Democrats meant the party could not support a tactic that directly assaulted the private property of wealthy special interests. To use a phrase favored by Richard Wolff, a retired economics professor at UMass Amherst, they had become “hostage to their donors.”

Garner was essentially the leader of the anti-union Democrats — United Mine Workers leader John L. Lewis famously described him as “a labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man” — but he was not alone. While moderate or conservative Democrats had varying views on FDR’s policies overall, they had zero patience for sit-down strikes, describing them as agents of anarchy and tyranny, redolent of Communist influence. Roosevelt himself was forced to back away, remaining neutral during the “Little Steel Strike” of 1937 out of fear of dividing the party and alienating Democratic voters. (Around this time Garner also went to war over FDR’s attempt to reform the reactionary Supreme Court, which conservatives derided as “court packing” — and that history is a big part of the reason Biden is unwilling to alter the court.) 

Sit-down strikes have largely disappeared from the labor movement, partly because a dwindling proportion of Americans work in large industrial facilities. There are conceptual echoes of the tactic, adjusted for the Zoom era, in the current age of the Great Resignation, which also challenges the implicit notion that workers must play by the rules of the game — as set by the owners of capital — and have no power to change them. Like sit-down strikes, the Big Quit challenges the validity of that entire system, which means that experts and pundits respond by pronouncing gravely that it’s a terrible idea. 

In an interview with Salon, Wolff observed that the entire idea that there is something special or sacred about private property is ridiculous. Private property, like every other aspect of economics, is a concept created by human beings, who can revise that concept and the social rules around it at any time. Culture and history have trained us to be horrified when workers seek to make fundamental changes in the rules regarding property relations — but Wolff says that the rich and powerful do that all the time.

“Private property is violated every single day here in the United States,” he said. “It’s only a question of who’s violating it and for what purpose. When workers occupy a place and some yowling capitalist tells you about ‘private property,’ [that’s] a ploy. It’s a way to try to solve a problem.” Practices like eminent domain — in which a person can be forced to sell private property if a government body declares it’s needed for an alleged social purpose — have existed for centuries, and are often manipulated by wealthy developers, for instance.

Although it’s unlikely the sit-down strikes of the 1930s will ever be repeated, Wolff suggests those strikers may be remembered for pointing the way forward, toward a more humane way to work. “It was a very profound movement forward that these auto workers did in Michigan by sitting in,” he said. Whether they knew it or not, they were fighting not just for their own employment rights but for something much larger, which Wolff describes as “a displacement of the employee system by a democratization of the workplace where workers run their own businesses.” Sit-down strikes, he said, were “a transitory step from the one to the other.”

Nearly a century later, we’re not much closer to a full “democratization of the workplace.” But workers of the decentered gig economy and the work-from-home COVID economy are arriving at the same realization industrial workers had during the Depression: It’s possible to change the rules, and maybe even the game.

More from Matthew Rozsa on the unexplored corners of political history:

Far-right extremists use Twitter’s new policy against anti-extremism researchers

Twitter on Friday acknowledged that it had mistakenly suspended the accounts of anti-extremist journalists and researchers as a result of its new policy being exploited by extremists.

According to The Washington Post, the social media platform discovered the oversight on Thursday, December 4, and had “corrected the errors and launched an internal review to ensure that its new rule — which allows someone whose photo or video was tweeted without their consent to request its removal — was “used as intended.”

The attack on Twitter’s newly implemented privacy policy began on Wednesday night when it was identified by a white nationalist. At the time, he took to the online messaging app Telegram to shed light on the policy and encourage his followers to take advantage of it.

“Due to the new privacy policy at Twitter, things now unexpectedly work more in our favor as we can take down Antifa … doxing pages more easily,” the white nationalist and Nazi sympathizer wrote on Telegram. He also shared a list of approximately 50 Twitter accounts for anti-extremism journalists urging his followers to report the accounts.


