Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

What was the first banned book in history?

There’s no more potent evidence of the power of the written word than the fact people have historically looked to ban them. Not even Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel) has been exempt: “The Lorax” (1971) was ostracized as political commentary. Most recently, author Brad Meltzer expressed disappointment that his 2014 children’s book “I Am Rosa Parks” — a primer on the civil rights advocate — had been prohibited in the Central York School District in York, Pennsylvania, along with other purportedly racially-conscious material. (The district has cited “parental concerns” as the reason for the ban but quickly walked it back after protests.)

Cultural norms, politics, personal beliefs, school policy, and other factors can all conspire to deem a book too incendiary to circulate in America. But just how far back does this policy of thinly-veiled thought control go?

As is often the case when you look back into history, there’s more than one possible answer. But one of the leading contenders has a fairly predictable culprit: the Puritans.

In 1637, a man named Thomas Morton published a book titled “New English Canaan.” It was a searing indictment of conservative Puritan life, which Morton had brushed up against after moving to Massachusetts in 1624. Compared to the entrenched and reserved culture of the area, Morton was a hedonist who liked to party. (As much as one could party in 1624, anyway. Dancing around a pole for May Day was considered risqué.) He also was friendly to Native Americans, which Puritans strongly disagreed with. He was eventually ostracized from the area and later sued over the forced relocation.

In their eyes, Morton wasn’t just a prototype frat boy, he was a direct threat to their way of life. His book was perceived as an all-out attack on Puritan morality, and they didn’t take kindly to it. So they banned it — and effectively banned Morton, too. He was refused entry back into Massachusetts and remained persona non grata until his death in 1643.

Other books challenged for their content around this time were the political theory title “The Christian Commonwealth” by Puritan rabble-rouser John Eliot in the 1640s and another anti-Puritan screed, “The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption,” by William Pynchon in the 1650s.

You can go further back to find more startling examples of banned books, though the definition would have to expand to include the execution of authors. Between 259 BC and 210 BC, Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang executed 460 Confucian scholars by burying them alive — the idea being that it’s easier to prevent authors from writing things in the first place if they’re dead. In 35 AD, Roman emperor Caligula — certainly a man of strong moral stuff if there ever was one — discouraged people from reading Homer’s “The Odyssey” because it could give them a taste of what it meant to be free.

In modern times, killing writers became frowned upon. Books are often challenged based on subjective ideas of obscenity in legal chambers.

More pervasive attitudes in the 1960s and 1970s that pushed the envelope helped dampen that argument. And the idea of a banned book as a source of ridicule experienced a surge in the 1980s, when booksellers at the American Booksellers Association BookExpo America trade show decided to make a spectacle out of the practice. Organizers locked over 500 books banned by libraries, schools, and communities in a large cage and left it on the show floor. Along with the American Library Association and the National Association of College Stores, the ABA helped introduced Banned Books Week to raise awareness. Though it hasn’t eliminated the practice, it’s worked to shed a light on the dangers of censorship.

What book bans and censors attempt to do in the curtailing of reading is often futile. In some cases, it can be dangerous to their health. Around 1497, Girolamo Savonarola, a Florentine who fancied himself a kind of moral dictator, turned up his nose at jokes, sex, and any kind of vice. Savonarola burned books, poems, and paintings by the pile in great bonfires. Did this keep Florence’s piousness intact? Not exactly. In 1498, Savonarola attended another bonfire. That time, he was the disagreeable element getting burned.

Regretsy: “Exceedingly remorseful” you took part in that insurrection? There’s an app for that

Both defendants in separate hearings said … that they were “caught up in the moment” Jan. 6. That was part of their argument as they sought leniency. …The judge said that one of the reasons (the defendant) was getting the sentencing of 45 days was that he seemed “exceedingly remorseful.”

— Scott MacFarlane, NBC4 Washington Investigative Reporter, 9/29/21

Were you caught up in the moment of attempting to overthrow a democracy? Do you now feel, with cause, that you made a really bad choice? Are family members, friends and bosses still justifiably angry? You are not alone. If you wish people would forget about when you scaled the walls of the United States Capitol, that’s a tough ask. But if you could rappel back to Earth for a minute and apologize? They might forgive you. Bring a gift. Or three.  

Luckily, there’s an app for that. Regretsy provides a marketplace of apology wares for those you’ve alienated by attempting a coup. From artwork to technology, it’s never been easier to say “I’m exceedingly remorseful.”  

Flowers

Send a funeral-sized bouquet with silk sash proclaiming, “I’m sorry I told you to f**k your feelings.” Carnations, assorted colors, with fresh greenery. $79.99

Arts & Crafts

Turn your pre-sentencing motion into a 100% organic cotton tapestry. Highlight your comparatively minor charges by showcasing what you did not do on Jan. 6. Sample: “He did not enter any offices; did not enter the House or Senate floor; he did not take any ‘souvenirs;’ did not contemplate defecating on anyone’s desk; did not yell, ‘We have the police surrounded!’; did not carry a pickaxe; did not yell, ‘Traitors gonna hang!’; did not yell, ‘Go, go, go!’ when police lines were breached. He also was not affiliated with any organized or extremist group. He did mill about the Capitol building taking pictures and left when told to do so.” $59.99 — available in jute, moss, and rose

RELATED: Nothing sacred: From Jefferson to Jan. 6, America’s toxic mythologies are destroying us

Cross-stitch makes an artful present, and you can craft while contemplating your actions. Our RemorseFull Heart kits come in a variety of patterns and sayings. Top sellers: The Capitol dome/I’m sorry I broke in, milled about and took pictures; Hearts and flowers/Feel Your Feelings; and Uncle Sam/When you point a finger, three point back at you. $11.99 each — thread, cloth, needle and hoop included

Wearable Remorse

Fashion your apology with patches, silk-screened T-shirts, trucker caps and more. Keep it simple with premade looks: “I Regret My Actions 1/06/21” and “#ExceedinglyRemorsefulInsurrectionist.” Or make a statement with a personal design: “Not Proud I Pooped in a Potted Plant in the U.S. Capitol.” $29.99


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


Tech-Savvy Sorrys

Video apologies from celebrities provide solace, as they can be rewatched by your spouse and kids when you’re in government custody. Select from a variety of former Trump administration spokespersons-for-hire to record your apology. If you pay it, they will say it. Even the words “I was wrong. I’m sorry,” which they will attempt with sincerity. Listen, it is what it is. A thing you can buy. Starting at $99.99

Help fund development of Regretsy’s new partner app, Forgetsy, with exclusive time-machine access to Jan. 5, 2021. Our physicists are close to completing the portal! Have you ever wanted a do-over — to go back to being an everyday hater who was not attempting to destroy the democratic republic of the United States of America? Who was not threatening the lives and well-being of elected officials? Who was not participating in a deadly riot where a Capitol police officer was killed? Followed by four more officers who died by suicide after experiencing trauma?

Maybe you didn’t yell, “Go, go, go!” But you were there. You made a choice.   

Channel your excessive remorse for good. Sign the waiver. Wire the money. Purchase the mandatory Flesh Compression Suit for time travel. And when you return to Jan. 5, wondering what you’re doing in a hotel room so far from your home, remember: Here’s your chance to change the outcome. Not the outcome of a free and fair election, but of your own actions.  

Stop. Stop. Stop. Priceless

More on the activities of Jan. 6 some participants may have regretted:

“The Morning Show” delivers an empty on-air moment that could take pointers from Amber Ruffin

“‘The Morning Show‘ is broken.”

Those aren’t my words. Producer Mia Jordan (Karen Pittman) says this to Daniel Henderson (Desean Terry) the weekend anchor who’s been informed he doesn’t have enough of an “it” factor to be a star.

Be that as it may, when news gets out that UBA network darling Alex Levy (Jennifer Aniston) has tested positive for COVID-19, network president Stella Bak (Greta Lee) pulls Daniel aside. She needs him, because Alex is a sweaty, feverish mess. Family problems have sidelined her co-anchor Bradley Jackson (Reese Witherspoon), whose brother is an addict who disappeared from rehab and is missing somewhere in New York.

That leaves Stella with Daniel, and she informs him he’ll be anchoring “TMS” for the next few weeks.

She expects this news to please Daniel. Instead, he quits. He’s not going to pick up the pieces for her this time, he says. Daniel’s reasons aren’t entirely the product of a bruised ego. His grandfather is in assisted living, and he has to make sure he’s OK.

But since it’s not safe to fly, he has to drive. Hotels aren’t safe either. Nowhere is safe, especially not for him. “Good luck to me, a Black man, sleeping in his car,” Daniel tells Stella. “But I gotta do it.”

RELATED: “The Morning Show” looks at how consequences catch up to some people sooner than others

Terry’s second season subplot has been the season’s weakest by far, and this isn’t fundamentally changed by his decision in the season finale “Fever.”  What has shifted are the real-life circumstances under which the episode dropped, the same day that a jury returned with a not guilty verdict for a teenager who drove across state lines with a AR-15 last year and opened fire on unarmed protesters, killing two men in the process.

Everything about the trial played as a cruel joke in live coverage, which steeled everyone to expect this killer, who is now an adult, to walk free and face no consequences. But tragic, horrific injustice defies preparation. Armor up all you want – such news will still remind you of your vulnerability and the system’s low regard for your safety. Good luck to you.

If you watched “Fever” with that knowledge dancing around in your brain, the finer points of Alex’s flopping and barfing through her COVID symptoms may have been lost on you. The foolish decision for devoted producer Chip (Mark Duplass) to willingly expose himself to her illness, purely to be by her side and produce Alex’s stream-of-consciousness live feed as her brain melts – all of that feels unnecessary.

That’s not the reaction you want out of an A-plot designed to actualize consequences for a self-serving woman who flew to the epicenter of a worldwide pandemic and may have brought it home to all of her co-workers. And maybe, in another timeline, it would make sense to ruminate over the karmic justice of Alex’s condition and consider whether showrunner Kerry Ehrin, who wrote this episode, convincingly makes a case for Alex’s redemption through her “judge not lest ye be judged” speechifying.

Ditto for Bradley’s frantic rambles down the streets of Manhattan with Cory (Billy Crudup), laid low by a massive career miscalculation ensuring his streaming service UBA+ is dead on arrival save for the marathon rantings of his mad pandemic queen. Denuded of his optimistic delusions he turns to Bradley, the woman he’s hired and defended, and says out loud what we already know, which is that he loves her.

This is shallow and manipulative even by the lowest of season-ending standards, which leads a person to wonder whether Ehrin was placing an admission about her show in Pittman’s mouth instead of simply giving Mia something to candidly admit to Daniel when talking to him on the phone.

Mia catches Daniel with her admittance while he’s pulled over in Cincinnati and shares that she needs him to come back. He’s insistent that he has to make his own opportunities instead of waiting for a seat that will never open up.

“It doesn’t matter where you go as a Black person, you’re going to deal with some bulls**t,” she says. “It’s f**ked up, but it’s true.” He could leave, she says, but by sitting in the chair Alex takes for granted, so many people will benefit. We can keep pushing, she continues, “Please don’t give up.”

To all this, he can only bring himself to reply, exhaustedly, “Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.”

“Tomorrow will come someday,” she says, but not even she sounds like she believes it.


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


 “The Morning Show,” as in the Apple TV+ series, isn’t entirely broken. But it has written itself into a state that makes us wonder why we’d want another season of it, and whether the central justification of Aniston and Witherspoon’s chemistry matters if neither character represents or does anything substantial.

That’s the problem when you set storylines in the near past with the notion of making statements about issues that are barely relevant. Alex’s cancellation storyline and the introduction of Paola Lambruschini (Valeria Golino) as a documentarian sympathetic to Steve Carell’s sexual predator fluttered around an exploration of the possibility of redemption and forgiveness. But since it’s been established that we live in an age of zero consequences for men on the right side of power, what does that matter?

Alex’s story mimics CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s televising his experience with COVID after he tested positive in March 2020 and continued anchoring from home as his symptoms increased, dropping 13 pounds in three days early in his efforts to keep working. Twenty months later, and in the aftermath of his brother Andrew’s plummet from grace following multiple scandals, the anchor’s workaholism matters less than the revelation that he advised the governor and senior staffers on how to respond to the multiple sexual harassment allegations the politician faced at the time.

So when Alex stares into the camera and admits that she’s looking inward and asking who she wants to be, it’s hard to care about her illness-guided journey to satori. Who does it serve? Not the show. Not the viewer. Only her. Daniel points this out on his way out the door. If he never comes back, good for him.

When a show swings and misses it helps to find an example of what it would look like if it got it right. Once again, the circumstances of our ugly present provided a gem in this outtake from the Friday installment of “The Amber Ruffin Show,” which streams on Peacock, a real-world version of UBA+.

Ruffin is not a news anchor. But on Friday she fulfilled an even more important role as a broker of truth and hope as Friday’s news out of Wisconsin broke, and threatened to break so many. On the show, in a clip also posted to social media, Ruffin looks in the camera, holding back tears, and speaks plainly.

“You guys, because I have my own show, I have a responsibility to say things that people need to know that aren’t be said.” Ruffin goes on to explain that the verdict was announced just a few minutes before the show began taping. “So I can’t believe I have to say this but . . .”

She pauses to hold back tears, then continues. “It’s not okay for man to grab a rifle, travel across state lines and shoot three people and then walk free. It’s not okay for the judicial system to be blatantly and obviously stacked against people of color.

“It’s not okay for there to be an entirely different set of rules for white people,” she says. “But I don’t care about Kyle Rittenhouse. I don’t care about that racist judge. And I don’t care about how f**ked up that jury must be. White people have been getting away with murder since time began. I don’t care about that. I care about you.”

Ruffin goes on: “And I can’t believe I have to say this, but you matter. You matter. Every time one of these verdicts comes out. It’s easy to feel like you don’t but I’m here to tell you that you do. You matter. You matter so much that the second you start to get a sense that you do, a man will grab a gun he shouldn’t have in the first place and travel all the way to another state just to quiet you.”

She ends with, “That’s the power you have. So don’t forget.”

Ruffin is an entertainer who understands the power of her platform and when, and how, to use her personal influence to the greatest good she can do in the moment. “The Morning Show” is entertainment that is supposed to tell some version of the truth about the news business, and barring that, use its characters to say something genuinely even if it’s scripted.

Ruffin had moments to figure out what she needed to say to offer uplift at a dispiriting moment when America’s racism pandemic spiked and reminded us it had no intention of abating. “The Morning Show” has had two seasons and still hasn’t figured out its message.

At the finale’s close, after Alex has haltingly extemporized about whether she deserves all the terrible things that have happened to her and mulls the possibility of life after death, she shrugs. “I’ll see you later,” she offers with a smile.

Not unless the show figures out something worthwhile to say about this moment instead of trusting we’ll keep hanging on for tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow.

All episodes of “The Morning Show” are currently streaming on Apple TV+.

More stories like this:

Springsteen’s “Legendary 1979 No Nukes Concerts” has the best live version of “The Promised Land”

On March 28, 1979, Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island nuclear power plant experienced a partial meltdown that resulted in the release of dangerous radioactive gases and iodine into the environment. Within a matter of days, a group of activists formed Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE). Led by such luminaries as Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Bonnie Raitt, and John Hall, MUSE wasted little time in marshaling its collective energies on behalf of the environment and public safety. That September, MUSE organized a 200,000-person strong rally at the Battery Park City landfill, where they protested the ongoing deployment of nuclear energy.

