Watch “The Wheel of Time” epic adventure begin in Amazon’s fantasy series – trailer

If you want to escape to another world this winter, Amazon’s new series “The Wheel of Time,” could be just what you need. After all it’s been a couple years since that last epic fantasy series about games and thrones ended. In the newly released trailer, we’re in for a magical ride through castles, taverns, deserts, mountains and forests.

Based on the series of high-fantasy bestsellers by Robert Jordan, the show takes place in a world where magic exists, but only certain women are allowed to access it. Moiraine (played by Rosamund Pike, also a producer of the series), is a member of the incredibly powerful all-female organization called the Aes Sedai. She arrives in the small town of Two Rivers, and while there, embarks on a dangerous journey with five young men and women, one of whom is prophesied to be the Dragon Reborn, who will either save or destroy humanity.

In the trailer we see Moiraine and a power she calls the “one power,” magic shared between women in the Aes Sedai, and the various women who can control that power. We also meet “The Dark One,” a caped figure on horseback, and his army, set on destroying the world. There’s also glimpses of a battle, people being burned at the stake, and training in magic. In the end, we’re left with one message “the wheel will as the wheel wills.”

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

Originally published in 1990, Jordan’s epic book series proved to be even too epic for him to keep up, and when he passed away in 2007, the notes he left behind allowed Brandon Sanderson to finish the series, which now stands at 14 volumes and a prequel. The TV series has already been renewed for a second season, which it will certainly need to make headway on the story.

After the success of “Game of Thrones,” many other networks have tried to move into that high-fantasy space, investing in IP that could draw in new audiences but also continue for many years to come. Netflix has “The Witcher,” while Amazon has “The Wheel of Time” and the upcoming “Lord of the Rings” series in the works.

“The Wheel of Time” premieres Friday, Nov. 19 on Amazon Prime. Watch the trailer below via YouTube.

More news you might like:

Joe Biden calls out Glenn Youngkin for trying to distance himself from Trump: “Is he embarrassed?”

President Joe Biden on Tuesday called out Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin for trying to distance himself from former President Donald Trump in his bid to win the increasingly blue state.

Youngkin has tried to walk a fine line in his race against Democrat Terry McAuliffe, hoping to avoid alienating both the Trump base that he needs to turn out on Election Day and independent and suburban voters who view the former president far less favorably. The former private equity executive has not campaigned with Trump and at one point even seemingly sought to tie McAuliffe, a former Virginia governor, to the ex-president, prompting Trump to reassert his “complete and total” endorsement for Youngkin’s campaign.

“Terry’s opponent has made all of his private pledges of loyalty to Donald Trump. But what is really interesting to me is he won’t stand next to Donald Trump now that the campaign is on,” Biden said during a McAuliffe rally in Arlington. “Think about it. He won’t allow Donald Trump to campaign with him in this state… He is willing to pledge his loyalty to Trump in private, why not in public? What is he trying to hide? Is there a problem with Trump being here? Is he embarrassed?”

During the Republican primary campaign, Youngkin refused to acknowledge Biden’s election victory and has called for a voting machine “audit,” an apparent signal toward Trump’s false claims of fraud — especially since Virginia conducts such audits on a regular basis. Biden on Tuesday argued that Youngkin has “embraced” Trump’s “big lie.”

“I ran against Donald Trump. And Terry is running against an acolyte of Donald Trump,” Biden said. “Terry’s opponent doesn’t like to talk about him very much now, but to win the Republican nomination, he embraced Donald Trump. He started his campaign by saying that the No. 1 issue in the race was… election integrity. Now, why did he do that? Because he wanted to hear Donald Trump? It was a price he’d have to pay for the nomination, and he paid it. But now, he doesn’t want to talk about Trump anymore. Well, I do.”

Former President Barack Obama also hit the campaign trail for McAuliffe over the weekend, calling out Youngkin’s attempt to dance around Trump’s false election claims.

“Either [Youngkin] actually believes in the same conspiracy theories that resulted in a mob, or he doesn’t believe it but he is willing to go along with it, to say or do anything to get elected,” Obama said on Saturday. ” And maybe that’s worse … because that says something about character.”

Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for Youngkin, told NBC News that Obama’s speech promoted “the fantasies of Terry and the left because they can’t run on their failed record and radical vision for the future.”

The McAuliffe campaign has seized on Youngkin’s attempt to distance himself from Trump, who is widely unpopular in Virginia, where Biden won by 10 points last year and Democrats have dominated most recent statewide elections. McAuliffe, who previously served as the state’s governor from 2014 to 2018, has offered to pay for Trump’s travel expenses so the ex-president can campaign for Youngkin. Democrats have also sent out mailers touting Trump’s endorsement of Youngkin.