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


According to Twitter, that led to a “coordinated and malicious” on a specific group of journalists and researchers. Multiple journalists had their accounts and tweets flagged. One of the impacted Twitter accounts belonged to Gwen Snyder, an anti-fascist researcher in Philadelphia. Snyder, according to The Post said “she believed her reported tweet did not break the rules but deleted it anyway, worried that any appeal she filed would take too long or ultimately fail. She suspects the rule could have a “catastrophic” chilling effect on other researchers working to expose extremists.”

Twitter’s latest acknowledgment comes nearly a week after it rolled out the new policy.

Almost immediately after the social network made its announcement, it faced scrutiny for many of its confusing provisions.

More like this:

Trump ordered McDonald’s from hospital after COVID drug ‘started kicking in’: report

Former president Donald Trump reportedly had McDonald’s brought to Walter Reed hospital after he was taken there following his COVID-19 diagnosis in October 2020.

The detail is included in former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ new book, according to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.

“Trump had McDonald’s brought to Walter Reed after the Regeneron started kicking in, per Meadows,” Haberman wrote on Twitter Friday night, as she was apparently reading the former chief of staff’s book.

“They had to eat with face shields on at the doctor’s orders, which didn’t thrill any of them,” Haberman added.


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


Trump is well known for his love of McDonald’s and other fast food and unhealthy fare. His former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, once wrote that on the candidate’s airplane, “there were four major food groups: McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, pizza, and Diet Coke.”

According to Lewandowski, a McDonald’s meal for Trump typically consisted of “two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted” — which, as the Atlantic noted, represents a 2,400 calorie meal with twice the average daily recommendation of sodium. According to the CDC, obesity may triple the risk of hospitalization due to a COVID-19 infection.

According to Lewandowski, a McDonald’s meal for Trump typically consisted of “two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted” — which, as the Atlantic noted, represents a 2,400 calorie meal with twice the average daily recommendation of sodium. According to the CDC, obesity may triple the risk of hospitalization due to a COVID-19 infection.

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

According to Haberman, Meadows also wrote about coming down with COVID himself after Election Day.

“The president told me it was not a convenient time for me to get sick,” he wrote.

CNN fires Chris Cuomo over role in brother’s sexual harassment scandal

CNN on Saturday announced that the network has terminated primetime host Chris Cuomo.

“Chris Cuomo was suspended earlier this week pending further evaluation of new information that came to light about his involvement with his brother’s defense,” the network said in a statement. “We retained a respected law firm to conduct the review, and have terminated him, effective immediately. While in the process of that review, additional information has come to light. Despite the termination, we will investigate as appropriate.”

In suspending Cuomo, CNN cited newly released transcripts from the New York Attorney General’s office. The documents show that Cuomo tried to use his position at CNN to dig up information on women who accused his brother, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, of sexual misconduct. The documents also seemingly contradicted Cuomo’s statements about how he tried to assist his brother that he made earlier this year.


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


The New York Times reported Saturday that the termination “completed a stunning downfall” for Cuomo, who had been “the top-rated anchor at CNN and a veteran television journalist who had built a successful broadcast career outside of his famed political family.”

“Dear Father” letters and DNA tests

Sunday afternoons feel so much slower at my parents’ house, an old two-story country house on a hobby farm in Southern Manitoba that has been remodeled more times than I can count. Water still leaks through the plastered walls on the first floor, and ladybugs and old flies resurrect like clockwork in the windowsills of their unused second floor with the thaw of each spring.

Over the years, I have developed a habit of inspecting my childhood room whenever I visit their home. I do not know what I am searching for, but like the predictable bow of my father’s chin whenever he motions to pray, I walk up to my old room minutes after I arrive at their house for a visit, days away from my 32nd birthday.

My parents bought the double bed, still sitting on that old steel bed frame, second-hand from my friend’s grandmother when I was 10 years old. Rigid and firm, I would layer it with three thick folded blankets to offer my body more support. The winters were always trickier. I’d have to decide between lying on the extra blankets for comfort or using them to keep me warm in the dead of our cold nights after our outdoor wood stove had broken down again. Eventually, I learned to roll the blankets around me like the Fruit Roll-Ups I’d seen in other children’s lunchboxes at school. (Mom would always help, tucking my feet in at the end.)