And oh yeah, MUSE also managed to stage five star-studded concerts at Madison Square Garden that same month. Entitled No Nukes: The MUSE Concerts for a Non-Nuclear Future, the event featured the likes of Crosby, Stills, and Nash, James Taylor and Carly Simon, the Doobie Brothers, and Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, among others. In so doing, the No Nukes musicians trained a spotlight on the ills of nuclear energy that remains unmatched into the present day.

Which brings us to the bravura release of “The Legendary 1979 No Nukes Concerts,” which collects, for the first time, Springsteen and the E Street Band’s high-octane set in support of a non-nuclear future. By any measure, the group turned in a stunning performance. Over the years, Springsteen and the E Street Band have enjoyed a well-earned reputation as one of the finest live acts ever to take the stage. Perhaps it took a cause of the stature of No Nukes to nudge the band into an even rarer air space?

RELATED: With “Letter to You,” Bruce Springsteen reminds us, brilliantly, that we’re all on borrowed time

Whatever the impetus, “The Legendary 1979 No Nukes Concerts” documents Springsteen and the E Street Band in top, road-chiseled form. The numbers from “Darkness on the Edge of Town” (1978) absolutely sizzle, particularly “The Promised Land,” a song that depicts a young man in the throes of learning about the larger world that exists just beyond his ken. Indeed, the “No Nukes” version of the tune may mark its finest live rendition. And then there’s the new music that fans would soon come to know as “The River,” including the heartrending title track and “Sherry Darling.”

“The Legendary 1979 No Nukes Concerts” finds Springsteen in the act of honing the voice of social consciousness that will comprise his work across the following decades. With No Nukes, he took the reins on a new and inspiring journey that continues into the present day.


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


More Kenneth Womack on music docs and series: 

“Globalist” is an epithet now — yet some of history’s greatest thinkers supported world government

COP26, the climate change summit that ended in Glasgow a week ago, resulted in a pact signed by almost 200 nations. Experts have decidedly mixed views about the extent to which this worldwide agreement will be useful, but one thing is clear: Most of the international community understands that if we are going to survive global warming, different nations will need to work together. Humanity’s alteration of our atmosphere is a planetary problem — something that almost by definition cannot be tackled by each individual country on its own.

Yet there is a snag. The mere concept of international organization is so politically charged that the term “globalist” has become a common right-wing epithet. (It is also a popular anti-Semitic dogwhistle.) Today it seems unimaginable to have a serious conversation about humanity uniting under a world government to fight climate change. In the not too distant past, however, some of history’s greatest minds pointed out that powerful global institutions would need to hold nations accountable when crises emerge that threaten our entire species.

Prior to World War II, the primary thinkers on the subject of world government were motivated by pacifist ideologies. The medieval and romantic glorifications of war increasingly became outdated as technology made its human consequences more horrifying. In place of the chivalrous view of warfare, great scholars from German philosopher Immanuel Kant to English author H. G. Wells urged a federation of all nations. Their thinking was as simple as the formula which applied to the cantons of Switzerland: Urge member states to work with one another in a confederate system of government, and then make sure that the central authority has enough power to effectively prohibit armed conflict. If that structure was applied to every country in the world, the logic went, war itself could be abolished.

Perhaps the most eloquent conveyor of these views was Theodore Roosevelt, who was hardly a pacifist but saw world peace as an admirable ideal. A year after his presidency ended, Roosevelt spoke to the Nobel Prize committee — which had given him its peace award years earlier for brokering an end to the Russo-Japanese War — about why an international peacekeeping organization would be a “master stroke” if it had enough power to effectively nip potential wars right in the bud.

“The supreme difficulty in connection with developing the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of any executive power, of any police power to enforce the decree of the court,” the former president argued. While it made sense that nations would refuse to relinquish their arms so long as there was a plausible risk of foreign attack, it was another to do so after “the community is so organized” that each nation can reasonably assume laying down its weapons will not imperil it. “Each nation must keep well prepared to defend Itself until the establishment of some form of international police power, competent and willing to prevent violence as between nations,” Roosevelt concluded.

After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson pushed for the formation of a League of Nations that would have been in rough keeping with Roosevelt’s vision — but by the 1930s that body (which the United States never joined) had clearly failed. It was powerless against the rise of totalitarian governments in Italy, Spain, Germany and elsewhere, all of which posed a clear menace to world peace. It was also impotent to help ordinary people against the ravages of the Great Depression, and reminded every political leader that promises of peace would fall on dear ears if stomachs remained empty. Alarmed observers suspected that World War I would not turn out to be “the world to end all wars,” and by 1939, a journalist named Clarence Streit had published a book called “Union Now.” It explicitly urged democratic countries to form a world republic both to better serve their citizens and to erect a bulwark against tyranny.

After World War II and the dawn of the atomic age, those ideas took on a new level of urgency. With mushroom clouds wiping out cities and lingering radiation raising the specter of an uninhabitable planet, the call for world government was no longer about merely stopping wars. If the atomic bomb could be used to destroy the world, the very existence of the human race was at stake.


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


One person who thought this way? The most famous physicist of all time, Albert Einstein.

Despite being most remembered for his contributions to science, the German-born scientist was proud of his strongly held political beliefs. He supported socialist economic policies, opposed segregation, threw his clout behind peace activism and openly called for Israel to be founded and show respect for Arabs. When it came to the menace of nuclear war (for which Einstein’s own work was partially responsible), he felt compelled to advocate world federalism. He argued that the United Nations was a good start, but only if it served as a transitional body that ultimately brought humanity toward global government.

He expressed these opinions many times, but nowhere better than in a 1947 open letter to the United Nations General Assembly.

“We are caught in a situation in which every citizen of every country, his children, and his life’s work, are threatened by the terrible insecurity which reigns in our world today,” Einstein argued. “The progress of technological development has not increased the stability and the welfare of humanity. Because of our inability to solve the problem of international organization, it has actually contributed to the dangers which threaten peace and the very existence of mankind.”

Einstein’s views were shared by the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, who believed even during World War II that it would have been far better if armed conflict could have somehow been avoided. After that war ended, Russell insisted that it would no longer be safe for the world’s nations to have a major war because the USA and USSR both had nuclear weapons that could wipe out the species. As he explained in a 1951 essay for The Atlantic, the best way to prevent this would be “an alliance of the nations that desire an international government, becoming, in the end, so strong that Russia would no longer dare to stand out. This might conceivably be achieved without another world war, but it would require courageous and imaginative statesmanship in a number of countries.”

The Einstein/Russell philosophy was perhaps best summed up in the 1946 essay anthology “One World or None,” published by the newly formed Federation of American Scientists (FAS). In addition to Einstein, the book included pleadings for reason from physicists like J. Robert Oppenheimer and Niels Bohr. It raised public awareness about the threat of nuclear war and the need for the world to work as a community so that such a devastating event would never happen. Eventually it culminated in the passage of the Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, which banned all test detonation of nuclear weapons except underground. Other efforts have been made to rid the planet of nuclear weapons altogether, but those have failed.

Perhaps the ideas of a pair of scientist instrumental in making atomic bombs possible — Danish physicist Niels Bohr and American theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer — are most revealing. As explained in a 2019 paper by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

While acknowledging the “importance of the project for the immediate military objectives,” Bohr asserted that nuclear armaments offered a global opportunity, recognizing the weapon’s potential in shaping the post-war international environment. He stated that cooperation during the bomb’s development could offer strong foundations upon which to build a regime of international control. This initiative would be aimed at “forestalling a fateful competition about the formidable weapon” and would “serve to uproot any cause for distrust between the powers on whose harmonious collaboration the fate of coming generations will depend.” Bohr went on to prophetically announce that “unless some agreement about the control of new active materials can be obtained in due time, any temporary advantage, however great, may be outweighed by a perpetual menace to human security.”

Both Bohr and subsequently Oppenheimer believed that an agreement between the war-time allies based upon the sharing of information, including the existence of the Manhattan Project, could prevent the surfacing of a nuclear-armed world….

Even during their own time, the advocates for world government suffered for doing so. Like supporting civil rights or associating with known Communists, stating that nationalism was unsustainable and a world government necessary was a quick way to be viewed with suspicion. Many of the scientists who wanted global federalism also did things like advocate racial equality and defend leftist activism, and all of these things were lumped together when they got penalized. Einstein was monitored by the FBI and suspected of Communist sympathies; Oppenheimer, despite being the “father of the atomic bomb,” had his security clearance revoked. The validity of their ideas didn’t matter, nor did the fact that they were urgent because humanity may not survive unless they were implemented.

This brings us back to the problem of climate change.

“The old arguments are quite relevant to the challenge of climate change to the extent that they deal with the necessity and the difficulty of collective action,” Steven Aftergood from the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, wrote to Salon. “Underlying both is the same old question of whether each country (including those that benefit most from the status quo) is willing to accept limitations on its sovereignty for the long-term benefit of all others as well as itself.”

He is not the only thinker to arrive at this conclusion. After the COVID-19 pandemic revealed the structural flaws in the existing neoliberal order, researchers from the Royal Holloway University of London concluded in an article for Bull World Health Organization that the outbreak “provides an early warning of the dangers inherent in weakened international cooperation. The world’s states, with their distinct national territories, are reacting individually rather than collectively to the COVID-19 pandemic.” While few things may seem as different from each other as a deadly disease and a bunch of factories belching smoke, the scientists added that when it comes to public policy, the issues are very much related.

“The geopolitics of public health and climate change intersect,” the authors wrote. “We believe that a geopolitical framework is essential to understanding the capacity and willingness of states and the public to engage with super-wicked problems. The longer-term impacts of climate change risk amplifying the short-term impacts of pandemics as governments around the world seek to rebound after the costly interventions COVID-19 has required. We need to be aware that collective action, even when it appears obvious to many, cannot be taken for granted.”

Scientist Paul Abela, writing for Medium, made a similar point for a popular audience. Abela noted that “if we continue on our current path we could radically change the environment and lead to the breakdown of civilisation. Failure isn’t an option. With that being the case, why do we continue to do what we’ve always done?” As far back as 2009, Swedish scholars writing for the journal Sustainable Development observed that the international institutions that were supposed to help people stave off climate change were clearly failing at their mission. After reviewing a number of options, the authors agreed on two things: The existing structures are far too weak to be effective, and the necessary multinational alternatives must be done “within a system of democratic representation.”

This does not mean that one can apply the exact same lessons from the nuclear proliferation controversy of Einstein’s day to the issue of climate change. As Aftergood put it, “In some respects, the analogy is not exact and shouldn’t be overstated. Nuclear weapons were perceived to endow their possessors with a certain international status and coercive authority — which is not the case with big polluters or other climate renegades.” International efforts at climate cooperation, by contrast, fail because fossil fuel industries, right-wing activists and others who have an economic or political stake in the status quo possess far too much power.

The underlying and key observation is that, when it comes to matters of international significance, it is both unrealistic and unfair for some nations to be able to undermine everyone else’s well-being. A global system for coordinating action and imposing accountability is necessary when it comes to the urgent life-or-death issues of our time like climate change.

Nor should nuclear proliferation be off our radar. Whether or not you think a world government is a practicable solution, Einstein’s fear that nuclear war could break out has not dissipated since 1947 — and neither has his conclusion that the world must work together to prevent it.

“World government is still not a practical policy option,” Aftergood explained. “But international cooperation, including cooperation among enemies and adversaries, is both possible and necessary to avert nuclear disaster.” And, perhaps, the destruction wrought by climate change.

The walls appear to be “rapidly closing in” on Donald Trump: legal experts

Investigators are ramping up criminal probes into former President Donald Trump, and two legal experts argue that Trump may not even be able to count on his few remaining lawyers to help him.

Writing in the Washington Post, legal experts Donald Ayer and Norm Eisen argue that Trump’s decades-long evasion of legal accountability may now finally be coming to an end thanks to the multiple investigations he’s facing.

Although Trump in the past has employed top-notch lawyers to get him out of trouble, they write that the president’s remaining “legal enablers” may have difficulty staying with him given their own mounting troubles.

“Judge James E. Boasberg of the D.C. District Court recently referred attorney Erick Kaardal to a court grievance committee for potential punishment because Kaardal filed an allegedly bogus case attacking the November election results,” they write. “Giuliani is beset with even greater challenges: Late last week, news reports indicated that federal prosecutors in Manhattan had resumed their investigation into whether he broke federal law in his Ukraine dealings, which helped lead to Trump’s first impeachment.”

They conclude by saying that Trump’s indictment and conviction are far from assured, although at this point prosecutors seem to be barreling toward slapping him with criminal charges.

“This is not to say that exacting justice will be easy — as a private businessman, Trump was notorious for using the law as a weapon,” they write. “But the walls seem to be rapidly closing in. If they do, they may finally mark an end to the ex-president’s involvement in our public life. It is not easy to be involved in politics if you are broke and in jail.”

 

Donald Trump wants to oust Republican governor over canceled MAGA rally: report

Former president Donald Trump reportedly wants to oust Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey because he blames her for the cancellation of a MAGA rally that had been planned for July.

Trump recently met with Lynda Blanchard, a former ambassador in his administration, to discuss a possible endorsement if she abandons her Senate campaign and instead challenges Ivey in the 2022 GOP primary, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

“Mr. Trump has privately blamed Ms. Ivey for a state commission decision to block the former president from holding a rally in July at USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park, which includes a World War II battleship and other historic military aircraft,” the newspaper reports. “A spokeswoman for Ms. Ivey had said the governor played no role in that decision.”

Commissioners at the USS Alabama Battleship Memorial Park said they canceled the Trump rally because the facility can’t be used for partisan political events, the local NBC affiliate reported at the time. They made the decision to cancel the rally after seeking an opinion from the state’s Republican attorney general.

Gina Maiola, a spokeswoman for Ivey, told Stars and Stripes in June that the governor was “fully supportive of President Trump and worked closely with him as governor and appreciated his support of our state.”

“The Battleship Commissioners approached our office out of concern of a statute that says you cannot use state property for political purposes,” Maiola said. “The governor and her team expressed that the law would not bar this event from happening and encouraged them to seek an opinion from the attorney general.”

In August, Ivey posted photos on social media of her welcoming Trump to the state for a rally in Cullman.

“I was honored and thrilled to welcome President Trump back to Sweet Home Alabama today,” Ivey said in a statement. “His America First Agenda is something that we believe in firmly here in Alabama.”

Fox News host suggests that Kamala Harris got her job by being “a Black and a woman”

Fox News host Todd Piro on Friday suggested that Vice President Kamala Harris was unqualified for her job, which he suggested she only got due to her race and gender.

While discussing Harris’s brief stint as acting president while President Joe Biden underwent a colonoscopy, Piro disparaged Harris’s political career and claimed she hasn’t proven capable of doing the job she was elected to perform.

“What has Kamala Harris really ever done?” he asked. “What has she ever gotten done?”

He then went on to speculate as to why Harris was selected to be Biden’s running mate.

“I feel like she’s the influencer of vice presidents,” he said. “She got the job for her popularity vis-à-vis being an influencer, obviously, a Black and a woman — a Black woman. And I think because of that she was able to be useful to this administration. And now? Not so useful now that she’s not doing anything.”

Piro then lamented that he couldn’t boast to his young daughter that America had a woman president for a brief time because Harris “isn’t going to do anything to earn the right to be president.”