But despite Biden’s popularity in 2020, his approval in Virginia has slipped nine points from earlier this year to 48%, according to a recent Morning Consult poll. McAuliffe won his 2013 race by just two points, and polls currently show him with a very slim 1.5-point lead, according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average. (Virginia governors may not run for re-election, but a former governor is not barred from seeking the office again.)

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

Youngkin has largely focused the final days of the campaign on education amid widespread conservative panic over “critical race theory,” calling for parents to dictate their children’s school curriculum. McAuliffe fired back at a recent debate, arguing that parents should not be “telling schools what they should teach.” Youngkin this week launched a new ad featuring a mother who tried to get Toni Morrison’s Pulitzer Prize-winning 1987 novel “Beloved” banned from schools, claiming that her nearly college-aged son suffered from “night terrors” due to the book’s graphic depiction of slavery. The state legislature twice passed bills that would allow parents to opt their children out of reading books with explicit content but McAuliffe vetoed both bills.

“Just look how he’s closing his campaign,” Biden said on Tuesday. “He’s gone from banning a woman’s right to choose to banning books written by a Pulitzer Prize and Nobel Prize-winning author, Toni Morrison.”

Obama also attacked Youngkin for focusing on manufactured outrage over school curricula.

“We don’t have time to be wasting on these phony trumped-up culture wars, this fake outrage that right-wing media peddles to juice their ratings,” he said Saturday. “And the fact that he’s willing to go along with it, instead of talking about serious problems that actually affect serious people. That’s a shame.”

Read more on Glenn Youngkin and the neck-and-neck Virginia race:

A crime against humanity: Dr. Deborah Birx admits Trump’s campaign distracted from COVID response

Is playing politics with a deadly pandemic a crime against humanity? The Brazilian Senate thinks so, and has backed a report calling for charges against President Jair Bolsonaro over his handling of COVID-19.

The committee that prepared the report had originally called for Bolsonaro to be charged with genocide and mass homicide against the indigenous people of Brazil as well but those charges were removed by the larger Senate before the vote. Whether the crimes against humanity charges will be sent to the International Criminal Court for investigation and adjudication is unknown. If they are, it will be a first.

The 1,300-page report also calls for eight other charges against Bolsonaro, including misuse of public funds and spreading fake news about the pandemic as well as falsification of documents and incitement to crime, which they referred to Brazil’s top prosecutor, an ally of the president who is unlikely to prosecute.

Brazil’s death toll is huge — second only to the United States — with over 600,000 deaths and counting. That nation’s first wave was monstrous, with mass graves and overwhelming hospital overload. When the second hit, medical facilities were so ill-prepared that they ran out of oxygen. Bolsonaro’s response has been to tell people to “stop whining” about “the little flu.” He refused necessary lockdown measures from the beginning and relentlessly pushed snake oil cures like hydroxychloroquine. He has disparaged vaccines, masks and other public health measures.

Brazil is a signatory to the International Criminal Court so it could theoretically agree to hear the case should it be forwarded to them. The law seems pretty straightforward, according to this analysis by Jen Kirby at Vox:

A crime against humanity exists “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.” “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

Kirby spoke with David Scheffer, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, who told her that the “catchall nature” of the last part of the statute was deliberate:

It is obvious that other types of assaults on your civilian population are going to emerge in the future, and you have to provide for that in the statute. It’s hard to think of a better example than intentional mismanagement of a Covid-19 pandemic or some other pathogen. And so I would argue that, yes, that’s fair game.

Bolsonaro defiantly says that he is guilty of “absolutely nothing” despite his decisions to allow the virus to spread through the country in pursuit of “herd immunity” which basically translated to “let ‘er rip.” And he has continued to spread disinformation. Just this week, Facebook and Youtube removed a video in which the Brazilian president falsely claimed a link between COVID-19 vaccines and AIDS.

You will no doubt recall that Bolsonaro and Donald Trump were great friends and kindred spirits during Trump’s term. They saw eye to eye on many things, but perhaps on nothing so much as the proper response to the pandemic.

In March of 2020, as the virus was starting to spread quickly, the Brazilian leader visited Trump’s private club, Mar-a-Lago, and that became one of the earliest Trump super-spreading events when Bolsonaro’s press secretary tested positive for the virus after meeting with Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and others. Bolsonaro came away from the meeting inspired by Trump, telling his health minister “that life was normal at Mar-a-Lago, everything was cured, and that hydroxychloroquine was the medicine that was supposed to be used. From that time on, it was very hard to get him to take the science seriously.”