Across from the bed sits a dark brown cabinet with wicker drawers that Mom dragged in after I left for school at 18. Dust lies on top, so thick now I don’t bother to wipe it off. There used to be so much life in here. I place the palm of my right hand against the base of my throat, as I inhale the stale scent of the room before I turn to leave.

The stairs creek as I walk down to reach my parents sitting at the kitchen table. Mom has prepared a small lunch — faspa, as is said in Low German. Unlike Dad, she was born Catholic, but was baptized into his Mennonite faith after the two of them married. She learned Low German by listening to his parents, his 11 siblings, and their spouses and children converse at Sunday faspas at my grandparents’ farm.

I grab a handful of plain chips and place a few pieces of garlic sausage onto my plate, and I sit next to Mom. I hand her my phone after opening it to a photo of the man she’d asked to see.

“He cute.” A giggle escapes her carefully burgundy-lined lips.

I hear a loud crunch as Dad bites into one of the sour pickles left on his plate. Mom holds my phone in one hand, resting her chin on the other, as she inspects the man’s face. I thought his almond-shaped eyes, which tilt upwards as he smiles, looked kind when I first saw the photo a few weeks ago.

“John, look at him.” Mom pushes herself from the table and shuffles a few steps across the room to Dad. I immediately regret showing her.

“No, Mom—” I hesitate. My ears immediately grow hot. “You don’t have to…” my voice trails off.

“What am I supposed to do with that?” Dad says, shooing her with his left hand. He appears burdened by her suggestion. It’s his first response to most things.

She huffs like a toddler and sits back down next to me. Her childlike nature had been captivating in my childhood. I took pride in her eagerness to engage with my imaginary friends like cherished family members. With her plump cheeks and infectious, girlish laugh, she is cute. She has always been cute. But I stopped needing cute from her a long time ago.

Some days, though, she still manages to make me laugh like we did when I was young and she’d cross her legs and wave her hand in front of her face, exclaiming she might pee herself. Those are the days I really love her.

She slides the phone across the table, the reptile-greens of her eyes meeting the yellow-browns of mine.

“So, your birth mom thinks he’s your father?”

* * *

At 16, I sit at the counter in that same kitchen, crying. After spending a week working at a camp for children from a nearby First Nations reservation, one of the dams I created and maintained throughout my childhood broke. I’m a child of the Sixties Scoop, a period that lasted into the 1980s, in which Canadian government agencies routinely separated Indigenous children from their birth parents and placed them with non-Indigenous foster and adoptive parents, severing their ties to their cultures, languages and communities. The pain of knowing nothing about who or where I come from flows heavy and uninhibited.

RELATED: It’s my mom’s fault I stole her letters

“I just want to know where I come from,” I tell my bewildered parents. I snort back the water running from my nose. I am embarrassed to be crying in front of them. I’m too old to be acting like this, I reprimand myself, but it does nothing to corral the tears.

Mom stands closest to me, an arm’s length away. “I know,” she says. But she looks more like my cat trying to make sense of another cat meowing on TV than a mother readying herself to comfort her teenage daughter.

“Tough.” Dad’s voice has always had a barking quality. Sharp, making me feel soft like lard when it cuts.

“You may never know,” Dad says. The tone in his voice grows firmer, louder. Small beads of saliva spring from his mouth as he speaks. This happens when he becomes upset.

“You may never know, Brit.” He shakes his head and throws his hands up. They slap loud against his thighs as they fall. “You have to accept that. It’s foolish. The way you’re acting is foolish.”

Then he walks away.

Mom gives me a knowing glance, as if those green eyes are saying, it’ll be OK. Then she turns, shuffling right behind him.

* * *

March 4, 2010

Dear I’m-Pretty-Sure-You-Are-My-Father,

I’m not too sure how to start this. My birth mother became pregnant with me when she was seventeen, after she and you were together. I have connected with her already and she gave me your information. I’m not sure if this will maybe be weird for you or if you’re comfortable with this, but I guess why I’m writing you is to learn more about you (if you’ll let me). My name is Brittany and I think I am your biological daughter.