You can watch the video below via Twitter

Trump tells Fox News that Kyle Rittenhouse “shouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place”

Former president Donald Trump told Fox News on Friday night that Kyle Rittenhouse “shouldn’t have been prosecuted in the first place,” calling it a “political case.”

“I think that it was a great decision,” Trump said of the jury’s acquittal of Rittenhouse. “I was sad it had to go this far. Somebody should have ended it earlier, and frankly the case should have never been brought. It was prosecutorial misconduct . . .  I was very happy to see (the not guilty verdict). A lot of people were very happy to see it — most people.”

Trump called Rittenhouse “brave” for testifying in his defense, and he blamed CNN and MSNBC for making the case about race.

“They were really trying to spew hatred,” Trump said of the networks, alleging that “they’d love to see riots all over the place” in the wake of the verdict.

Trump went on to claim that he “helped save Kenosha” by sending in federal authorities to quell protests in 2020, claiming that Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers “wanted to just let it burn.”

“We saved Kenosha very early,” he said. “It was a horrible couple of nights. They got individual stores. The place didn’t burn down to the ground because we sent in a lot of good people.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube

 

Pride and prejudice: Forget critical race theory — let’s talk about critical race facts

You want to know what the whole brouhaha about critical race theory is about? It’s about people not wanting their children taught stuff they’re not proud of. They’re not proud of racism. It’s nasty. It’s not “who we are,” to use a common political phraseology. Besides, it’s behind us. We dealt with that part of our history. Let’s move on!

Sure, let’s move on to studying the founding fathers, who we are proud of, but heaven forbid we should mention their messy aspects, like the fact that a bunch of them owned slaves. Let’s move on to teaching about the wars we won, rather than those we lost. Let’s move on to teaching about the Great Expansion West as our country grew from 13 colonies to encompass a continent, but let’s leave out the genocide of the people who were already living here and the inconvenient truth that it was at least in part the debates over the expansion of slavery into the territories that ultimately led to the secession of the South, the collapse of American democracy and the Civil War. 

It’s said that parents in hotspots like Sugar Land, Texas, and Loudoun County, Virginia don’t want their children to be made to feel uncomfortable because they are white. Aside from the fact that discomfort is a rather odd criterion for what to teach or not teach children, I cannot recall a single instance during the 12 years I attended public schools of anyone being worried whether or not the Black kids I went to school with felt uncomfortable attending majority-white schools.

RELATED: “Critical race theory” is a fairytale — but America’s monsters are real

But let’s talk about pride for a moment. I’m proud to be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson. That doesn’t mean I have to be proud of the fact that along with the Declaration of Independence, he laid out in his only book, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” what you might call the founding ideology behind white supremacy: Blacks were inherently inferior to whites and were incapable of being educated, and thus it was proper that they remain chattel owned by whites. Nor am I proud of the fact that over his lifetime, Jefferson owned more than 600 human beings and upon his death freed only those with the last name Hemings, among whom were the children he had fathered with his slave, Sally. 

That’s the thing about pride. It belongs to you, so you get to pick and choose what you’re proud of. I remember when it was considered extraordinary that the Godfather of Soul, James Brown, would have a hit record with “Say it Loud – I’m Black and I’m Proud.” Released in 1968, that just wasn’t something you heard Black people telling the world, and yet here was James Brown singing these lyrics:

Now we demand a chance to do things for ourselves
We’re tired of beatin’ our head against the wall
And workin’ for someone else

We’re people, we’re just like the birds and the bees
We’d rather die on our feet
Than be livin’ on our knees
Say it loud, I’m black and I’m proud!

Same with the phrase, “Gay Pride.” In the summer of 1969 when those words rang out from the crowd outside the Stonewall Inn after a police bust, it was extraordinary to hear it said out loud in a public place, much less during what amounted to a police riot against the people saying it. By a quirk of fate, I was there the night the Stonewall was busted. I wrote the Village Voice cover story on the two days of demonstrations that followed. The words “Gay Pride” and “Gay Power” were scrawled on the boarded-up windows of the Stonewall. Until that moment, being gay was hardly a source of pride. It would not be until 1987 that homosexuality was officially removed from the DSM, the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” and it took many more years for sex acts between adults of the same gender to be decriminalized. Proud of being a criminal and having a mental illness? It was instead the reason many gay and lesbian people chose to stay in the closet and hide their sexual identity.

It’s not just an irony but a crime that Black pride and gay pride are what lie behind much of the hysteria about “critical race theory,” especially in the red states where the madness over transgender bathrooms and racial history really broken out. The attitude among so many of those who scream threats at school board meetings and demonstrate outside the homes of school principals and superintendents seems to be that gays and Blacks were OK — back when they weren’t proud of who they are. Protesting parents seem to long for a time when “they” weren’t in your face with ridiculous demands like teaching the subject of slavery in history classrooms and allowing LGBT students to form pride clubs and hold hands in the hallways. The arguments over critical race theory reflect a desire among certain parents for all that icky stuff to just go away. Let’s get back to cheering at football games and decorating for prom, they seem to say.


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


Here’s just one problem with that. In places like Sugar Land, Texas, those football games are being played on land that was deeded to homesteaders in the 1820s and ’30s by Stephen F. Austin from a land grant of more than 97,000 acres he received from Mexico as a deal for cotton and sugar plantations. If settlers brought one slave with them, they received 80 acres for a homestead. With two slaves they got 160 acres, and so on. For his role in helping to settle the territory of Texas and for leading the Texas revolution against Mexico, which opposed slavery, the state capital was named after him.

Loudoun County, Virginia, one of the wealthiest and fastest-growing counties in the country, was similarly farmed by slave-owners. Ruth Basil, who worked for my grandparents on their Loudoun County farm in the early 1950s, is the great-granddaughter of slaves and was raised in a log cabin built by her great-grandparents, after they won their freedom in 1865, on land that was sold to them by the man who had owned them. Ruth was raised in that log cabin, from which she walked to school each day along the dirt roads that formed the boundaries of the farm where her great grandparents were slaves. She was frequently passed on her way to school by yellow school buses that carried white children to the all-white schools they attended. Ruth and her Black classmates studied from used schoolbooks that had been passed down to the segregated schools she attended. Loudoun County was part of Virginia’s program of “massive resistance” against integration after the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education, and its schools would remain segregated, along with most the others in the state, until the mid-1960s. 

Massive resistance to school integration in Virginia has morphed into massive resistance against critical race theory and was a leading factor in the contest for the Virginia governorship, won by Republican Glenn Younkin over Democrat Terry McAuliffe earlier this month. The state that used to hide its Black students in inadequately financed, poorly supplied and out of the way all-Black schools is now trying to hide the critical race facts of those years from its students.

Here is a new “note on the state of Virginia”: Opposition to critical race theory won’t save you from the ugly truths about white supremacy. 

More from Salon on the “critical race theory” controversy:

How rural communities are losing their pharmacies

Batson’s Drug Store seems like a throwback to a simpler time. The independently owned pharmacy in Howard, Kansas, still runs an old-fashioned soda counter and hand-dips ice cream. But the drugstore, the only one in the entire county, teeters on the edge between nostalgia and extinction.

Julie Perkins, pharmacist and owner of Batson’s, graduated from the local high school and returned after pharmacy school to buy the drugstore more than two decades ago. She and her husband bought the grocery store next door in 2006 to help diversify revenue and put the pharmacy on firmer footing.

But with the pandemic exacerbating the competitive pressures from large retail chains, which can operate at lower prices, and from pharmaceutical intermediaries, which can impose high fees retroactively, Perkins wonders how long her business can remain viable.

She worries about what will happen to her customers if she can’t keep the pharmacy running. Elk County, with a population of 2,500, has no hospital and only a couple of doctors, so residents must travel more than an hour to Wichita for anything beyond primary care.

“That’s why I hang on,” Perkins said. “These people have relied on the store from way before I was even here.”

Corner pharmacies, once widespread in large cities and rural hamlets alike, are disappearing from many areas of the country, leaving an estimated 41 million Americans in what are known as drugstore deserts, without easy access to pharmacies. An analysis by GoodRx, an online drug price comparison tool, found that 12% of Americans have to drive more than 15 minutes to reach the closest pharmacy or don’t have enough pharmacies nearby to meet demand. That includes majorities of people in more than 40% of counties.

From 2003 to 2018, 1,231 of the nation’s 7,624 independent rural pharmacies closed, according to the University of Iowa’s Rural Policy Research Institute, leaving 630 communities with no independent or chain retail drugstore.

Independent pharmacies are struggling due to the vertical integration among drugstore chains, insurance companies and pharmaceutical benefit managers, which gives those companies market power that community drugstores can’t match.

Insurers also have ratcheted down what they will pay for prescription drugs, squeezing margins to levels that pharmacists call unsustainable. As the insurers’ drug plans steered patients to their affiliated drugstores, independent shops watched their customers drift away. They find themselves at the mercy of pharmaceutical intermediaries, which claw back pharmacy revenue through retroactive fees and aggressive audits, leaving local pharmacists unsure if they’ll end the year in the black.

That has a direct impact on customers, particularly older ones, who face higher copays for prescription medications if they have a drug plan, and higher list prices if they don’t. If their local pharmacy can’t survive, they may be forced to travel long distances to the nearest drugstore or endure waits to get their prescriptions from understaffed pharmacies serving more and more patients.

“Living in an area with low pharmacy density could increase wait times, decrease supply, and make it harder to shop around for prescription medications,” said Tori Marsh, GoodRx’s lead researcher on the drugstore desert study.

The financial pressures on independent drugstores began mounting two decades ago when Medicare instituted its Part D program using private insurance plans: Pharmacies’ most frequent customers went from paying cash for list prices to using insurance coverage that paid lower negotiated rates.

“A market clearance occurred, a big bolus of pharmacy closures,” said Keith Mueller, director of the Rural Policy Research Institute.

Independent pharmacies saw their margins shrink. On average, a pharmacy’s cost of dispensing a single prescription, factoring in labor, rent, utilities and other overhead, ranges from $9 to $15. But the reimbursement is often far less.

Multiple pharmacists said that about half of drug plan reimbursements fail to cover the costs of drugs and their overhead.

“What you’re left with is that 50% of claims that you can make some money on, and really, the tiny percentage of claims where you make an extremely high amount of money,” said Nate Hux, who owns an independent pharmacy in Pickerington, Ohio.

It’s that tiny sliver of wildly overpaid drugs, especially generics, that determines whether a pharmacy can survive. A generic drug that costs $4 might get reimbursed by a drug plan at $4,000.

“Filling a generic prescription, from a financial standpoint, is like pulling the slots at a casino,” said Ben Jolley, an independent pharmacist in Salt Lake City. “Sometimes you lose a quarter, sometimes you lose a buck, and sometimes you make $500. But you have to have those prescriptions that you make $500 on to make up for the losses on the rest of your meds.”

Some pharmacies increase their list prices to ensure they capture the highest reimbursements that drug plans are willing to pay. But that raises prices for patients paying cash.

Jolley, who also works as a consultant for pharmacies across the country, said some pharmacists game the system by billing excessive charges for drugs they mix on-site or calling physicians to switch patients to more profitable drugs.

“Pharmacies that play this game get exceptionally wealthy,” he said. “Most pharmacies either don’t feel comfortable playing this game or aren’t aware that that’s how the system works, so they get left behind. That’s why you see all these pharmacies closing.”

Pharmacy benefit managers, brokers known as PBMs, also steer customers away from independent pharmacies to affiliated chain, mail-order or specialty pharmacies with lower out-of-pockets costs. Some PBMs prevent local pharmacies from offering the most expensive drugs at all.

The benefit managers counter that there are more independent pharmacies today than there were 10 years ago. An analysis conducted on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a trade group that represents pharmacy benefit managers, showed a 13% increase in the number of independently owned pharmacies from 2010 to 2019. However, many of those new stores opened in communities that already had pharmacies.

“PBMs are not seeking to put independent pharmacies out of business,” said Greg Lopes, a spokesperson for the trade group. “PBMs are trying and often succeeding in lowering drug costs.”

The insurers’ trade group, AHIP, formerly America’s Health Insurance Plans, declined to comment.

Katie Koziara, a spokesperson for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, an industry group representing drugmakers, said the large market power of PBMs can leave patients with fewer choices.

“The system might work well for health plans and these middlemen, but it creates difficult access barriers for vulnerable patients,” Koziara said. “We’re concerned about the emerging issue of ‘pharmacy deserts’ where patients, particularly among communities of color, cannot readily access a community pharmacy for their medications.”

Independent pharmacists routinely identify those middle-manager companies as the leading cause of their troubles. At Batson’s drugstore in rural Kansas, Perkins recently had a customer who had been taking Emgality, an injectable monoclonal antibody treatment for migraines made by Eli Lilly and Co., that typically retails for up to $760 a month. But the customer’s drug plan wouldn’t pay Batson’s to fill it, forcing her to wait until it could be mailed from a specialty pharmacy.

Frustratingly, Perkins said, patients who get pushed to order drugs by mail often bring them to her when they need help deciphering how to use them.

Even when pharmacies make money on a prescription, there’s no guarantee they can keep much of the profit. Drug plans charge pharmacies fees every time they need to interact with the PBM’s claims database. While those fees average only 10 to 15 cents per transaction, a busy pharmacy might need to check the database hundreds of times a day.

PBMs also have implemented retroactive fees based on performance metrics they set. Pharmacies can wind up losing money on a prescription filled months earlier. PBMs describe these as quality measures, but pharmacists complain they are more about sales volume. Many of the metrics track how diligently patients take their medication, which pharmacies can hardly control.

One PBM’s contract, obtained by Axios, showed only 1% of pharmacies are able to avoid retroactive fees.

Jeff Olson, who owns three rural pharmacies in Iowa, said he paid $52,000 in retroactive fees on revenue of $6 million in 2015. While his annual revenue remained flat through 2020, those retroactive fees last year totaled $225,000.

“That’s money that can’t be used for payroll, that can’t be used to add those other services that your community needs,” Olson said.

Moreover, Olson said, he doesn’t know what metrics insurance plans use to evaluate his performance and calculate the fees.

“They define quality themselves,” said Ronna Hauser, vice president of pharmacy affairs for the National Community Pharmacists Association. “If you have 20 Part D plans you contract with, that’s 20 different quality programs that you’re supposed to be aware of and keep up with.”

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, such retroactive fees were 915 times as high in 2019 as in 2010. The resulting higher prices mean Medicare beneficiaries burn through their initial coverage period faster and enter a coverage gap, or “doughnut hole,” sooner.

At Olson’s pharmacy in St. Charles, Iowa, a town of fewer than 1,000 people, fees and other financial pressures forced Olson to scale back and operate the store as a telepharmacy. Technicians fill prescriptions under the eye of an off-site pharmacist, and customers see a pharmacist only one day a week.

For a town with no other health care provider, that means six days when no one can provide vaccinations or test for strep throat.

Back in Howard, Debbie Lane, 70, likes the personal service Perkins offers at Batson’s.

“It’s a lot easier to go down to a local store, and if it happens to be after hours or an emergency, she’ll open up for us,” Lane said.

Perkins will tell her if Lane can save money by driving to a chain drugstore in Wichita instead. And, recently, Perkins ran the numbers to help Lane decide which Medicare plan would be the least expensive given the medications she takes. Lane knows it’s a struggle to keep a small-town pharmacy open and fears what might happen if Batson’s closed.