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

We all saw the similarities between Bolsonaro and Trump’s reaction to the pandemic in real-time.

They both downplayed the virus and were obsessively concerned with the economic fallout, leading them to lean on scientists to fudge the numbers. Both of them were constantly out in public exposing themselves and others to the virus and they each recommended unscientific cure-alls while ignoring the public health recommendations that actually mitigated the worst of the virus. Trump really wanted to take credit for the vaccines, but has been forced to downplay that achievement due to skepticism among his followers, while Bolsonaro just comes right out and says they don’t work. Their record in the pandemic is astonishingly similar.

Here in the U.S., the task of investigating what happened with the pandemic has fallen to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, which has kept a pretty low profile these last few months. But on Tuesday they took the testimony of Dr. Deborah Birx, Trump’s COVID-19 coordinator. According to the New York Times, Birx reiterated her earlier shocking claim that at least 130,000 lives were unnecessarily lost because the administration refused to do everything it could to ensure the nation followed the public health recommendations to mitigate the spread of the disease.

But in her testimony this week she also said that as the pandemic wore on into the summer and fall, the administration became distracted by the presidential campaign and pretty much lost interest in the crisis. In other words, a lot of people died so that Donald Trump could get elected.

When asked if she felt Trump did everything he could to save lives, Birx replied, “no.”

She also complained about the malign influence of Dr. Scott Atlas, the radiologist who caught Trump’s eye on Fox News and was brought in to push the idea that the country should seek “herd immunity,” just as Bolsonaro had tried to do in Brazil. Birx testified that Atlas even brought to the White House the three physicians who later authored the “Great Barrington Declaration,” which called for deliberately hastening herd immunity. Trump was all in:

"You'll develop like a 'herd mentality,'" Trump said, misstating the term for "herd immunity."

"It's going to be herd-developed. That’s going to happen. That will all happen. But with a vaccine, I think it will go away very quickly" https://t.co/X6RR8jssN8 pic.twitter.com/TofXd6xlgQ

— Bloomberg (@business) September 16, 2020

Bolsonaro and members of his family are under fire for corruption as well and there is a good chance he may face jail time as well as a tough re-election campaign next year. And then there is the little matter of the crimes against humanity charges that could be before the International Criminal Court.

His good friend and inspiration, Donald Trump, is in a similar situation — although he has three more years to try to make everyone forget his terrible response to the pandemic. Trump needn’t worry about the ICC, of course. The U.S. isn’t a signatory. The powers that be thought signing on to it might result in U.S. troops being accused of war crimes. I doubt they anticipated that a U.S. president might be accused of facilitating the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. Donald Trump has always been a very lucky guy in that way.

Jen Senko on how Fox News brainwashed her dad — and is now prepping its audience for fascism

Since well before Donald Trump’s election, Fox News has served as one of his movement’s most powerful and effective propaganda outlets. In numerous ways both large and small, Fox News has mainstreamed fascist and authoritarian talking points, circulated Trump’s thousands of lies and massaged, minimized or falsified the events of Jan. 6 and the ongoing coup against American democracy.

On a near-daily basis, Tucker Carlson and other Fox News hosts amplify white supremacist lies about the “Great Replacement” — even if they don’t use that precise term — claiming that white people are the victims of a genocidal plot to “replace” them with nonwhites. New public opinion research shows that this type of white supremacist stochastic terrorism has been internalized by tens of millions of white Americans — specifically white Republican and Trump voters — to such an extreme that many of them are willing to condone or participate in acts of political violence in to overthrow Joe Biden’s presidency and American democracy.

More than 700,000 people have died in the United States from the coronavirus pandemic — and this is a low estimate. More than a million Americans are expected to die before the virus is brought fully under control.

Public health experts have documented the direct role that Fox News and other right-wing media have played in encouraging their audience to not be vaccinated against the coronavirus. This is part of a much larger pattern of behavior, in which Fox News has consistently fueled and amplified coronavirus denialism. In total, Fox “News” has been a public health threat, and bears both direct and indirect responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Because Fox News has such pernicious influence control over its public that it has caused discord, chaos and other forms of dysfunction — almost certainly including interpersonal violence — within families, among friends and across entire communities. When and if American democracy finally succumbs to authoritarianism, its obituary should include Fox News for helping to kill it.

For almost a decade, Jen Senko has been documenting the personal impact of Fox News on the American people. In her 2015 documentary “The Brainwashing of My Dad,” she showed in painstaking detail, how Fox News and the right-wing propaganda machine transformed her father into an angry, paranoid, bigoted, political extremist. Her father is only one of the millions of Americans who have fallen under the spell of Fox News and the right-wing hate machine — and by doing so became the base of support for Republican fascist movement.