Brittany

I am 20 years old when I write this letter, inexperienced enough to assume that certain sentiments need not be explicitly stated. I imagine my letter will be received with the same intention that goes into my writing it. I take for granted that he will be naturally aware of my simple desire for the facts of my heritage. He is my father, after all.

I have only just met my biological mother months earlier. The relationship with her is new, still taking in its first few breaths of a reincarnated life. But I become greedy. I want more. More of where I came from. More of who I might resemble, after spending years in visible contrast to my blonde, fair and freckled adoptive parents. More of the grandparents and aunts and siblings I have not yet met.

It does not occur to me to specify that the man need not make any attempts at comforting me. Comfort, although I am happy to offer it to him, is not what I am searching for. I also do not think of telling him that I am not looking for money.

I am proud of this letter. I write it and rewrite it until I do my best to sound emotionally stable. I will impress him with my coolness, I think. When I am finished the letter, I look at it, the page shiny and polished in front of me. Like the tooth Dad first cajoled from my top gums when I was seven years old, I feel gratified staring at it.

“It’s so tiny,” I exclaimed, holding the tooth in the palm of my right hand. Dad looked proud, like he had offered me something substantial in that moment. It was no small act to me. I felt proud seeing him look so proud. Finally, a tooth, I thought. So many of my classmates had already lost their first tooth, some had even lost their second or third. The flash of the camera left little green dots floating in my eyes, when Mom told me to pose with the tooth held beside my broad gap-toothed smile.

The man responds with a friendly email. He was waiting for my letter, he tells me. He won’t get into a long explanation, he says, but “let’s chat.”

My feelings are complicated. Dad and I are barely on speaking terms by this point. Although, I wonder if we have ever truly made it onto “speaking terms” in any sort of conventional way?

I have always been a strong-willed, introspective little Métis girl. He is a tight-lipped, emotionally stringent Mennonite man, raised in an era and culture where fathers were both authoritative and inaccessible. No one had ever perceived our pair as a father-daughter duo, even in an area where adoption and fostering are relatively common. We simply aren’t the kind of father and daughter who look, act or regard each other as inherent family. I am unsure if the two of us will ever know what that would look like, even if we knew how to try.

In the coming years, I will go to medical school and eventually start a clinical practice. I will recognize how intergeneration trauma has impacted our relationship. How it will continue to impact every relationship I have with any man. Fathers have always been prickly territory for me. I think they always will be.

The man and I exchange a few brief emails. I am surprised when he assures me that he would have supported my biological mother in raising me, had she not relinquished me to the care of Child and Family Services. The only information Mom and Dad had ever received from my social worker stated that my birth father had denied paternity and disappeared months before I was born. 

I am not one to have an emotional reaction in real-time, instead, opting for a straight-faced, rapid assessment of my circumstances. I am neither angry nor confrontational with this man. Sweet and cheerful have always been safer.

I apologize. I assure him I mean no harm.

“But,” I say. “Are you sure you’re remembering this correctly?”

My biological mother maintains that he made it clear when she was 17 and pregnant that she was on her own. I suppose disappearing and moving two provinces away at a time when it was much easier to remain untraceable would feel pretty clear.

“Totally, no worries though.”

This is the last we will ever speak.

In the same way Dad knew how to precisely wedge the nail of his index finger in the crevice between my loose tooth and gums, the perfect position from which to flick it free, he has always known how it would play out with this man. He is not surprised when my attempt at a relationship with him goes nowhere. He is not surprised when the relationship with my biological mother eventually becomes so murky, I am unsure if I am angry or heartbroken or relieved when it seems to dissolve. He shrugs his shoulders and tilts his head slightly to the right when I tell my mother about this email exchange.

“It happens,” he says. He stands up from his chair at the kitchen counter and walks to the front door, throwing his feet into his rubber boots. The cows and the pigs need to be fed. Our wood stove needs to be loaded so the house can be warm again.

* * *

I like to think Dad has tried over the years. Perhaps it is too painful to bear otherwise. Mostly, I think he does try, in his way, and we speak different languages. The languages of trauma, I suppose.

“He grew up in a house where they didn’t say I love you a lot,” Mom says. “You have to try too, honey.”