“It’d be devastating,” Lane said. “There are a lot of us like me, who will sometimes pay a little extra to make sure that Julie stays in business.”


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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

All Republicans care about these days is trolling — and Kevin McCarthy is hilariously bad at it

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy really thought he was going to own the liberals. Spoiler alert: The liberals were not owned.

The Democratic majority had scheduled a vote on President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill for Thursday night, when suddenly, using an obscure rule that allows the minority leader to speak as long they wish during debate, the California Republican started droning — and he wouldn’t stop. McCarthy kept droning, way into the night, and long past when Democrats decided to recess until morning. After all, he had to make absolutely sure that he beat the previous record for speech length on the House floor, set by now-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., when she defended the rights of young immigrants in 2018

It’s a weird thing for McCarthy to take a stand on, in part because the Build Back Better bill is popular with voters and it isn’t really the sort of thing that excites the GOP base. Sure enough, McCarthy’s stunt immediately was eclipsed by something that actually gets the right-wing juices going: Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal.

RELATED: Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: Just what the right needs to create a thousand more like him

To be sure, McCarthy’s sincere opposition to the bill can be ruled out, as the bill is actually quite modest in its spending and taxation plans (at this point, it’s about half a percent of overall GDP) despite the alarmist coverage that implies otherwise. It’s especially weird in light of the fact that, even in its much-truncated form, Build Back Better is probably doomed at the hands of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., who has already queued up his new bad faith excuse to kill it

No, I fear that McCarthy did not just talk himself hoarse over Build Back Better because of anything having to do with Build Back Better. Instead, all signs suggest his stunt was a pathetic attempt to get into the good graces of Donald Trump and the Trigger The Liberals Caucus, lest he lose his shot at being the Speaker when, as expected, Republicans gerrymander themselves into a House majority next year. And if there’s one thing that crowd cares about, it’s annoying Democrats. Kevin McCarthy’s marathon speech was him trying, and failing, to be a right-wing troll. 


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


It’s no secret that McCarthy has been on the outs with Trump and the more insurrection-friendly members of Congress, who are all far more popular with the GOP base than a limp rag like McCarthy will ever be. Former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows lambasted McCarthy on Thursday for his lack of trolling chops.

“You talk about melting down, people would go crazy,” Meadows said, if Trump, not McCarthy, became the next Speaker. Meadows was appearing on a podcast hosted by far-more-competent troll Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida.

RELATED: Republicans threaten revenge against Democrats if (or when) they regain power in Washington 

McCarthy’s shot at being the Speaker next year was also threatened by uber-troll Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia on Tuesday. 

The most recent grievance from Trump and his most loyal sycophants is that McCarthy allowed 13 members of the House GOP caucus to vote for a bipartisan infrastructure bill. This has infuriated Trump, not because he opposes infrastructure, but because of his ever-fragile ego. See, Trump wanted to pass an infrastructure bill when he was in office, but was way too lazy to get it done. So he’s been freaking out on Republicans who let Biden succeed where he failed. And while most of his ire has been focused on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell — releasing a lengthy diatribe calling McConnell a “Broken Old Crow” — the message is clear. Trump is mad about the infrastructure bill and expects GOP leaders to work themselves into a lather to gain his forgiveness. (Which he’ll never actually give.) 

So it’s no coincidence that Trump called McCarthy in the hours before the GOP leader pulled his fruitless delay tactic. McCarthy has been bending over backward to please Trump and the loudest trolls in the House GOP caucus. It’s why McCarthy went to the mat for Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, even though the white nationalist congressman has lately been trawling for attention with blatant fantasies of murdering Democratic colleagues. It’s why McCarthy promised to restore committee assignments to Greene and Gosar, even though they were stripped for such unbecoming behavior. The desperation radiates off him, and Thursday’s speech was just more of the same. 

RELATED: Republicans don’t care about death threats against colleagues — they are too busy seeking revenge

But the truth is that talking for eight hours won’t work, if only because that kind of thing is a try-hard move. McCarthy doesn’t get that their laziness is actually an appealing quality of right-wing trolls like Greene and Trump to the base. Besides, as a trigger-the-Democrats move, the speech backfired. It was just way too fun for Democrats to make fun of McCarthy. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, for instance, spent much of the speech doing a Statler-and-Wardorf act on Instagram, drawing hundreds of thousands of views. Even Pelosi got in on the action, sending an email to reporters with the subject line “Is Kevin McCarthy OK?” 

RELATED: Joe Biden still believes — but in the face of deepening cynicism, is that enough?

To be fair, getting mocked by Democrats is frequently rounded up by Republicans to be evidence of a successful liberal-triggering. That’s why Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas doesn’t care how many people dunk on him, and in fact seeks it out, because he knows his followers don’t care how witty your rejoinder is. All they want is a reaction, which is treated as confirmation that liberal skin was gotten under. And it is true that right-wing media is trying mightily to spin McCarthy’s wet dishtowel of a speech into an epic bout of trolling. Breitbart dutifully ran a headline declaring McCarthy “smashes” Pelosi’s speech length record and Fox News tried to generate some excitement over Ocasio-Cortez “interrupting” McCarthy. 


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


But long speeches over boring spending bills is just not the sort of trolling that gets the lather up in the right-wing base. Even before they started to celebrate the Rittenhouse verdict, right wing social media reacted to McCarthy’s stunt with a big yawn. More to the point, there’s very little chance this will move the needle with Trump, who is still quite salty over McCarthy’s initial opposition to Trump inciting an insurrectionist riot on January 6. No matter how much work McCarthy has done to shield Trump and his co-conspirators from consequences, Trump will likely forever hold a grudge against McCarthy for this failure to instantly praise the insurrection as the greatest moment in human history. Plus, it’s probably just fun for Trump and the meanest trolls in the GOP to constantly bully McCarthy, since he rolls over and offers his belly to them every time. 

McCarthy may very well end up as Speaker in 2023. But it won’t be because of his trolling skills, which are hilariously bad. It will be because it’s a crap job that takes work and people complain at you constantly. That’s not really what GOP standard-bearers like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Paul Gosar are into. It makes McCarthy’s tap-dancing for Trump all the more pathetic because it’s really not necessary at all. 

How to season a turkey with salt (and not much else)

There’s nothing worse than bland turkey on Thanksgiving. There, we said it. The antidote to blandness? Salt, of course.

It seems obvious, but whether you go the route of fancy compound butters and fresh herbs and citrus and spices — which are all lovely ways to make your turkey, well, yours — the only molecules small enough to actually penetrate the meat of the bird is salt. As The Food Lab’s J. Kenji López-Alt says, “Most . . . flavorful molecules are organic compounds that are relatively large in size — on a molecular scale, that is — while salt molecules are quite small. So, while salt can easily pass across the semipermeable membranes that make up the cells in animal tissue, larger molecules cannot.” So what does all of this mean for home cooks? Well, it’s not as easy to add flavor to a Thanksgiving turkey as you may expect (if you’ve ever cooked turkey for Thanksgiving, then you already know this to be true).

There are a few ways to achieve a well-seasoned (i.e., well-salted) bird — and one thing you should never do:

How to season a turkey

There are three ways to season a turkey, the first of which is the easiest method. No advance prep work needed, no specialty tools. As soon as the turkey has come to room temperature, season it with salt, pepper, a little bit of melted butter, and any other dried herbs or spices that you please. Easy, right? But if you want to up your turkey game this year, try your hand at a wet brine or dry brine.

1. Just season it!

I’ve written in detail exactly how I like to cook a turkey, which involves little more than unsalted softened butter, kosher salt, and freshly ground black pepper. Kind of like a roast chicken. Actually, exactly like a roast chicken. Go very heavy on the salt all over the bird (it can take it). Making sure to really season the inner cavity as well (especially where the breast is) ensures that the meat will be well-salted from all sides.

Or do what Test Kitchen Director Josh Cohen does: Don’t season your turkey until after it cooks. (Yep, you heard him.)

“Rub the outside of the turkey with canola oil before it goes in the oven for an extra golden skin,” he advises. “Don’t worry about seasoning the turkey with salt before it goes into the oven; the seasoning will happen later. Add a pinch or two of salt and a small squirt of olive oil to the sliced turkey breast and thigh meat while it’s still warm. Pour some of the drippings over, too. Toss the meat with the salt, olive oil, and drippings. Taste and add more salt as necessary. You will have achieved turkey nirvana with little-to-no effort.”

2. How to dry-brine turkey

“I dry-brine my turkey a day or a few days before if I can swing it and baste with a mixture of butter and olive oil,” Food Stylist Anna Billingskog tells me. “Sometimes I throw some herbs and spices like thyme in the basting butter/oil mix, or smoked paprika. The paprika helps with color, but also flavors the skin in a nice way.” Try adding other dry spices like garlic powder to the seasoning blend, or even maple syrup for a little extra sweetness. Combine the spices, herbs, and syrup in a small bowl first to ensure that all of the ingredients are evenly distributed before spreading the mixture on the skin of the turkey.

A dry brine made from a robust seasoning blend is a great way to make sure your turkey meat is fully seasoned throughout. Plus, it takes up significantly less space in the fridge than the bucket you would need for a wet brine. Then all you need to do on Thanksgiving morning is bring the fully seasoned bird to room temperature and roast it as is.

The Judy Bird — Russ Parsons’ LA Times recipe — is our community’s favorite dry-brined turkey blueprint by far (just read the 600+ reviews):

3. How to wet-brine turkey

Speaking of wet brines, there is a way to do it. Where some people might argue that a wet-brined turkey tastes waterlogged with deli-meat texture, many prefer it. I happen to love a good wet brine and used to follow Nigella Lawson’s “Spiced and Superjuicy Roast Turkey” recipe to a T. But this was back when I lived at my parents’ house in Georgia, where I could leave a giant bucket of turkey and saltwater out in the freezing-cold garage overnight.

For those who want a wet-brined bird but don’t have the space, I recommend one of those large oven bags. Just place your turkey in the bag, fill it with your favorite wet brine, seal, and then stick the whole thing in your fridge overnight. On Thanksgiving morning, carefully remove the turkey from the brine and place it in a roasting rack. Pour the brine down the kitchen sink and be sure to thoroughly disinfect the surrounding countertop space to prevent bacteria growth. Bring the bird to room temperature (this should take about one hour) and pat it dry with a paper towel to remove any excess moisture, which will ensure that the skin gets crispy and golden brown when it cooks in the oven.

Whichever method you choose for seasoning your Thanksgiving turkey, do not brine your turkey in a trash bag, which might contain plastics, dyes, and chemicals that are harmful to humans if ingested. According to the FDA, most garbage bags are not made of food-grade plastic, so it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Oh thank god, “The Wheel of Time” isn’t terrible

For the last couple years, networks have tried to create “the next ‘Game of Thrones'” by snapping up fantasy properties and giving them the long-form TV treatment. There have been some hits (“The Witcher”) and misses (“The Shannara Chronicles”), but nothing that has captured the world’s attention quite so completely as “Game of Thrones” did.

And then there’s “The Wheel of Time,” Robert Jordan’s 14-book fantasy epic. This is the make-or-break one. Amazon’s “Wheel of Time” show needs to be a hit, not only so the company can recoup its considerable costs, but so fans who have waited literal decades for a (proper) adaptation feel vindicated, and maybe even to keep this high fantasy roll going.

Well, I’ve now watched the first three episodes of “The Wheel of Time,” and I can report that the show is . . . good. I dunno if I’m prepared to call it great yet, but it’s good, and it’s made with clear passion on the part of the cast and crew. And I am very relieved.

What is “The Wheel of Time”?

“The Wheel of Time” is a story of grand ambitions — I mentioned it was 14 books long, right? — but it begins simply enough. A sorceress names Moiraine (Rosamund Pike) comes to the Shire-ish village of Emond’s Field looking for the Dragon Reborn, a messianic figure destined to either destroy the world or save it from the Sauron-esque Dark One. Moiraine knows the Dragon is here but doesn’t know exactly who it is: is it the mild-mannered farmer’s son Rand al’Thor (Josha Stradowski)? Maybe the innkeeper’s daughter Egwene al’Vere (Madeleine Madden)? Perhaps the town troublemaker Mat Cauthon (Barney Harris)? No question an epic quest won’t answer, eh?

I made a few “Lord of the Rings” references up there, and indeed, the first book in “The Wheel of Time” series borrows heavily from J.R.R. Tolkien’s milestone work. But that’s not a bad thing — there’s comfort in the familiar — and the story soon branches off in its own unique direction.

The show feels similar, but with a twist. This time, I couldn’t stop seeing influences from “Game of Thrones,” particularly in the premiere episode. Without giving away too much, they manage to fit in a prolonged battle scene (the fight in question happens in the books but we don’t see it) and some pointless nudity which is definitely nowhere to be found in the pages of “The Eye of the World.” “The Wheel of Time” books may have started coming out before “A Song of Ice and Fire,” but “The Wheel of Time” TV show is living in the shadow of “Game of Thrones” and that’s just the way it is.

Things slow down a bit in the second episode and the show finds its own groove. The acting helps, particularly from Pike. As Moiraine, she can deliver long, deeply felt monologues about fantasy nonsense and make you buy it. She’s definitely the show’s secret weapon.

The first few episodes do a good job with the rest of the cast, too, and even improve on the book versions in a couple of instances. I liked what the show does to soften up Mat, who I often find grating in the books. Stradowski is winning as Rand, if a bit bland, which sounds about right. Alexandre Willaume makes some interesting choices as Thom Merrilin that I enjoyed. The Wheel of Time feels like an ensemble show, as it should; nobody steals the limelight.

Do you need to read the books to watch “The Wheel of Time”?

By the way, if you’re wondering, I’ve read the first few “Wheel of Time” books but haven’t yet made my way through the whole series. I watched the first three episodes with someone who likes epic fantasy but who hasn’t read the books, and it went over well with them too. I don’t think you need to be a “Wheel of Time” expert to enjoy this, which is good news for Amazon.

Not everything is perfect. The first episode especially I thought was a bit uneven, as the show trumps up some teenage angst that didn’t feel quite native in this world. But even then, I never doubted that the cast and crew were devoted to this story and giving it their all. There’s an earnestness to “The Wheel of Time” that I like.

And of course the sky-high budget helps sell things. Book-readers, I doubt you’ll be disappointed with Shadar Logoth, that’s all I’m saying.

So overall, I enjoyed “The Wheel of Time” and am eager to watch more. I think it’s too early to tell if this is a great series in its own right or an also-ran surviving off the fumes of “Game of Thrones,” but it has me interested.

The first three episodes of “The Wheel of Time” drop this Friday on Amazon Prime Video. I’m looking forward to hearing what you all think!

“Be armed! Be dangerous”: Republicans celebrate Rittenhouse verdict

Friday’s acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who traveled to a Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August of 2020 and fatally shot two men, was met with jubilation on the right. 

A jury found Rittenhouse not guilty on the homicide charges for the killings of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, and not guilty of attempted first-degree intentional homicide in the wounding of Gaige Grosskreutz. Republicans celebrated online. 

The House Judiciary GOP account tweeted “Justice.”

Lauren Southern, a Canadian alt-right activist, tweeted that Rittenhouse “falls to the ground sobbing a free man. What an incredible moment.”