In her new book, also called “The Brainwashing of My Dad,” Senko continues to explore the damaging influence of Fox News and the larger right-wing echo chamber in America’s worsening democracy crisis.

In this conversation, Senko details how Fox News functions like a type of cult that uses anger and fear to seduce and control its audience. She also explains how right-wing media creates an alternate universe that offers meaning, community and friendship for the confused, alienated and lonely people — predominantly older white men — who are its primary audience. Senko shares more personal anecdotes about how Fox News and its allied media have destroyed loving relationships,. She also warns that Fox News is priming its audience for political violence to support Donald Trump and the Republican-fascist ongoing coup attempt.

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

With your documentary, you tried to warn the American people that Fox News and the right-wing media are an extreme danger to the country. But here we are several years later, with America’s democracy crisis continuing to escalate as the right has increasingly embraced fascism. How do you feel watching this disaster?

Right now, I’m very, very frustrated. When I made the documentary, I was naïve. I thought to myself, “I’m going to save the world. I’m going to save America.” It was cathartic for me to make “The Brainwashing of My Dad.”

Now the American people are like the frog in the boiling water. It was lukewarm at first, nice and comfy, and they were all just splashing around a little bit. Then the water gets hotter, and they don’t notice. By the time they notice, it’s too late and they’re boiling.

Given all that has happened and is happening with Trump and the Republicans, my feelings are now panic and despair. I always still have a seed of hope. There are many more people now who did get the message that I was trying to explain about Fox News and where the country was headed. I also have hope because it seems that more Americans are organized to resist.

What do people outside Trump World and the MAGAverse — or who are just generally in denial about the existential threat the country is facing — not understand about what’s happening?

Too many people still do not seem to get that what the Republicans and Trump are doing to undermine democracy was long in the planning. It is all like an octopus and it has many tentacles. The head of the octopus is the media.

As fast as perhaps the FBI can catch those who are working to betray the country and commit treason, Fox News is everywhere. There truly is a vast right-wing conspiracy, as Hillary Clinton described it back in the 1990s. This is true whether you like it or not.

Basically, a bunch of oligarchs, evangelicals, racists, mega-corporations and right-wing libertarians got together and planned how they could get rid of government and any policies that serve the public good. What they want is no public schools, no libraries, no post office, no Social Security, no public health option. These right-wing forces want privatization across the board so that they can make as much money as they want, unrestrained, and won’t have to pay taxes. Then these same forces got control of the media, and could inject their message right into the public’s collective mind.

This right-wing movement also did other things too, such as running for school boards and in other local elections. They used gerrymandering and created a panic about nonexistent voter fraud. But it is the right-wing media that drives the campaign. What shocks me the most is that most Americans still do not understand the big picture.

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

In your documentary, you showed in painful detail how Fox News and the right-wing machine literally changed your father’s personality into a person you no longer recognized. Other Americans have experienced this — perhaps millions of them. What is your dad an example of? How do we understand what Fox News and the right-wing echo chamber did to him as representative of a much larger phenomenon?

My father was seduced by the anger and the excitement. People know that something’s wrong, that the system is rigged somehow, but they don’t give much thought to how. My father was also retiring from his job, and he found the right-wing media. This gave him something to occupy his mind and thoughts.

Now, suddenly, there’s all this excitement in his life. There is some right-wing media person telling him that the government is in his personal business too much. There are very persuasive big personalities pushing my father’s buttons and those of the audience in general. And you know what? That feels good. There is an addictive quality to anger like that. It was exciting for my father. It also provided him a group to belong to.

I believe that a lot of white men feel like, “Well, what am I supposed to do? And who am I?” They needed help in figuring themselves out, and the right-wing media and that world provided it. Too many such men developed a victim mentality, telling themselves, “I’m a victim, I’m mad, I’ve always wanted to fight back.”

How was Fox News and the right-wing media machine able to take people such as your father and get them to a point where they would support a coup or political terrorism or conspiracy theories like QAnon? Were they always prone to such behavior or did Fox News and the right-wing machine make them that way?

On Twitter, a lot people will say to me, usually Democrats or liberals, “Oh, these people, they were always like that. They’re just finding a port to park their boat in now.” I do not believe that is necessarily true.

My dad hadn’t been racist. He hadn’t been anti-“illegal immigrant.” After listening to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, he got brainwashed. When I made the documentary, I did not know if I believed in brainwashing. Now I know that brainwashing does exist, it is real.