Sometimes I smile at her because it is easier.

Other times, I try harder with her. I explain how I have tried with him, too. I remind her of the Winnipeg Jets hat I bought him for his birthday this year, the first he has owned. He looked proud the day I handed it to him, as he met me outside on their driveway on another Sunday afternoon. He immediately slid it onto his bald head, glistening in the sun from the chores he just finished.

I remind her of the sweaters I buy him for Christmas each year. Of the times I ask him to help set up the Ikea closet in my bedroom or to drill the curtain rod in my living room. I ask for his help, even though I know he will make at least two unnecessary holes in the wall, and I will have to stare at them, willing them to migrate the two-to-three centimeters to merge with the correct ones.

Eventually, I tell her that I do not think it is me who needs to try anymore. But believing that, let alone saying it out loud, is something that is hard for me to learn.

* * *

It has been over a decade since I last spoke to the man my biological mother told me was my father. She and I have been getting closer lately. Perhaps the pandemic has had this effect on many mothers and daughters.

She has been sending me photos of herself as a child, of my grandmother as a young woman, of my great-grandmother whom I never had a chance to meet. I give myself little time to digest each photo before I ask for another. Pace yourself, I think. But I am greedy with these photos. I already know I will never have enough. My hunger will exist forever.

In the photos of these women, I notice the roundness of their cheeks, the shape of their mouths when they smile, the olive tone of their skin. In these women, I see myself. And I wonder about my father. I wonder if I look like him, too. 

I googled him years ago, when I first learned his name. The best I found was a social media account of his wife and, luckily for me, she had poor privacy settings. I google him again in the months leading up to Christmas this year. Again, her privacy settings are open.

But his nose is too sharp. I cannot calculate the angle of his jaw or the color of his eyes. I can see myself nowhere in the landscape of his face. Photo after photo, I do not recognize this man.

And it is more than not knowing him. My husband gifts me a DNA kit for Christmas.

I make mention of the question of my paternity to no one. Alone, I reprove the thought as fantasy, a secret desire to sever myself from the man who has abandoned me twice.

It is an exceptionally cold December. I pull on a pair of leggings, tugging up my socks before I open the sliding door to our bathroom. I read the instructions on the box I left on the counter the night before: do not eat, drink, smoke, or chew gum 30 minutes prior to giving your sample. Done. Fill the tube with saliva to the black wavy line. Done. Shake the tube for at least 15 seconds. I shake it for 30 seconds, for good measure.

My first kit is lost in the mail. I am sent another one after I correspond with the company. Days later, I am sent an email telling me they have located my kit.

“We had to throw it out,” they tell me, since they have already mailed a new one.

A part of me intuitively wonders if the results of this test will surprise me. It is as though the gods of recreational DNA testing are saying to me, “Are you sure about this?”

A few months later, I call my birth mother. “So,” I say. I hesitate, trying to determine how to ask her this question. “I took a DNA test.”

“Oh?” she asks. She sounds intrigued.

Our relationship still feels fragile. I fear that something such as the question of my paternity will blow a tiny breeze, enough to dismantle the building blocks we have only just begun to carefully stack on top of each other.

“My DNA results are a little confusing,” I manage. “They don’t really make sense. So, I was wondering —”

“I know where you might be going with this,” she interrupts me. Thank God, I think. “And there is another man who could be your father but there’s no way I ever thought it was him. The timing just didn’t make sense.”

As it turns out, some 17-year-old girls aren’t aware of the fact that pregnancies can last for 42 weeks.

I sit on the floor of my office to draft my second “I-Think-You-Are-My-Father” letter. Although, this is more of a “I-Thought-Someone-Else-Was-My-Father-And-Now-I’m-Not-So-Sure-But-You-And-I-Are-Somehow-Related-Based-On-a-Recent-DNA-Test” letter.

It has taken months since receiving those DNA test results for me to feel mildly comfortable writing this letter in its entirety, which, admittedly, is not very long. But the prospective length of the letter is not what has kept me from writing it.

I find myself thanking my 20-year-old self for her sincerity when I wrote my first letter, and how it has shaped my writing of the second. I suppose, something like this can serve as a stake in time, a specific moment in my life whereupon I can reflect on what I have learned. It’s a little funny, in a morbid sort of way.