Rep. Madison Cawthorn, R-NC, offered Rittenhouse an internship in his office, and told his followers to “be armed, and be dangerous.”

Cawthorn is not the only Representative to offer Rittenhouse an internship. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-FL, has also said he would offer one to Rittenhouse upon his acquittal, and Rep. Paul Gosar, R-AZ, offered to “arm wrestle Matt Gaetz” for “dibs” on Rittenhouse.

Ann Coulter posted a meme of superheroes bowing to Rittenhouse, carrying his weapon, flanked by two nurses in scrubs with eagles for heads.

Tomi Lahren tweeted “Justice has been served!!”

“Now Kyle should spend the next year suing the absolute pants off of every news outlet and person, including our president, who slandered him!!” 

Others echoed the sentiment that Rittenhouse should pursue legal action for alleged defamation by news outlets and President Biden. Bryan Dean Wright, a Fox News contributor, who tweeted that he would “like to contribute to the legal fund of Kyle Rittenhouse, as he sues the shit out of Leftist media.”

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AK, called on President Joe Biden to “apologize” to Rittenhouse.

Former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany retweeted Cotton, and posted “Kyle Rittenhouse found NOT GUILTY on all charges!”

GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel tweeted that Biden “prejudged the Rittenhouse case. He smeared a teenager… Biden needs to apologize and ACT NOW before the left uses his lies to fuel violence.”

Others praised the jury for their decision. Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that “The Rittenhouse jury just gave Biden his second colonoscopy of the day.”

Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX, tweeted, “This acquittal isn’t just about Kyle Rittenhouse.” 

Buzz Patterson, a former Republican candidate for Congress from California, wrote on Twitter that “The American justice system was on trial as well. The jurors were bold and brave in not submitting to the media spin and potential threats.”

Lisa Boothe, a Fox News contributor, tweeted “The Kyle Rittenhouse jury gives me hope for America. Even when faced with a violent and hate-filled mob, they still did what was just and right”

Candace Owens tweeted “NOT GUILTY….Justice wins the day”

Wendy Rogers, a state Senator from Arizona, tweeted that Rittenhouse’s pronouns were “NOT GUILTY”

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic presidential candidate and congressperson, wrote on Twitter that “The jury got it right… the government was motivated by politics, which itself should be considered criminal.”

Outside of the courthouse, people erupted in cheers at the not guilty verdict. 

Rittenhouse’s family, in a statement through their spokesperson, said that “Kyle’s a free man, and rightfully so. It’s been a hard year.”

“Cowboy Bebop” is an off-key adaptation that captures the jazzy color but not soul of the original

Keep your expectations about live-action adaptations of anime properties around the moderate to low range, and you'll be far less likely to be disappointed by the outcome. Heck if it's decent, you might even be patient with it and seek to understand what it's trying to do.

Such graces are in short supply when mediocrity is in abundance. We get it. Thrashing failed good faith attempts to honor a legend is simpler. If you're passionate about the source material, it may even be warranted. Still, if you expected little or even the worst to begin with, anything that reasonably bests that expectation is a small gift. It's kind of like reaching inside of a cabinet you're expecting to be full of mouse droppings and pulling out handfuls of jelly beans instead.

Licorice flavored jelly beans, but still. To some, this qualifies ever so loosely as candy.

This is how I suspect many people will greet Netflix's live-action version of "Cowboy Bebop." It isn't great, but it's better than spectacular failures past, such as the moribund attempt to adapt "Death Note" which, like the theatrical adaptation of "Ghost in the Shell," cast a white lead in a role that should have gone to an Asian actor.

RELATED: Cowboy Bebop's horny male rage problem

In this respect the new "Cowboy Bebop" is already a few points ahead, hiring the universally beloved John Cho to play the suave, melancholy bounty hunter Spike Spiegel, with Mustafa Shakir ("Luke Cage") as his gruff, loyal partner Jet Black and captain of their ship and Daniella Pineda as Faye Valentine, an amnesiac loose cannon they bring onboard.

Spike, Jet and Faye are "cowboys," as bounty hunters are known in 2071, when humanity has wrung Earth dry of its sustainability and colonized the solar system's nearby planets. Life is cheap and very expensive in this near future, and whatever bounties they score are barely enough to buy fuel and noodles.

Of the three, only Jet is open about his past as a detective whose career was destroyed by another dirty cop. He doesn't realize Spike has a connection to a ruthless crime syndicate that's under the impression he's long done. When word gets out that Spike's presumed death didn't take, his nemesis Vicious (Alex Hassell) embarks on a ruthless hunt to finish the job.

Regardless of the rest of its flaws, "Cowboy Bebop" enlisted the right leads. Shakir captures Jet's mixture of tank and teddy bear to the stitch, and he plays up the character's fatherly side with a naturalism lacking in most of the production.

Pineda's interpretation of Faye takes getting used to, although she translates her animated incarnation's larger-than-life outbursts and mood swings as well as she can. (Major props are due to the costume department, too, for giving Faye an outfit that's sexy and practical, and that Pineda needn't fear falling out of.)

Cowboy BebopJohn Cho, Mustafa Shakir and Daniella Pineda in "Cowboy Bebop" (Geoffrey Short/Netflix)

But Cho is the one carrying most of the weight, and he largely does justice to Spike by balancing a sanguine warmth and deadpan delivery to create his action-ready romantic. His Spike is approachable and the right amount of cocky and gets at the fundamental mystery of this man trying to shake free of his past infatuation with a lounge singer named Julia (Elena Satine), the reason for his downfall.

If the success of "Cowboy Bebop" mainly rested in its stars' performances I'd wager there would be far fewer negative notes.

But they're merely an element of a complex cocktail of visuals, Yoko Kanno's frenetic freeform jazz score, glitzy Western iconography and influences that make the 1998 anime a genre maverick that's at once influential and challenging to recreate.

In the original, director Shinichirō Watanabe constructs an intricate, plausible world around the neo-noir ballad of Spike and his fellow bounty hunters that remains intoxicating. The relatively near-future setting explains the solar system's helter-skelter collage of futuristic and vintage styles tangled with wires, chips and detritus.

Mashing up an assortment of artistic styles – mainly 1940s detective potboilers, Westerns, John Woo-style gun ballets and space sagas with jazz, rock, and a sauce of exploitation cinema ladled over the top – Watanabe merged lithe adventure with tragic love story, smoothly driving between comedy and existential malaise.

His speculative future is one of stark inequality, replicating the dominant vision of 20th century popular culture. But it's also one drenched in color and creativity, where divisions are blurred and gender and sexuality are fluid and marvelously queer.

Combining all of this, "Cowboy Bebop" was no mere homage to cinematic styles or modern music in his 26 "sessions," as he dubs his episodes. His work focused on giving life to a feeling we can't quite name, something between wonder and deep melancholy that captures what it's like to float in the unknown and accept what comes.

Showrunner André Nemec tries to nail all these parts together with a script that loosely travels a similar trajectory as the animated original but never recreates its enveloping emotional aura. Similarly, the care that went into approximating the tangible visual details is evident, although it's also painfully obvious the budget couldn't meet production's full ambitions.

That's a nicer way of saying that some scenes look cheaper than the audience may expect. That's less of a sin than the clunky fight scenes which, again, one can tell were meticulously choreographed but lack polish and speed.

Animated characters have physical abilities humans can't replicate, and in the original Spike fights with a fluidity that merges Bruce Lee style with the flow of improvised jazz. Cho, for what its worth, lands his strikes and kicks as well as he can, but he's playing a character with abilities bordering on superhuman. In an era where the "John Wick" films set the bar for such face-offs, what we see here doesn't meet that bar. It's a shame the action scenes weren't edited or staged better.

Other weighty mistakes are entirely avoidable, like Hassell's outsized sneering and the wild-eyed fury driving his performance. His animated counterpart was never so hammy; what makes Vicious a great foil for Spike is the icy soullessness behind his patrician smile. Hassell's villain broods loudly underneath a stringy white wig. Better directing would have toned that down instead of allowing it to escalate.

Granted, Hassell should be free to interpret his role in the way he and his director deem fit. But if the audience buys the ink version of his character more than his flesh-and-blood rendering, that's a problem.

This, at its core, is the impossible game the creators of "Cowboy Bebop" signed up for. They must create a three-dimensional success from a two-dimensional animation enlivened with a soul made from nostalgia. Fans expect them to do this while making it original enough while properly channeling the original's vibe.

Hence, the writers can remake the Mondrian-meets-Warhol credits sequence and still be penalized for doing so. They can create a plot that deviates from the one established in the anime and people will complain that it's not faithful enough. So the writers and directors shoot down the center, incorporating frames and sequences that are shot-for-shot callbacks. The first episode, in fact, is a direct recreation of the 1998 series opener, with some padding.

Adopting that strategy is understandable, in that it's a simple way to remind the audience that this new effort breathes the same air and occupies a similar timeline as the original work. But there are tributes and pandering, and a few of those direct lifts are placed within the plot as inelegantly as you can imagine.

Still, the expansions of characters like Tamara Tunie's Ana add spark and depth, promoting her from a convenience store owner to the proprietor of a jazz club doubling as the criminal underworld's social hub. (This also enables a crispier reimagining of another character as Ana's non-binary manager, played by Mason Alexander Park.)

Other aspects of the O.G. "Bebop" probably should have remained animations that could have been incorporated the live action. The kooky "Big Shot," essentially an "America's Most Wanted" for the future's cowboys, is a fun, weirdo bauble in this universe that collapses entirely when two actors are yukking their way through the dialogue.

Nemec recognizes this, to some degree, by only mentioning a central figure from the anime who is basically a flailing, flouncing mess of childish squeaks and quirks. That's a successful method of having it both ways, both acknowledging this highly cartoonish figure exists without inflicting them on the audience by way of a live human. Until . . . ahem.

If the main concern fans have about "Cowboy Bebop" is that its writers, directors and designers don't get it, put that aside. The issue is the opposite: its writers, director and producers are holding onto the source material too tightly to let their creative interpretations sufficiently take root and expand.

My affection for "Cowboy Bebop" made me hope, ever so mildly, that I would love this adaptation; wisdom gained from previous experience made me grateful that I didn't despise what I was seeing. Somewhere between affection and disappointment sits the willingness to commit, helped along by Kanno's infectious score. The dancing jazz swells alone are enough to persuade diehards to saddle up through its 10-episode mission, such as it is.

"Cowboy Bebop" debuts Nov. 19 on Netflix. Watch the trailer for the series below via YouTube.

More stories like this:

Jonathan Rhys Meyers on being a bold boy playing amoral men: “Nobility can be a little bit tedious”

Jonathan Rhys Meyers is great at playing amoral characters. In his latest film, a stylish remake of the 2013 Korean film, “Hide and Seek,” he plays Noah, a privileged businessman who searches for his estranged, missing brother in New York City. As he goes deeper down a rabbit hole — his search begins in a decrepit building he inherited from his father — the OCD Noah gets physically grimy. The actor makes this descent into hell credible, as Noah pieces together the puzzle of what is really going on but also questions his sanity.

The film is the busy Rhys Meyers’ fifth feature to come out this year, following the terrific period drama, “Edge of the World,” (as Sir James Brooke), and the neo-noir, “American Night,” as well as the thrillers “Yakuza Princess,” and “The Survivalist.”

RELATED: “Old Boy”: Thunder out of Korea

Rhys Meyers’ seductive, leading-man looks have secured him key roles in films like Woody Allen’s “Match Point,” or title character in the series, “Dracula,” while his appearances in “Velvet Goldmine,” earned him a gay following. The actor may be best known for his work on TV, from his Golden Globe-wining and Emmy-nominated turn in “Elvis,” and his Golden Globe-nominated work in series, “The Tudors,” to his recent appearance in “Vikings.” But Rhys Meyers continues to work in thrillers like “Hide and Seek” and “Damascus Cover” as well as period films like “Edge of the World” and “The Aspern Papers.”

The actor chatted with Salon about his new film, his OCD and his career.

What are your thoughts on Noah’s character, who tries to maintain control but loses it?

Noah is the prized son who is given everything, and his brother is not. He basically played up to his father’s desires and what he wanted in a son. This is a commonality in a lot of wealthy families, where the father is an entrepreneur, who spends most of his time “at business.” The kids are left to their own devices. If you are a smart kid, and you want to stay good with your dad, you become a reflection of your father. And if you want to rebel, you become the opposite. Noah is like every wealthy heir — there is an element of slippery with him. But inside, Noah knows he is not his father. He is not confident to run the family business in the same way his father did. He doesn’t possess the same callous nature that is required.

You seem to excel as playing mischievous men, who are often amoral. Do you think you are typecast in these roles, or gravitate to playing them?

I kind of do. [Laughs] To an extent, as an actor, you are always typecast — for whatever reason. Your physicality will lend you to be typecast, regardless of what you do. Even character actors are typecast to be character actors. [Laughs] I don’t think any human is completely moral or amoral. I think they are all both. Depending on the situation someone is presented with, they can act ethically or destructively. I kind of like that. It is more complex than a straight bad guy or good guy. 

Yes, I like films where characters make a series of increasingly bad decisions, as Noah does, because we learn more about human nature. Heroes who are all virtuous and noble are boring.

There is no doubt about that. Nobility can be a little tedious. This is why the best character in “Star Wars” is Han Solo. He has a rough nobility about him, but it is laced with base alloy of mischievousness. That is required. You want your heroes to be heroes with a big streak of rake going through them. That is why Tony Stark in “Iron Man” is so successful. His heart is good, but there is all of this ego and duality, which is something the audience enjoys. A straight villain is boring, too! A villain must always be searching for some kind of redemption, and a hero must always be searching to hang up the good name and get a bit of street cred. [Laughs]


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


Noah is very OCD, scrubbing out a stain on his coat. This quality makes his descent into the grimy underground world all that more unsettling, especially as Noah is beaten up and covered in blood. Can you talk about getting dirty for your work? 

I have [OCD] to an extent that I will go to someone’s house for a visit, and I will clean their house while I talk to them. Just sit down, have some coffee, I’m just going to do a few things around here that bother me. [Laughs] I even clean my hotel room before I leave it. I enjoy cleaning. It’s very therapeutic. If you feel things are getting too much, it brings a certain amount of “zazz.” If you wipe down your counters, mop the floor, and fold everything, by the time you are finished, you have worked out if not the problem the human reaction. Because it’s not the problem, but the reaction to the problem that gets you into trouble.

There is a game playing and codebreaking theme in the film with the signs on the door. Are you into puzzles?

No. I’m not very good at them. They dropped the trailer for “Hide and Seek,” and people keep asking me, “Is this part of ‘Squid Game‘? And I was like, “What the f**k is ‘Squid Game’?” I didn’t know what it was. I do now. At the time I didn’t. This film, which is the remake of a Korean film, was made pre-“Squid Game.” All of the shapes that you see on the door are pre-“Squid Game,” but I think some of the same people involved in “Squid Game” are involved in this. 

The original Korean film [“Hide and Seek”] has far less dialogue. It is much more of an atmospheric movie. For the States, we decided to change that up and make it more of an interconnected family than make them isolated — even though Noah isolates himself from his family and the people that he meets. “Hide and Seek” asks, how do you become isolated in a city like New York? It’s not that hard actually. When there are so many people living that close to each other in a city where survival of fittest is a predominant theme, it is very easy to be alone. This is what Noah does, he starts with his family and descends into unit of one.  