There’s the brainwashing that happens through force, what we were all familiar with from movies. But what Fox News and the larger right-wing are doing is brainwashing by stealth. I believe this to be more insidious. There’s only one type of information going into the brain. There’s isolation. There is repetition. That is how they brainwash their public.

I feel like there has been a massive brainwashing campaign, something unlike anything we’ve ever seen before in this country. That’s what’s happened in America through Fox News and the right-wing media and movement.

Through your website and other outreach, many people have contacted you about how Fox News and the right-wing media machine have impacted their relationships. What are some of the common themes you are seeing?

One of them is anger. The relative, the loved one, the friend, whoever it may be, suddenly is angry more and more, it’s their predominant mood. These people also become very argumentative. Many of these people who are watching Fox and are part of the right-wing echo chamber are incapable of having conversations that somehow do not turn to politics. They become obsessed with this new right-wing way of thinking. It becomes the person’s mission. It is all of who they are.

What are some personal stories that jump out at you?

A woman recently shared with me how her husband was a good, sweet guy and a really quiet person. Right before Trump ran for office and became president, he started watching Fox News and his personality completely changed. He would yell at her and their child more. He would criticize her, his wife, because she was a Democrat, yell at her, yell at her kid, start criticizing her. The husband was becoming emotionally abusive.

The woman who reached out to me was afraid that it was going to traumatize her child and that she might have to leave her husband. She was really sad about it because she had once been very much in love with him.

Another person who contacted me lost several members of her family to COVID. Her father still wouldn’t get the vaccine. He got COVID, and still wouldn’t get the vaccine — or said he wouldn’t — and he died because Tucker Carlson and other people on Fox News were telling people like him not to get vaccinated.

What is going on, emotionally and cognitively, where someone would listen to a person on TV who is telling them to do things that will cause them personal harm, that will hurt their family members, friends and other people they care about?

They’re not thinking rationally. The part of their brain called the amygdala has been hijacked. That is the fight-or-flight part of the brain. When it is activated, the cerebral cortex is not functioning 100 percent. These people are responding from panic. In that moment, they go to the source that they have learned to trust. That source, in this case Fox News, is telling them, “You can only trust us.” That source is angry all the time. It tells its public that the government has screwed them over and the politicians that have screwed them over. The response to Fox News and the right-wing machine actually becomes something physiological.

How does Fox News make friends with its viewers? Because what Fox News and other right-wing propaganda outlets are doing on a fundamental level is establishing an intimate relationship with their public.

There is a feeling that there is an in-group and an out-group. Fox and other parts of the right-wing media make their audience feel special, like they are in on something special. It is a very seductive feeling. Being part of a tribe makes people feel safer. That dynamic is also an example of groupthink.

Many Fox viewers and people who consume that right-wing media just want to belong to the group, to think the same way as everyone else in the group. You trust your people. You don’t want to doubt them. They are your friends.

Are the people who watch Fox News awake, or are they asleep?

I think they’re in a trance. They are definitely not awake. They’re almost on autopilot. They are going to accept anything they are told by Fox.

Why would anyone listen to Fox News, or the right-wing echo chamber more generally, telling them to hurt people, to engage in violence? Why would a formerly reasonable person listen to these commands? What has gone wrong with them?

Because they are in such a rage. They are primed to take that next step. They’re in such a rage because they believe, in their heart of hearts, that the 2020 election was stolen away from Trump. They really believe that their country is being taken over illegitimately.

Mix that in with the rage that they already have, where for example they truly believe, “Democrats are horrible, they’re the devil’s spawn. Anything that’s wrong in my life is because of them. Now they’re stealing the election, they stole my guy who speaks to me, who’s like me.” They’re just ready to fight.

More Salon coverage of the crisis of democracy — and the right-wing propaganda machine:

Donald Trump’s “slow-motion coup” is becoming a runaway train

Comedian Bill Maher, former National Security Council member Fiona Hill and NYU historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat have all recently used the term “slow-moving coup.” In fact, that term, in various formulations, has appeared numerous times in Salon, beginning in 2017, Donald Trump’s first year as president. It refers, of course, to the assertive and toxic maneuvers of Trump and his right-wing sycophants aimed at subverting democracy — and since his electoral defeat last year, at regaining power at any cost. Trump’s apparent goal is to recapture the highest office in the land so that his power, grifting and corruption can run rampant again. For our country — and our democracy — this coup would have disastrous consequences. This is not hyperbole or melodrama. Trump and his enablers are coming at us like a runaway train. And democracy is tied to the track.