I must not expect a confirmation email, I promise myself. Fathers seem to forget this part, I have learned. I will repeat it so many times it becomes my mantra. I must not expect a confirmation email.

After spending one day in limbo, wondering if he has received it or if he’s hiding it from his partner or if he has deleted it, pretending I do not exist, I ask my biological mother to ask him if he has received it. It is useful that the two of them, unlike the previous man, are still on speaking terms.

“Yes,” she responds later that day. “He has received it. I have asked him not to leave you hanging.”

Another day passes with no response from him. Then two. Then a week. Then two, then three. But the sting feels only mild this time. Like the bite of a sand fly, compared to an infected cat bite or a broken ankle. The first letter prepared me for this. Dad’s words throughout the years prepared me for this.  

I read and reread the letter. I am satisfied with it. Satisfied in a way that is different than I was with my first. I am myself in this letter. I do not write like I am needy, because it is true. I do not use exclamation marks or reassuring phrases to make him feel more comfortable. I am understanding, but his comfort is not my concern. I am concise. My writing is clear.

This time, I make sure to mention that I am not searching for a relationship with him, nor do I need any money. I think Dad would be proud. But I know I will not tell him about it. It is another promise I make to myself. And I can’t help but think Dad might be proud of that too.


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


More personal essays about complicated families: 

How Big Tobacco used bad science to avoid accountability — and set the blueprint for Big Oil

In October, chief executives from four of the world's most powerful Big Oil companies testified before Congress about climate change — a scene that was eerily reminiscent of something that happened in the spring of 1994. Then, seven industry giants appeared before the House of Representatives — but from Big Tobacco, not Big Oil. As the business titans withered under persistent questioning from Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, Americans collectively witnessed the story as to how tobacco companies knowingly hooked their customers on an addictive and deadly product. To cap things off, many of those who appeared lied under oath about their actions, making it possible for prosecutors to later charge them with perjury. (This is no doubt why the energy industry figures prepared very carefully prior to the 2021 hearing.)

It isn't a coincidence that when Big Oil tries to wash its hands of climate change, their remonstrations comes across as strikingly similar to the time when Big Tobacco lied about the dangers of nicotine. In both hearings, viewers got to see capitalism's dark underbelly, exposed in all of its ugliness before the world: Businesses depend on profit, and therefore will lie about indisputable facts so they can continue to earn as much money as possible. To trick the public into helping them — even when, in the process, those same members of the public are only hurting themselves — this means they will lie about science.

To do so, they engage in a practice known as "manufacturing doubt." Whether it is chemical companies misleading about pollution, the sugar industry misleading about heart disease, energy companies and their climate change stories or anyone else, all of them draw from a similar cache of tactics intended to sow confusion among good faith actors, provide corrupt politicians with easy talking points and reassure those whose motivated reasoning inclines them against inconvenient scientific truths. As the authors of a 2021 study in the journal Environmental Health put it, Big Tobacco "is widely considered to have 'written the playbook' on manufactured doubt" and "has managed to maintain its clientele for many decades in part due to manufactured scientific controversy about the health effects of active and secondhand smoking."

The Big Tobacco story is at once straightforward and complex. During the heyday of Big Tobacco advertising in the 1950s and 1960s, cigarettes were associated with family friendly-fare; game shows, sitcoms and billboard advertisements associated cute animals with nicotine products.

In the mid-1960s, scientists who understood that cigarette use was linked to lung cancer and heart disease convinced Surgeon General Luther Terry to call out the products as dangerous; one year later, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 mandated that warning labels be attached to cigarette boxes. As public health advocates won victory after victory in raising awareness about tobacco products, the industry grew concerned.

By the 1970s, tobacco industry executives formulated a scheme, known as "Operation Berkshire," to undermine or thwart efforts at regulation by sowing doubt in the legitimacy of medical research about tobacco products. In addition to making it more difficult for ordinary people to accurately assess the issue, this strategy also appealed to those who had an economic interest in the tobacco industry and those whose personal preferences made them pro-tobacco, anti-regulation or both as a matter of principle. Most prominent for these efforts was a front group known as the International Committee on Smoking Issues (subsequently the International Tobacco Information Centre).