“Hide and Seek,” like your other recent film, “American Night,” can be seen as kind of a neo-noir. What appeals to you about the genre?  You do convince as a noir antihero and playing privileged tough guys, which is far removed from your period films.

I suppose I [tend] to playing an antihero, and in these morality pieces. I don’t choose the work; I get the work I get. Actors do the work we are offered. There are things that I would like to do that I don’t get. It’s not for me to judge if I’m good at playing a part. It is up to the audience whether they enjoy seeing you in the role or not, or whether the director is in love with you for the role and treats you properly. I have spent 30 years making films but actually I am appearing in other people’s films. As a specialty film actor, you are working, but not necessary in your format. Filmmaking is a director’s format. You are the paint in a painting. You are on the screen and depending on how good the painter is depends on how many people look at it. Perhaps stage may be more of an actor’s medium. Once you do the work, the director is gone, and you are left playing for weeks and weeks. It is very much in the hands of the actors. 

You have worked with some amazing talent over the years, from Woody Allen and Oliver Stone to Mira Nair and Julie Taymor, to Todd Haynes, Ang Lee, and Neil Jordan. Now you are collaborating with your wife, Mara Lane, and producing things together. What observations do you have about your career? 

It’s partially age. My wife was in “American Night.” It’s fun working with her because I get to have my wife and son, which is very important. I haven’t decided yet whether I want to do the other thing, which is take a piece I want to make, and make it. Even though I have appeared in other people’s films, I haven’t made my own. What I would like to make couldn’t get released [Laughs]. I’ve been around it so long, so I’ve observed it going well and going horribly. I’ve had far more failure than success, and it is a great teacher. What film would I like to make? I’d like to make “Blood Meridian,” but people are like, “You can’t make that today. No one will put the dough up for that movie.” [Laughs]. I will always lend myself to the dark, complicated than for the straight up, let’s have a giggle. That’s not to say I wouldn’t do a rom-com, of course I would, but I’d never decide that that’s what I want to do. 

Christmas movies are the new rom-coms. They have a formula and non-threatening boys.

If I had to a Christmas movie for Hallmark, I’d leave a mark on them. [Laughs] My Christmas movie would be more like “My Own Private Idaho Christmas.” 

On that note, you have been a gay icon since your appearance in “Velvet Goldmine.” What does this status mean to you?

Period films put you in that [status] because it’s fabulous. “Velvet Goldmine” deals with glam rock. I suppose bold boys [laughs] tend to be good gay icons. “He’s a rake, but I can change him.” I don’t know. I lent myself to that androgynous vibe in my late teens/early 20s. I didn’t mind it. I’m European, so I don’t have a problem with it. I grew up in a very staunch Catholic country, but not in a super religious environment. I lent myself to being able to play with it. I was confident in where I was. When you are immediately at ease in that world, you are more comfortable can play with it. And “Velvet Goldmine” was pretty f**king camp. Todd Haynes is a great artist. 

You seem to be making more independent films now. Is that by design?

That’s just the way it is. Your director is most important thing, so I would choose to work for a great director over a not great director, but it depends on if they want to work with me. I’m doing independent films now because it’s very hard at this moment for people to put a lot of money into films. They can very easily put a lot of money into television, because it’s easier to get it back. It’s not as easy to get money back for films now. I very much enjoyed making “Edge of the World” with Michael Haussman. We set out to do something with that. I was super proud of what we achieved. And I was proud of “The 12th Man,” which I made with Harald Zwart. Those were my more recent passion projects.

“Hide and Seek” is in theaters Friday, Nov. 19. Watch a trailer for it below via YouTube.

More stories you might like:

The new GOP “Southern Strategy”: Civil war or “Leave It To Beaver”?

This week, all but two Republicans in the House of Representatives went on record saying it’s okay to openly encourage the assassination of one of their own, a person of color and elected Member of the House.  

That part about Representative Ocasio-Cortez not being white was no coincidence, by the way.  It was really at the core of the issue: Republicans now openly refer to her and the women of color who call themselves “the Squad” as the “Jihad caucus.” As in “Muslim terrorists,” as in “the Other.” 

Earlier in the day, known antisemite and racist Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene called for her followers to prepare for war because “Joe Biden didn’t win the 2020 election” and “the only way you get freedom back after you’ve lost it is with the price of blood.” 

RELATED: Republicans rally to Paul Gosar’s side, refuse to support House vote to censure

We heard this rhetoric, too, many years ago when a much earlier generation of white supremacists tried to gin up bloodshed in America. 

“The time for war has not yet come,” Stonewall Jackson said in a speech to cadets at the Virginia Military Institute in March, 1861, “but it will come, and that soon; and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard.”

Jackson and his ilk frequently tried to pretend the Civil War was about some high principle instead of just being a naked defense of legal enslavement, but their own proclamations of secession betrayed them.

No matter how much Republicans — and some white Democrats — want to try to pretend that the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties today isn’t primarily about race, it is.  And it’s only a small part of a much larger Republican political strategy that, itself, is also all about race.

RELATED: Republicans don’t care about death threats against colleagues — they are too busy seeking revenge

There was a time in America when straight white people lived in nice, comfortable white bubbles.  I grew up in one of them in the 1950s; the most “exotic” people in our lower-middle-class Lansing, Michigan neighborhood were Jewish, and I didn’t even realize that distinction until I was a teenager.

The only people of color we saw were on TV; even the milkman, mailman and delivery people were white.  And the non-white folks we saw on TV were always, always depicted as either criminals or buffoons.  And gay people?  Even discussing Liberace’s sexuality was a no-no. 

Mom was in the kitchen or pregnant, and knew her place. One white man with a union job could raise a family without debt beyond a mortgage and car payment. People of color need not apply for the American Dream. 

This is the straight white world today’s Republican Party wants to take America back to.   They’re all but shouting it with slogans like “Make America Great Again!”

When the GOP went nuts about six Dr. Seuss books being dropped by the author’s family from publication, it was — no coincidence — the six books in which Seuss had drawn racist caricatures.  And he wasn’t violating the norms of his day: caricatures of buck-toothed Asians, swarthy gun-toting mustachioed Mexicans, and big-lipped Black people were all over the cartoons we watched as children in the 1950s. They are shocking today, but they were normal and common then, and the GOP wants to go back to that.

When we studied American history in elementary school the 1950s, we learned that Christopher Columbus was a great man who defied conventional wisdom and monsters at the “edge of the earth” to discover this golden land, just waiting for white people to show up and tame it.  (A woman around my age who called into my program yesterday noted that she was “really pissed off” when, in her first year of college, she took a history course and discovered Columbus was actually a rapist, child-trafficker and a slaver.)

We also learned that most slave-masters (particularly the Founding Fathers) were really, really nice and thoughtful people who took good care of the poor, uneducated, primitive folks they “had under their care.” To this day, there are still some textbooks in America that emphasize how slaveholding white people generously provided not only housing, food and clothing but also medical care for their charges.

Republicans today want to go back to that type of history for their children.  They dress it all up with fancy language about “Critical Race Theory” but the bottom line for these white people is that they don’t want their kids to grow up knowing that Black people and other people of color are just like them but with a different amount of pigment in their skin. They want that pigment difference to be THE defining characteristic, and they want teachers, police, and other authority figures to enforce segregation based on it.

In the years after the Brown v Board decision in 1954, entire public school systems shut down to avoid racial integration; one Virginia county went five years without a public school opening.  

There was an explosion of “religious schools,” from private elementary and high school “academies” to centers of higher education like Bob Jones University that were explicitly and entirely whites-only.  Promoting these types of functionally all-white schools continued from the 1950s right through Betsy DeVos’s time as Trump’s Secretary of Education.

When white people show up at school board meetings shouting that “We know where you live!” and leaving death threats on people’s home phones, it’s not because they’re flipped out by historic and legal nuances having to do with past discrimination: it’s because they want their safely segregated schools back.

And they’re getting them: American schools are more racially segregated now than they were in 1968.

And when those schools are almost entirely “whites only” (the school districts where we’re seeing the majority of these “protests”), those “parents” want them purged of anything that might shatter for their white children the idea held by white people in this country for 400 years that everybody who’s not white — from genocidally slaughtered Native Americans to Africans brought in chains to Mexicans whose land we also stole to Asians we once excluded from immigration — are all basically sub-human.

This is how these Republican white supremacists think, and if that sounds outrageous simply check out their literature and behavior. A good starting point is with the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The news media sanitized the Virginia election, saying that Republican Youngkin won “on education issues.”  That’s patently false: he won on racism. And it’s damn well time that the media start pointing it out. It took them three years to start calling Trump’s lies “lies” — how long will it take to call Republican racism “racism”?

When I went into the job market in the 1960s, the headings in the “Help Wanted” part of the newspaper were “Help Wanted – Men” and “Help Wanted – Women.” There was no “Help Wanted – Black People” because everybody knew there was a very, very narrow range of jobs for which Black people could be hired.  Like in much of America then, Black people (and most other minorities) were limited in where they could work, get a mortgage, live, and even walk or drive; if they pushed the boundaries, they risked violence and a horrible, painful death at the hands of police or vigilantes. 

When I was a kid, Richard and Mildred Loving were rousted from their wedding bed by police for the crime of getting married; he was white and she was Black. They were sentenced to a year in prison: interracial marriage was a crime in parts of America until 1967

When I got my first job in 1965 as a teenage hamburger-flipper in an all-white burger joint, there were large parts of Lansing where Black people simply couldn’t go. I still remember my parents taking me to a fancy downtown hotel’s restaurant for some celebration in the mid-1950s and there was a sign off to the side of the door that pointed toward the rear of the building and said, “Colored Entrance.” That, at the time, was considered enlightened: at least the hotel let Black people into its public areas.

But race has always permeated politics, and voting is at the foundation of the political process.

In 1993, no state in the union required ID to vote, even though Paul Weyrich (co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and then with the Reagan campaign) said right out loud that, “I don’t want everybody to vote. … As a matter of fact, quite candidly, our leverage in the elections goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

But then Democrats in Congress pushed through the 1993 “Motor Voter” law that required states to let people register to vote when they got their drivers’ licenses. Republicans went insane, charging that “millions” of brown-skinned “illegals” would now get drivers’ licenses, get registered to vote in the process, and begin flipping elections toward Democrats. 

We then used signature-matching to confirm identity (you showed ID to register to vote, and your signature was kept on record), which is the most secure form of identity confirmation easily available. You can buy a reasonably good fake ID for $50, but try forging somebody else’s signature while an election official is watching you: it’s pretty much impossible.  Signatures are called “biometric markers” and they’re even more secure than ID. 

But Republicans were so certain that hoards of Brown people were going to show up at the polls that they passed laws in state after state to require ID at the polls on top of comparing the voter’s signature.  It’s a pathetic and futile effort: those “illegals” never showed up.  Virtually all of the extremely rare “voter fraud” that happens in America is done by white people (most Republicans, based on those busted after 2020) or ex-felons who didn’t realize they couldn’t vote in their state.

As I lay out in The Hidden History of the War on Voting: Who Stole Your Vote and How to Get It Back, the past thirty years have seen a grotesque orgy of laws, regulations and policy changes designed specifically to make it easier for white suburban voters — and harder for college students, Black city dwellers, and social security voters — to cast a ballot.  

Using the political power they get from skewing elections, Republicans want schools to help their children to grow up like many in my generation did, thinking at some unconscious (and often conscious) level that those racist caricatures were depictions of reality and only white people could be thoughtful, intelligent, peaceful problem-solvers like Dad on Leave It To Beaver or Gunsmoke’s Matt Dillon or Superman. Or members of Congress or presidents.

White is good, they want their kids told: everybody else is weird, odd, comical, dangerous or “one of them.”  Or a Democrat.

The last Democrat running for president who won a majority of white people in his election was Lyndon Johnson.

While it’s sometimes mentioned tangentially that Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden all lost the white vote, a sort of parenthetic footnote to election results, it’s the foundation of the entire Republican strategy and has been since Nixon invented it with his “Southern Strategy.” 

When LBJ signed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in 1964/1965 he left the white racists who’d supported the Democratic Party since before the Civil War without a home. Nixon prepared one, Reagan fluffed up the pillows, and Trump stood out front with a bullhorn and a “whites only” sign.

As it’s becoming increasingly obvious to these “racially apprehensive” white people that America as a whole is never returning to the Leave It To Beaver era, they’re falling back on their old intimidation and segregation strategies.  Red counties in Oregon, for example, are teaming up with white voters in next-door Idaho and won nonbinding ballot measures to secede from Oregon.  That sort of thing is popping up all over the country.

It won’t work, any more than liberal fantasies of avoiding the armed and angry racists by having California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii split off into their own country will work. 

Red/Blue rhetoric aside, America is one country. The Mike Flynn’s and Donald Trump’s of the world realize this and are calling for straight white people to rise up and take over by force, imposing a single religion, rigid gender roles, putting women “back in their place,” and re-marginalizing all nonwhite minorities. 

The “battle for the soul of America” so often highlighted, headlined, and bemoaned by the media is real, but they almost always miss the real story, the signal, for all the noise (to paraphrase Steve Bannon). It’s actually a battle between a vision of America that’s once again entirely under the thumb of straight white people versus one where everybody has an equal voice and an equal chance.

There are a hell of a lot of white racists out there; enough to put Trump in the White House, put race-baiting Republicans in the House and Senate, and secure control over thirty states. 

But culture is inexorably changing. People from a multitude of hues and gender identities are showing up in media and business, and their numbers are growing. White supremacist school board assaults aside, educators and their students are teaching and learning the true racial history of America. (It’s increasingly hard to avoid!)

No matter how much people like Marjorie Taylor Greene talk up civil war and bloodshed, they can’t stop progress.  They may win for a short while, maybe even a few years or election cycles, but time and history run against them.

The fight for democracy and humanity will continue, no matter how many people vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse or the cops kill, no matter how many racist white Republicans threaten the lives of their nonwhite colleagues.  

Genuinely patriotic Americans who want a country that pulls together for the good of all — an E Pluribus Unum (“Out of Many, One”) America — are on the ascent across America, even as the GOP has gone insane. 

Nonetheless, it will take a lot of involvement and work to overcome both our racist history and the forces (both domestic and foreign) that seek to exploit racial divisions in this country. 

Racism and violence are the GOP’s brand these days, and if the media doesn’t start calling them out explicitly for it, things are going to continue to get worse. 

A new poll by the Marquette Law School found that while the GOP is largely united behind a 2024 Trump run for the White House, only 28 percent of all Americans agree. Seventy-one percent of Americans want Trump to leave our politics alone and go back to being a billionaire grifter.

Racist Republicans are the outliers, but they are motivated and well armed with significant white billionaire backing. 

If we want democracy and decency to ultimately prevail, we have an enormous amount of political and restorative work to do before we rest. Don’t lose faith: as Winston Churchill famously said, “Never give up!”

 

Thom Hartmann is a talk-show host and the author of The Hidden History of American Healthcare and more than 30+ other books in print. He is a writing fellow at the Independent Media Institute and his writings are archived at hartmannreport.com.

This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Kyle Rittenhouse verdict: Just what the right needs to create a thousand more like him

The only good thing that can be said about Friday’s “not guilty” verdict in the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, the Kenosha shooter, is that the Trumpists are getting the icon they deserve.