It is important to understand how this coup is playing out — how the runaway train is gaining steam. Several actions are occurring simultaneously. First, changes in state legislatures will allow partisans to determine election winners regardless of the actual vote and the will of the people. These changes in legislatures have already begun in Texas, Georgia and South Carolina. Second, voter suppression laws are being enacted in numerous states, with the almost overt priority of preventing people of color from voting is a top priority. Third, gerrymandering by Republicans is a growing strategy to affect election results: This week, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott approved a pernicious new plan. Fourth, Trump’s promulgation of his Big Lie and other disinformation continues. He keeps claiming that the presidential election was stolen from him and that Democrats must be defeated because they are “socialists.”

Taken collectively, all of these moves by Trump and his allies represent an unmistakable and potentially life-changing assault on democracy, now under threat from a man and a party who seek to establish an authoritarian autocracy. Even more ominously, such yearnings have been unleashed in a large segment of the American public.

Millions of Americans continue to voice their support for Trump. In fact, recent polling indicates that two-thirds of Republicans want Trump to retain a major political role, and 44% of them want him to run for president again in 2024. What is both amazing and frightening is that Trump’s appeal is based largely on his propaganda, his victimhood and his fake personal attributes of superiority and greatness. The fact that he was an accessory to murder of 500,000 pandemic victims during his term in office is completely overlooked. His supporters are willing to turn a blind eye to his incompetence and corruption and cruelty in order to make sure that “socialist,” “immigration-loving” Democrats are defeated. These Americans are hungry for a return to power. To them, Trump is their ticket to an America that is racist, intolerant, aggrieved, divided and increasingly violent.

Losing our democracy does not seem to feature prominently in the consciousness of most Americans, who do not understand that democracy is inherently fragile and not guaranteed to us by divine destiny. Many seem to take it for granted. But the end of free and open elections would destroy our democracy. Corruption running amok would destroy our democracy. Using the Department of Justice to hide malfeasance and to prosecute political rivals would destroy our democracy. Nepotism and widespread incompetence would destroy our democracy. Undermining our trust in the free press would destroy our democracy. Substituting conspiracy theories for science and truth would destroy our democracy. And unabashed grifting and corruption at public expense would destroy our democracy. All these examples are central elements of Trumpism and the right-wing Republican agenda. It constitutes their plan for America — and democracy is not in their calculus.

This must be said again: Donald Trump is not just another typical politician. He is a malignant narcissist whose worst intentions are to destroy anything and anyone that threatens to deprive him of power, wealth and reverence. He will not stop until he is stopped by others because he has no conscience or moral compass. He is beyond political or personal salvation — he is deceitful, conniving, corrupt and dangerous, without any regard for others. He has no business being the leader of a country; to him, public service is an anarchic playground for his personal gratification. His malicious intentions cannot be overestimated.

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

Trump’s “slow-moving coup” — his runaway train — must be stopped. To accomplish that, several steps need to be taken immediately. First, Trump must be prosecuted for his misdeeds, his incitement of the insurrection of the Capitol and his attempts to sabotage the election by trying to alter the vote count (for example, in Georgia). Second, the congressional investigation of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack must be fully completed. Third, elected Republican officials who supported the insurrection must be held accountable. All the saboteurs must be rooted out — otherwise, they are like a cancer that is metastasizing with deadly force. We know with a high degree of certainty that Reps. Mo Brooks, Lauren Boebert, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert and others had contact with the insurrectionists in the days leading up to the Capitol attack. These members should resign or be expelled.

Trump is hoping that his efforts will pay off in the election of 2024. He does not care about the safety and happiness of the American people, and he sure as hell does not care about democracy. If it is up to him, America’s democratic tradition will be cast aside on the day he places his hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office again. That would mark the final triumph of his coup.

Americans are left with a dramatic choice: Save democracy by rejecting Donald Trump and his Republican comrades, or allow them to run roughshod over our hard-won democratic principles and institutions by completing their coup — which now appears to be a runaway train.

More from Salon on Donald Trump’s not-so-slow-motion coup attempt:

The big climate crisis we aren’t talking about: Is nuclear winter coming?

When world leaders gather in Scotland next week for the COP26 climate change conference, activists will be pushing for drastic action to end the world’s catastrophic reliance on fossil fuels. Consciousness about the climate emergency has skyrocketed in recent years, while government responses remain meager. But one aspect of extreme climate jeopardy — the prospect of “nuclear winter” — has hardly reached the stage of dim awareness.

Wishful thinking aside, the threat of nuclear war has not receded. In fact, the opposite is the case. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has been moving the “Doomsday Clock” ever closer to cataclysmic midnight; the symbolic hands are now merely 100 seconds from midnight, in contrast to six minutes a decade ago.