By appealing to these sentiments and interests — and keeping sympathetic politicians and officials in their pocket — Big Tobacco spent decades creating a false "controversy" around an issue that had, to the scientific community, already been objectively resolved. As Australian researchers for the journal BMJ wrote in 2000, "without question, the creation and promotion of this controversy, and the adoption of strategies implementing the conspiracy resulting from Operation Berkshire, have greatly retarded tobacco control measures throughout the world."

Fortunately, a turning point occurred in the 1990s only because a congressional committee decided to hold Big Tobacco accountable in ways that others had not.


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


The moment of truth took place on April 14, 1994. Waxman had shrewdly lured the seven executives to the hearing by "inviting" them and thereby making it clear that the event would occur with or without them. This provided him with an optical win-win: Either they would show up and have to answer unpleasant questions, or they would duck out and look like they had something to hide. After they showed up, Waxman and other members of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment grilled them mercilessly. No controversy was left untouched — the marketing campaigns to children, the medical details about their products' addictive nature, how cigarettes affected one's health and lifespan, whether the companies were manipulating nicotine. Instead of engaging in protracted legal battles to obtain key corporate documents, the legislators simply asked question in such a way that executives felt compelled to voluntarily agree to share them.

And, of course, there was the iconic decision by those same executives to lie under oath about whether they thought nicotine was addictive. Perjury probes soon followed; the embattled executives all left the industry within a couple years.

Perhaps even more upsetting to the industry was the ensuing litigation, which culminated in a $206 billion judgment against them — a staggering sum equivalent to 2.8% of the U.S. gross domestic product in 1994. And despite the tobacco industry's hysterical claims about the horrors that would result from tobacco regulations, none of their predictions came to pass. One in particular, by former R. J. Reynolds executive James W. Johnston, deserves special examination, as he posited that the inquiries were merely an excuse to ban tobacco products altogether.

"We hear about the addiction and the threat. If cigarettes are too dangerous to be sold, then ban them. Some smokers will obey the law, but many will not. People will be selling cigarettes out of the trunks of cars, cigarettes made by who knows who, made of who knows what."

This sense of persecution, utterly unfettered by any connection to provable reality, spoke to the deeper impulses on which Big Tobacco was preying. It started with a foregone conclusion that cigarette products could not be characterized as posing a serious public health risk; from there, facts needed to be rearranged to support the necessary assertion. This model was used not just for Big Tobacco's approach to political science, but its method for advancing pseudoscience as well.

In the aforementioned article from Environmental Health, researchers examined the strategies used not just by Big Tobacco but their successors and their various controversies: the coal industry and black lung disease, the sugar industry and both cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, the agrochemical business and chemical pollution, and the fossil fuel industry and climate change. They found that all of the industries would use tactics like gaining support from reputable individuals, misrepresenting data, attacking study designs, using hyperbolic and absolutist language and (of course) trying to influence lawmaking. Other popular tactics included manufacturing misleading literature, suppressing incriminating information, hosting bad faith conferences and seminars, pretending to be defenders of health, abusing credentials and taking advantage of scientific illiteracy.

The Big Tobacco tactics have only grown easier to implement in recent years, rather than more difficult. As the researchers pointed out, "the digital age has provided additional opportunities to spread misinformation. Doubt manufacturers have taken advantage of new media platforms, such as blogs and social media, to unite journalists, industry representatives and 'citizen scientists' with the aim of recruiting these individuals to perpetuate manipulated information."

Even the cigarette industry is copying from itself. E-cigarette companies have incurred controversy for using advertising strategies eerily similar to those that were banned when employed by Big Tobacco. North Carolina's attorney general announced last month that he is investigating Puff Bars and others in the distribution chain to make sure they are not targeting children. When defending themselves against that accusation, the pro-vaping community will often tangentially make similar claims that vaping is somehow healthy (or at least healthier than smoking), and sows doubt on existing science in ways that are eerily reminiscent.