Forget that ever-present right-wing fantasy of a muscular Aryan übermensch in a MAGA hat punching skinny black-clad leftist protesters, Rittenhouse is a more accurate avatar for the dweebs and dirtbags that make up the Trumpian right. No matter how many wannabe edgelord memes were made to celebrate Rittenhouse, there was no changing that he’s just a doughy loser with a creepy and overbearing mom. His AR-15, meanwhile, made him look all the more pathetic, just by virtue of how badly he hoped it makes him look tough. 

Unfortunately, as Rittenhouse’s killing of two men and the maiming of another in the summer of 2020 proves, losers can still do a whole lot of damage, especially in a country with so much easy access to deadly weapons. That’s why the U.S. has an ongoing school shooter problem, as self-pitying and entitled young men compete with each other to rack up body counts. Unfortunately, by successfully pleading self-defense in the killings of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber, Rittenhouse has opened the door to an entirely new form of anti-social behavior for other crappy young men to emulate: political violence. 

RELATED: The NRA gave us Kyle Rittenhouse  

For years now, the so-called “alt-right” — or what one would traditionally call the fascist right — has been casting around desperately for some hero to rally around, a figurehead to tempt more people to transition from just being generic right-wing trolls to people who are ready for open violence. Nothing has really taken.

Early in the Donald Trump years, groups like the Proud Boys tried to turn a few of their members into heroes for beating up leftists, but they were too fringe and ineffectual to really make much of an impression outside of the ranks of the already recruited. The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia the summer of 2017 dramatically backfired after a white nationalist rioter killed a peaceful counterprotester and injured many others by running them over with his car. 


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


The problem for fascists is that their recruitment and publicity strategy depends on being able to successfully portray themselves not as the aggressors, but as reactors. As I note in Friday’s Standing Room Only newsletter, authoritarian propaganda always relies on a narrative that casts the right as acting in “self-defense” or out of “chivalrous” intent, whether it’s Nazis portraying the Holocaust as a corrective to a supposed Jewish conspiracy or the KKK defending lynching as necessary to protect white womanhood. Even efforts to recast the January 6 insurrectionists as martyrs and “political prisoners” have largely fallen flat, due in no small part to the participants getting convicted on a conveyor belt. 

RELATED: Don’t be shocked if Kyle Rittenhouse goes free — that’s the system working as designed

What the fascist movement needed was a situation where there’s some wiggle room to say the violence was defensible, and in Rittenhouse, it appears they have a live one.

This isn’t Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of the helpless George Floyd or James Alex Fields running down Heather Heyer for waving an anti-racist sign. Rittenhouse’s victims are easy for fascists to paint as “antifa,” i.e. the stereotype of the white guy who uses leftist politics as cover for his own antisocial impulses. (There is a great deal of psychological projection going on with the right-wing “antifa” obsession.) That, plus the not guilty verdict, creates a sliver of justification for Rittenhouse’s behavior, especially as figures like President Joe Biden are unwilling to disagree with the jury’s decision. 

There is plenty of discussion and debate to be had about the legal soundness of Friday’s verdict. But whether or not the verdict was “correct” in the narrow legal sense, for American society at large, this could really be a disaster. 


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


Rittenhouse’s case may be just what the far-right needed to convince the 8chan trolls hiding behind their Pepe the frog memes to pick up a gun and start making trouble in the offline world. 

That said, nothing is certain.

Rittenhouse remains a nasty little creep, and this verdict doesn’t make him any more charismatic as a leader. Plus, it’s quite clear that, despite the Trumpian right’s longing for violence, there’s actually no need for it.

Republicans will be able to steal the 2024 election for Trump through bloodless methods like gerrymandering and election office interference. All previous efforts to turn violent authoritarians into national heroes for the right have largely failed, and past is predicator. There is a chance Rittenhouse fades away, his case a novelty that doesn’t portend any serious uptick in violence. 

Still, there’s a reason this case captured the public imagination. It’s the reason why so many on the right are so ready and eager to turn this adolescent weirdo into a folk hero. The authoritarian right clearly sees him as useful to tell the story they want to tell, one where the nation is under threat not from rising fascism or an ongoing pandemic, but from out-of-control “woke” leftists who need to be put down with violence. It’s a lie, but one that they need very badly. Rittenhouse, they clearly believe, is the key to selling that lie. 

“Red scare tactics”: GOP senator called out for questioning whether Biden pick is a Commie

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., on Thursday drew prompt and wide criticism after suggesting that President Biden’s Soviet-born pick for currency comptroller had Communist sympathies.

“I don’t know whether to call you professor or comrade,” Kennedy told Saule Omarova, a former Bush-era Treasury Department official who is now a law professor at Cornell, during a Senate Banking Committee confirmation hearing.

“Senator, I’m not a Communist,” Omarova replied. “I do not subscribe to that ideology. I could not choose where I was born.”

Omarova was born in Kazakhstan while it was still part of the Soviet Union. She attended Moscow State University before coming to the University of Wisconsin as an exchange student. The Soviet Union collapsed while Omarova was living in the U.S., and she ended up staying in Wisconsin and becoming an American citizen and a prominent expert on banking regulation. After Biden nominated her to oversee the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees large nationally chartered banks and lending policies, bank groups launched a fierce lobbying campaign to oppose her.

Kennedy, an Oxford-educated lawyer known for his folksy huckster schtick, began by questioning whether Omarova had resigned from the Komsomol, a Soviet youth organization that she belonged to as a child. Omarova explained that all children in the country were required to join the program, which they left upon reaching adulthood. Kennedy was unconvinced and demanded to know whether she submitted a formal “resignation letter” to an organization that has not existed since at least 1991.

RELATED: Stacey Abrams schools Sen. John Kennedy on Georgia voter suppression law

Omarova has been described by academic experts as “one of the top financial regulatory scholars in the world” and has written articles in favor of stricter financial regulation and a federal government program to offer every American a bank account, in order to reduce the number of “unbanked” Americans. Kennedy argued that her research, and a college thesis she wrote in Moscow titled “Karl Marx’s Economic Analysis and the Theory of Revolution in the Capital,” suggested that she still harbored Communist sympathies:

You studied at university, at Moscow State University, scientific Communism, which is the science regarding the working-class struggle and the socialist agenda. In 2019, not 30 years ago, in a Canadian documentary, you called the financial services industry “a quintessential asshole industry.” You wrote a paper called “Systemically Significant Prices,” calling for the federal government to set wages, food, gas prices.

In 2020, you wrote a paper called “People’s Ledger” where you said we need to abolish bank accounts and have everybody set up an account at the Fed where the federal government will have access to your data. In 2020 you wrote another paper called “The Climate Case for a National Investment Authority,” where you said what we need to do to the oil and gas industry is have the federal government bankrupt them so we can tackle climate change. In 2019, you joined the Facebook group, a Marxist Facebook group, to discuss socialist and anticapitalist views.

Omarova rejected Kennedy’s narrative.

“I do not remember joining any Facebook group that subscribes to that ideology,” she said. “I would never knowingly join any such group. There is no record of me ever actually participating in any Marxist or Communist discussions of any kind. My family suffered under the Communist regime. I grew up, half of my family, my grandmother herself escaped death twice under the Stalin regime. This is what is seared in my mind. That’s who I am. I remember that history. I came to this country. I’m proud to be an American. And this is why I’m here today, Senator.”

Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., made similar arguments, claiming that Omarova’s research suggests that she wants to impose a Soviet-style banking system, again citing her collegiate thesis from three decades earlier.

“She wants to nationalize the banking system, put in place price controls, create a command and control economy where the government allocates resources explicitly, instead of free men and women making their own decisions about the goods and services they want to buy and sell in an open market,” he said. “These are exactly the kind of socialist ideas that have failed everywhere in the world they’ve been tried.”

Omarova disputed that she has such aspirations and explained that as currency comptroller she would not have any power to nationalize banks.

“My job will be simply to make sure that all national banks are safe and sound, and they take into account all the risk factors when they decide to lend to one business or another business,” she said. “That’s not going to be up to me.”


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


While Omarova held her cool during the Republican attacks, Democrats on the committee took issue with the Joseph McCarthy-style tactics.

“Senate Republicans have a formula. Start with a passing and inaccurate reference to her academic work, distort the substance beyond recognition, mix in words — Marx, Lenin, communism. End with insinuations about Prof. Omarova’s loyalties to her chosen country,” said Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. “That’s how Republicans turn a qualified woman into a Marxist bogeyman. … Now we know what happens when Trumpism meets McCarthyism.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., accused Republicans of using “Joe McCarthy’s 1950s red scare tactics.”

“This is a vicious smear campaign, coordinated by Republicans who are doing the bidding of giant banks that want to keep gobbling up smaller competitors, want to keep ripping off their customers, and want to keep getting away with it,” she said. “Wall Street feels threatened, so they have launched an ugly, personal assault on a respected person who never sought the spotlight. It is disgusting. And anyone who participates in this malicious character assassination should be ashamed of themselves.”

Omarova does not need any Republican votes to be confirmed in the Senate, but her confirmation remains in doubt after moderate Democrats also expressed concerns about her during the hearing. Sens. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., complained that Omarova opposed a 2018 bill they backed to loosen some of the post-2008 regulations on regional banks in the Dodd-Frank law. Omarova explained that her objection was because the bill “inadvertently” provided new loopholes for the biggest banks. Warner said he “very much” disagreed with her view, raising questions about whether the committee will advance her confirmation to a full Senate vote.

Brown expressed optimism that Omarova, who has drawn support from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, would be confirmed, especially in light of Republican attacks.

“Every Democrat in this body just finds repulsive the attacks on her,” he said. “Being called a comrade by Kennedy, I know there’s a sense of decency among my colleagues, and she will be confirmed.”

Watch the exchange between Kennedy and Omarova below, via YouTube:

Read more on Biden’s nominees and Republican pushback:

All I think about is Timothée Chalamet’s espresso martini

There are a few things that Timothée Chalamet has that I, and many other people between the ages of oh, say 18 to 45, aspire to have. His cheekbones. His thick, curly hair that manages to look tousled, not tangled (my bedhead achieves the opposite). Probably his eyelashes (because men with thick, dark hair usually have long, dark eyelashes, too). And a piece of his heart. Why Timothée asked Larry David and not me on a date to drink espresso martinis at Sant Ambreous is beyond me, but let the chips fall where they may.

For some context about a month ago, Timothée was spotted sipping espresso martinis with Larry David the day after the 25-year-old co-chaired the Met Gala. The two actors got a little tipsy at Sant Ambroeus, a pricey, celeb-sprinkled Italian restaurant with multiple locations in the ritziest parts of the country.

It wasn’t Timothée’s denim vest or fiery gym shorts that caught my attention (OK, it was). It wasn’t his jaw line or his clubmaster sunglasses (OK, it was also those). It was his drink of choice — an espresso martini. I think about Timothée often, but admittedly his drink choice wasn’t something I ever gave much consideration to. Sure, he’s a worldly former-NYU student with deep pockets and a fluency in French, which would indicate that he knows his way around the Loire Valley. He’s not exactly a man about town, so there’s not much known about his food and drink choices. An espresso martini was surprising, but I’m here for it.

After the photos of Timothée and Larry went viral, I was on a date with my fiancé, who is not Timothée but still pretty great. As we walked through the West Village, I couldn’t help but notice that at every trendy bar and restaurant, from Dante to Palma and yes, Sant Ambreous, on every table, diners had their masks, hand sanitizer, cell phones, and an espresso martini.

It could be the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon. Like when I determined that my future soccer mom car will be a Volkswagon Atlas and I suddenly started seeing them everywhere. Because I was aware that handsome people like Timothée ordered espresso martinis, I began to notice them more and more. If Timothée had ordered a spicy mezcal paloma, would there be an influx of fiery cocktails? It’s possible. But cocktail experts say it’s always been popular. “The drink is a perfect digestif, so people love to finish their meal with an espresso martini. In addition, the combination of the coffee and liquor seem to create a buzz that kickstarts their evening (or even sometimes their afternoon),” says Eloy Pacheco, head bartender at Dante, in regards to the popularity of the drink.

Regardless of whether or not its moment is fleeting, I had to get my hands — if not on Timothée — on an espresso martini. So I turned to two drinks experts to learn how to craft one.

How to make the perfect espresso martini

Let’s shake things up a bit. “As with any good cocktail, you’re looking for balance. With espresso you don’t want to hide the flavor of the coffee; something too sweet won’t be pleasant after a few sips,” says Jena Ellenwood, an award-winning bartender and cocktail educator. A traditional espresso martini is made with vodka, coffee liqueur (such as Kahlua), freshly brewed espresso or cold brew concentrate, simple syrup, and coffee beans for garnish. No espresso maker? No problem! Ellenwood says that you can use cold brew concentrate or Mr. Black coffee liqueur as a 1:1 substitute for the espresso.

To make it, just add all of the ingredients (minus the coffee beans) to a cocktail shaker filled with ice and shake, shake, shake until the shaker feels exceptionally chilled and the contents are frothy. Strain into a chilled cocktail glass (a martini or coupe glass works great) and garnish with a few coffee beans. Complete the look with Oliver Peoples sunglasses, an oversized white t-shirt, and a gold chain necklace . . . oh wait, this wasn’t an explainer on how to become Timothée Chalamet? Oops, my bad.

Use the best vodka

Using good-quality vodka is key to making a good espresso martini. Dante uses Grey Goose, but Pacheco also recommends Ketel One or Absolut as an easy substitute. Ellenwood prefers potato-based vodka such as Chopin because it has a creamier texture, which helps to create a luscious mouthfeel with each sip of the martini.

You can also swap out the base spirit with rum or whiskey, which are both delicious in espresso martinis, says Ellenwood.

Making it foamy

“The drink is visually spectacular, so we see a lot of guests coming into the bar and showing us pictures from Instagram,” says Pacheco. The trick to making a frothy, foamy, gram-worthy espresso martini that would woo Timothée is shaking all of the ingredients vigorously in a cocktail shaker for at least 30 seconds. “No one wants a flat looking espresso martini,” says Ellenwood.

“You never forget spotting your first mushroom in a Finnish forest”: My day with the Mushroom Queen

“Go on, pick it,” said Päivi the Mushroom Queen. “I’m afraid,” I mumbled.

She pointed to a prominent-looking mushroom standing exposed all by itself on the pine needle- and twig-laden ground. It had a saucer-like brown cap two inches in diameter and a sturdy beige stem.

The mushroom looked so picture-perfect that I thought I might accidentally mutilate it while trying to separate it from Mother Earth.

I was wandering in a dense forest with master mushroom forager Päivi and a group of several other Marthas. My boots squished on an uneven, cushiony carpet of moss and fallen leaves, giving my knees, legs, and back a tender workout.

An hour earlier, before we set off on our hike, Päivi opened her car trunk in the parking lot and produced a supply of homemade mushroom cookies and a Thermos full of delightfully mellow, nutty-vanilla-tasting chaga mushroom tea to enjoy. Chaga mushrooms (Inonotus obliquus) appear as charcoal-black clusters on the side of birch trees, with a golden brown interior, and for centuries they’ve been used in traditional medicine in Finland, Russia, and elsewhere. Today, chaga can be enjoyed as a tea or as a powder or liquid to add to soups or smoothies, and researchers are finding that there may indeed be health benefits from the mushroom, including antioxidant, anticancer, antiviral, anti-inflammatory and pro-immune system effects.