A nuclear war would quickly bring cataclysmic climate change. A recent scientific paper, in sync with countless studies, concludes that in the aftermath of nuclear weapons blasts in cities, “smoke would effectively block out sunlight, causing below-freezing temperatures to engulf the world.” Researchers estimate such conditions would last for 10 years. The Federation of American Scientists predicts that “a nuclear winter would cause most humans and large animals to die from nuclear famine in a mass extinction event similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.”

While there’s a widespread myth that the danger of nuclear war has diminished, this illusion is not the only reason why the climate movement has failed to include prevention of nuclear winter on its to-do list. Notably, the movement’s organizations rarely even mention nuclear winter. Another factor is the view that unlike climate change, which is already happening and could be exacerbated or mitigated by policies in the years ahead, nuclear war will either happen or it won’t. That might seem like matter-of-fact realism, but it’s more like thinly disguised passivity wrapped up in fatalism.

In the concluding chapter of his 2017 book “The Doomsday Machine,” Daniel Ellsberg warns: “The threat of full nuclear winter is posed by the possibility of all-out war between the United States and Russia. … The danger that either a false alarm or a terrorist attack on Washington or Moscow would lead to a preemptive attack derives almost entirely from the existence on both sides of land-based missile forces, each vulnerable to attack by the other: each, therefore, kept on a high state of alert, ready to launch within minutes of warning.”

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

Ellsberg adds that “the easiest and fastest way to reduce that risk — and indeed, the overall danger of nuclear war — is to dismantle entirely” the Minuteman III missile force of ICBMs comprising the land-based portion of U.S. nuclear weaponry.

The current issue of The Nation includes an article that Ellsberg and I wrote to emphasize the importance of shutting down all ICBMs. Here are some of its key points:

“Four hundred ICBMs now dot the rural landscapes of Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming. Loaded in silos, those missiles are uniquely — and dangerously — on hair-trigger alert. Unlike the nuclear weapons on submarines or bombers, the land-based missiles are vulnerable to attack and could present the commander in chief with a sudden use-them-or-lose-them choice.”
Former Defense Secretary William Perry wrote five years ago: “First and foremost, the United States can safely phase out its land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy. Retiring the ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn’t only budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger an accidental nuclear war.”
“Contrary to uninformed assumptions, discarding all ICBMs could be accomplished unilaterally by the United States with no downsides. Even if Russia chose not to follow suit, dismantling the potentially cataclysmic land-based missiles would make the world safer for everyone on the planet.”
Frank von Hippel, a former chairman of the Federation of American Scientists who is co-founder of Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security, wrote this year: “Strategic Command could get rid of launch on warning and the ICBMs at the same time. Eliminating launch on warning would significantly reduce the probability of blundering into a civilization-ending nuclear war by mistake. To err is human. To start a nuclear war would be unforgivable.”
“Better sooner than later, members of Congress will need to face up to the horrendous realities about intercontinental ballistic missiles. They won’t do that unless peace, arms-control and disarmament groups go far beyond the current limits of congressional discourse — and start emphasizing, on Capitol Hill and at the grassroots, the crucial truth about ICBMs and the imperative of eliminating them all.”

At the same time that the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases have continued to increase, so have the dangers of nuclear war. No imperatives are more crucial than challenging the fossil fuel industry and the nuclear weapons industry as the terrible threats to the climate and humanity that they are.

More of Salon’s reporting on the existential threat of the climate crisis:

Manchin’s means-testing requirement is a recipe for building back worse

President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better legislation would bring the United States into the 21st century, finally enacting programs that other industrialized nations have had for a very long time. These include children’s allowances in the form of tax credits, paid family and medical leave, free post-secondary education, expanded Medicare, home and community-based services, and so much more.

The bill would be among the most transformative in American history. It would cement Biden’s legacy alongside Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. But not if Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), who claims that the bill would promote a so-called “entitlement society,” forces work requirements and means-testing.

Manchin’s demands for work requirements and means-testing would save money largely by making federal programs inaccessible to many who need them, including those who need them the most. Those most in need often have the most trouble navigating complicated and burdensome eligibility requirements, because they generally lack the necessary time, resources, and family support. Experience teaches that much of the money saved on benefits would be spent on wasteful and intrusive administration.

Moreover, limiting eligibility to a small group who must prove to the rest of us that they really deserve the benefits will make those programs far more politically vulnerable. Knowingly, the late Wilbur Cohen, known as the father of Social Security and Medicare, remarked, “a program that is only for the poor — one that has nothing in it for the middle income and the upper income — is, in the long run, a program the American public won’t support.” For all these reasons, Cohen understood, as he often succinctly phrased it, “Programs for the poor make poor programs.”