RELATED: The pesky mushroom cookies I bake for Betsy, my late mother-in-law

Fortified by tea-and-cookie mushroom power, we set off into the woods. There was no path and no trace of civilization, only birch, pine, and spruce trees rolling over gentle hills in all directions. My eyes scanned around a magical landscape of lush, expansive vegetation,  layers of bright green moss- and whitish-gray reindeer lichen-covered rocks, one-foot-tall miniature trees, fallen branches, twigs and leaves, ferns, low berry bushes, wildflowers and grasses, an anthill, white birch trunks, stately dark brown pine trunks soaring into the sky, and some fallen trunks leaning on top of each other. Glittering light streamed through leaves, branches, and tree trunks, casting diagonal streaks and shadows in the forest.

I inhaled rich vapors of moist pine, heard hushed conversations of wispy wind and birch leaves, and sensed my breathing synchronized with natures’ pulses. My physical, emotional, and spiritual beings were completely blending with the sur- roundings. The most profound sensation of bliss filled my body and soul, a mystical sensation that I had never known existed or was possible.

After spending some time in the forests of Karelia, I came to realize that fairy tales I had read when I was a child were not quite fairy tales, but somehow real. As one visitor from Sydney, Australia, a woman named Ali Noble, explained, “Stepping into a Finnish forest is something akin to being in a childhood fairytale: lush, soft lichen underfoot; big red toadstools; tall green trees; and the suspicion that if a fairy did appear, you wouldn’t be too surprised.” If I came across a group of fairies in this thick enchanted forest, I certainly would not have been surprised at all. I would have understood. Even if I could not see them, they were there, watching over us.

You never forget spotting your first mushroom in a Finnish forest. At least I never will. Sometimes they appear in great congregations on a sloping hillside; other times they poke up flamboyantly as psychedelic-colored exhibitionists from the base of a tree; or as solitary, stately monuments, like this one.

I kneeled down to examine the mushroom spotted by Päivi the Mushroom Queen. This was a trophy mushroom, a porcini (Boletus edulis), a type especially cherished in Italy for its aroma, dense texture, and earthy-rich flavor. Like most mushrooms, this was an engineering marvel, conferring great dignity to the word fungus, which describes all mushrooms. It was barely three inches tall, and it was magnificent. The porcini stood there as if to say, “I am here!” I could only stare at its beauty and stature.

It had such a gorgeous shape and regal, commanding presence — a perfect sculpture by Mother Nature — that I was afraid to touch the mushroom, let alone remove it from the earth.

Päivi kindly said, “I will show you.”

Naomi picking berries in Joensuu

Naomi picking berries in Joensuu (William Doyle)

With her guidance, I pushed my fingers into the ground, reaching the bottom of the stem, and gently pulled it out. I shaved the soiled area around the bottom with a brush-tipped mushroom knife, being mindful not to take any more flesh than I needed to. I sliced it vertically in halves and examined the specimen. Clean, white interiors. No worms or bite marks. What a beauty! I placed the halves in the basket like laying down a newborn baby in a bassinet.

We walked deeper into the forest toward a hill. There was no path, just random zigzag patches of clearer ground amid the rocks and fallen branches. Päivi pointed to a mushroom a few feet away. I marveled at how she could see it camouflaged in the environment. Different mushrooms, she explained, prefer the company of different trees: orange- and yellow-colored chanterelles (Cantharellus), for example, like birch forests, while Boletus mushrooms like spruce and pine forests. She approached and picked the small reddish-brown mushroom, which had a one-inch-diameter cap.

She neatly sliced off the bottom of the soil-covered stem with a mushroom knife, dropped the tip, and brushed off dirt and plant specks from the cap with the brush attached to the other end of the knife handle. She closely examined the mushroom and announced, “This is a curry milk cap (Lactarius camphoratus).” She slit the gills. White liquid dotted the incision.

“See, milk,” Päivi said. I knew about this treasured mushroom. Another Finnish friend, Anu, a food writer and stylist, recipe developer and chef in Helsinki, had told me how a tiny amount of dried little bits of this mushroom could add an amazing curry aroma to a dish.

Päivi placed the mushroom in her basket. I noticed more on the ground. I picked up one and asked, “Is this a curry milk cap, too?” Päivi said, “Yes.” Hooray! Now I could guess a small percentage of what I found! The number one golden rule of foragers is pick and eat only what you can identify 100% for sure, or you may be poisoned. Which is why I didn’t plan on foraging alone.

Päivi stopped and picked up a medium-sized green-grayish mushroom with corrugated edges around the cap.

“This is good,” she said. “This is a hapero (russula, Russula).” She cleaned it and put it into the basket. I thought to myself, I never would have guessed that this would be a good mushroom, because the colors looked moldy. Sorry, hapero!


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to “The Bite,” Salon Food’s newsletter.


Päivi moved briskly through the forest focusing on spotting “good” mushrooms. I picked two promising mushrooms, caught up with her, and asked, “How about these?” She glanced and quickly said, “No. Not good.” I tossed them to the ground. Päivi added, “They’re not poisonous. But they’re not good. We don’t eat it.”

She picked another mushroom, “This is a milk cap.” I asked, “A regular one?” “Yes.” She cleaned it and put it into a small paper bag in the basket. She was separating them from others, as she’d first boil them in water for ten minutes to rid them of their tartness.

I found more curry milk caps hidden under ferns and leaves around mossy rocks. I showed them to Päivi and she nodded. I cleaned them and placed them in the basket. I felt proud that I was getting good at it, though I still needed an expert to verify. I picked a mushroom and asked, “Is this a milk cap?” Päivi, “Yes, but it’s not a good one.” She added, “It’s so small.” I repeated, “It’s small . . . OK,” I tossed it, puzzled.

For some mushrooms, like chanterelles, small was good because they were packed with flavor. I picked two mushrooms and asked, “These are no good, right?” Päivi perked up. “Not this one, but this one is very good!” pointing to a very dark brown mushroom. “It’s a nokirousku (chocolate milk mushroom, Lactarius lignyotus)!” she said excitedly. A small, three-quarter-inch diameter, very dark-brown cap with white gills and a long, skinny dark-brown stem. I saw more of the same. I picked them, and asked, “Are they good?” “Yes,” she said. “This one, too?” I asked. Päivi said, “Yes. Yes, these are very good. They’re milk caps but they can go directly into a pan.” There was no need to boil them like regular milk caps. I mumbled to myself, “You never know which ones are good.”

She took a few steps, bent down and picked another. “This is also a hapero.” She sliced off the bottom of its stem, and looking at the cut section of the stem, said, “A very good one. See, no worms.” She sliced the stem and the cap vertically in exact halves. Yes, I saw that it was a clean, beautiful mushroom. “You’re going to eat this,” she said, smiling.

Päivi said, “This one is a haaparousku (northern milk cap, Lactarius trivialis),” holding up a grayish-purple cap mushroom about two inches in diameter. It was quite exotic and beautiful. She added, “You need to cook this one for five minutes to reduce its tartness.”

Päivi picked a reddish cap mushroom, cleaned the stem, peeled the thin red skin, cut a small piece of white flesh, and handed it to me. She sliced another piece and put it into her mouth. I put mine into my mouth, tasted it, and immediately spat it out. “It’s so peppery!” We both laughed.

Naomi Moriyama

Naomi Moriyama (Riikka Simonen)

We soon found small and medium-size chanterelles (Cantharellus cibarius), another prized treasure from the forest. Päivi disappeared into the woods and came out with creamy white mushrooms with warped caps. She said, “They are vaaleaorakas (wood hedgehog or hedgehog mushroom, Hydnum repandum)! I was looking for these!” happily announcing her feat.

With our baskets filled with treasures from the forest, we headed to Sovintola, a handicraft and culture center that included a full rustic kitchen that we could use. First, we sorted the foraged mushrooms on a large table on an outdoor terrace. Päivi took us through the characteristics of each variety.

She brought them into the kitchen and proceeded to slice and sauté several varieties of mushrooms with butter in a frying pan. “This is the best way,” she told me as I looked over her shoulder. The aromas of heated butter and mushrooms filled the kitchen, my nostrils, and my month. The mushroom flesh was getting golden brown, and the edges crusty. She flipped each slice expertly with two forks making sure not to overcook. Then it was lunchtime.

First, we sampled the pan-sautéed mushrooms we picked only two hours ago. My heart pitter-pattering, I pierced a piece with a fork and brought it carefully into my mouth. I contemplated its flavors, textures, aromas, and all the nuances in between. I tasted the earth, raindrops, dried pine needles, mosses, and above all, Mother Nature’s love. Everyone was quiet. We didn’t have to say anything.

Päivi, the forager-chef, then served porcini-cream soup garnished with dried slices of porcini. Fantastic. Next, she served toasted rye bread topped with spruce-tip pesto, followed by blocks of bread cheese (or Finnish “squeaky cheese” in the United States) with yellowfoot (Craterellus tubaeformis) jam, which might sound strange but is totally delicious. For dessert, she brought out lingonberry-carrot Karelian pies and yellowfoot mushroom cookies, which were a perfect way to conclude our mushroom feast — all homemade, except the cheese.

While much of the world was relying on overprocessed, over industrialized food, here in North Karelia, the Marthas were upholding the great Finnish tradition of a wilderness-to-table food lifestyle, nurtured by their everyday relationships with nature.

We stared at the rich gifts from nature with gratitude and pride.

It was the “wildest” meal of my life.

As a farewell gift, Päivi gave me a bottle of homemade chaga elixir, which she instructed me to take a small spoonful of daily.

If you liked this essay, consider buying “The Sisterhood of the Enchanted Forest: Sustenance, Wisdom, and Awakening in Finland’s Karelia” by Naomi Moriyama and William Doyle. 

Read more: 

Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted in Kenosha killings

Kyle Rittenhouse, charged with killing two people during the Kenosha, Wisconsin unrest while he was a teenager, was found not guilty on all five charges Friday. 

Rittenhouse, who claimed self-defense, pleaded not guilty to first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, attempted first-degree intentional homicide, and two felony counts of first-degree recklessly endangering safety.

“I didn’t intend to kill them,” Rittenhouse said during the trial. “I intended to stop the people who were attacking me.”

The trial stems from an incident that unfolded on Aug. 25, 2020, during a wave of protests and riots in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old Black man. Earlier that day, Rittenhouse traveled from his home in Antioch, Illinois, to allegedly defend a Kenosha car dealership from being vandalized and provide aid to people in need of medical assistance. 

While there, Rittenhouse engaged in an altercation with Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, both of whom he shot and killed. Rittenhouse also shot and wounded 27-year-old Gaige Grosskreutz. 


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


The verdict came after roughly 26 hours of jury deliberation spanning four days. During the trial, which started on November 1, jurors heard from over 30 witnesses. The prosecution broadly argued that Rittenhouse could not claim self-defense because Rittenhouse himself sparked the conflict with Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz. 

“You cannot claim self-defense against a danger you create,” said Kenosha County assistant district attorney Thomas Binger during his closing argument. “That’s critical right here. If you’re the one who’s threatening others, you lose the right to claim self-defense.”

Meanwhile, the defense claimed that the trial was a “political case” that was trying to assign arbitrary blame.

RELATED: Matt Gaetz praises Kyle Rittenhouse for “helping the country,” offers him a congressional internship

“The district attorney’s office is marching forward with this case because they need somebody to be responsible. They need somebody to put and say, ‘We did it, he’s the person who brought terror to Kenosha,'” Mark Richards, Rittenhouse’s defense attorney, said.

“Kyle Rittenhouse is not that individual,” he added. “The rioters, the demonstrators who turned into rioters. Those are the individuals.”

RELATED: The NRA gave us Kyle Rittenhouse

The trial was presided over by Judge Bruce Schroeder, whose courtroom antics earned significant scorn from critics over the past several weeks.

In one instance, Schroeder drew criticism for making what appeared to be racist joke about Asian food that was en route to the courtroom, saying that he hoped it “isn’t on one of those boats in Long Beach Harbor.” Moreover, before the trial began, the judge garnered national scorn for remarking that people shot by Rittenhouse could not be called “victims” but rather, “rioters, looters and arsonists.”

Criticism has also been directed at the prosecution, which many feel failed in their duty to effectively hold Rittenhouse accountable.

When Binger cross-examined Rittenhouse during the trial, the lawyer commented on the teen’s choice to remain silent, an apparent violation of the Fifth Amendment, leading to a stern rebuke from Schroeder. 

CORRECTION: This article originally stated that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an AR-15. According to court testimony and police records, the gun, purchased on his behalf by a friend, was already in Wisconsin when Rittenhouse arrived. 

Fired Ferguson cop parades rifle in front of Kyle Rittenhouse trial

A man spotted with an AR-15-style rifle outside of Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where the 18-year-old was just acquitted of all charges on Friday, was identified as an ex-Ferguson police officer from Missouri, who was fired over stalking and assault charges. 

The man, Jesse Kline, who goes by the moniker “Maserati Mike,” first arrived on the scene in a Maserati earlier this week, wearing dress shoes, slacks, button-up shirt, and a tactical vest, according to FOX 2. Carrying a bullhorn and a long rifle, Kline has over the last several days has reportedly become notorious for blasting loud music and tarring Black Lives Matter (BLM) as a terrorist organization. 

On Wednesday, Sheriff’s deputies stopped Kline and asked him to put away his rifle, a request he complied with since he did not have a concealed carry license. Kline shortly drove away from the scene. But on Thursday, The Independent reported, the man returned with what appears to be a sex toy, chanting “Yeah!”

“You are not welcome in our city!” a passerby yelled back at Kline.

Back in 2018, Kline was dismissed from the Ferguson Police Department over accusations of threatening and following a man and woman with whom he’d been in a romantic relationship.  According to KSDK.com, Kline allegedly accosted the man in his backyard, pointing his Glock 21 handgun at the man and prodding him in the chest with the barrel. 


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


RELATED: The NRA gave us Kyle Rittenhouse

“Kline then called the woman ‘vulgar names’ and drove away from the home,” the report said. In January 2020, the couple’s charges against Kline were dropped after prosecutors found that there wasn’t enough evidence to support the couple’s account. 

Asked about the couple’s allegations, Kline told NBC News on Thursday that “sometimes people lie to the police and charges get dropped.”

“I wanted to let you know I’m government-funded and sometimes I glow in the dark,” he added. 

On Wednesday, two protesters were arrested outside the Kenosha County Courthouse, where demonstrators aligned with both sides of the trial have routinely engaged in verbal standoffs. 

“We don’t want no Black supremacists here! We don’t want no Mexican supremacists here! We don’t want no alien supremacists here!” one man wearing a Trump hat chanted on Tuesday, according to Kenosha News.  

RELATED: Don’t be shocked if Kyle Rittenhouse goes free — that’s the system working as designed

“We don’t need white supremacists here!” an anti-Rittenhouse group clapped back. 

Ahead of the verdict, ABC News reported, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers has already greenlit the deployment of 500 National Guard troops as a public safety measure. 

“We continue to be in close contact with our partners at the local level to ensure the state provides support and resources to help keep the Kenosha community and greater area safe,” Evers said in a statement. “I urge folks who are otherwise not from the area to please respect the community by reconsidering any plans to travel there and encourage those who might choose to assemble and exercise their First Amendment rights to do so safely and peacefully.”

Rittenhouse’s trial has yet to reach a verdict as the jury enters into its fourth day of deliberations.