At first glance, Manchin’s demands for stringent means-testing and work requirements may seem like a responsible effort to target limited resources. But a close look at the history of social welfare policy reveals that the restrictions are the latest chapter in an ugly history of treating some as less deserving than others.

While our Declaration of Independence, as well as virtually every religion, asserts that all of us are created equal, that has not been the view of some of the most powerful among us. Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, two of the richest men in human history, believed in what was called Social Darwinism, where some people are inherently worthier than others, due to “better” genes. They saw themselves as the fittest, and the poor as inherently unworthy and lazy people who needed their “betters” to push them to make something of their lives.

Throughout American history, some people, whether simply down on their luck or different from the majority, have been stereotyped as immoral, lazy, shiftless — in short, undeserving. Carnegie stated that “It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy.”

Nor is that simply the view of a few wealthy and powerful individuals. The notion that some people are undeserving is a strong undercurrent of conservative, anti-government thinking. It is embodied in government action and inaction whenever conservatives have their way.

This view demands hypersensitivity to ensure that those who receive government benefits do not take advantage of the rest of us. It insists that the only people worthy of government assistance are those can who surmount the obstacles government places in their way.

That attitude can be seen in the harsh, inhumane workhouses and poorhouses that used to be common features of life in Great Britain and the United States. These institutions have been described as “designed to punish people for their poverty and, hypothetically, make being poor so horrible that people would continue to work at all costs.” More succinctly, a nineteenth century activist against these institutions called them “prisons for the poor.”

The attitude can be seen in the nineteenth century debate over free public education. John Randolph, a wealthy Virginia slaveowner and politician, expressed his horror at the idea of universal free public education with words that echo sentiments one still hears today:

“Among the strange notions that have been broached since I have been on the political theatre, there is one which has lately seized the minds of men, that all things must be done for them by the government, and that they are to do nothing for themselves.”

In 1935, when President Roosevelt proposed the creation of Social Security, opponents made similar arguments. Despite the fact that Social Security is earned, the opponents still claimed it would create dependency. As part of their fearmongering, they employed a new frightening epithet as shorthand for all of their concerns. Social Security, its opponents claimed, was socialism.

Nor has that attitude disappeared. We see it in talk of “entitlements,” and “makers” and “takers,” as well as in claims that government spending creates dependency and that the Democratic agenda is socialist.

Democrats must resist the demands for work requirements and means-testing, if they truly want to build back better. They must resist the idea that government should only help the most destitute among us, not the working class or the middle class. In arguing for this more expansive help, they must remind those opposing them how much government has always helped the most advantaged among us.

Those who object to universal government help, who see themselves as having made it on their own, are often those who have been born with privilege, who benefit from government on a daily basis. They turn a blind eye to the highways, courts, police, military, and all the other public expenditures from which they disproportionately benefit.

In a 1938 radio address, President Roosevelt compellingly explained the reality that it is the wealthy who government has always benefited the most:

“The first to turn to Government, the first to receive protection from Government, were not the poor and the lowly — those who had no resources other than their daily earnings — but the rich and the strong. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the United States passed protective laws designed, in the main, to give security to property owners, to industrialists, to merchants and to bankers….Because it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to build their own security single-handed, Government must now step in and help them lay the foundation stones, just as Government in the past has helped lay the foundation of business and industry.”

FDR understood that government involves all of us coming together to protect each of us against risks over which we have no control. Democrats need to heed FDR’s words and pass a Build Back Better Act that reflects his view of the world: A view that work requirements are unnecessary in a world where good paying jobs are available to all. A view that universal programs that encourage work and prevent people from falling into poverty are far preferable to means-tested programs that are demeaning and trap those already in poverty.

The answer to concern that the wealthy will receive benefits they don’t need is to bring back a truly progressive income tax and a substantial estate tax. The problem is not the wealthy receiving the same benefits as the rest of us, but rather our dysfunctional tax system that absolves them of the responsibility to contribute their fair share towards the common good.

Our nation is highly polarized. But one issue that unites us is Social Security. Democrats, Republicans, and independents all support protecting and expanding benefits. That is because Social Security embodies Roosevelt’s world view and the understanding he learned from his devastating experience with polio.

FDR saw clearly that all of us face risks. He believed that government should help us address those risks together. He was physically dependent on others, and understood how demeaning it was to have to continually prove your need. He knew how crushing it is to the spirit to feel like a failure, unable to get by without help.

FDR understood that we are at our strongest when we recognize our common humanity. Having suffered from polio and succeeded in spite of it, he understood how important it was to design government programs to be uplifting.

Today’s Democrats should embrace Roosevelt’s insight. They ignore his wisdom at their peril. The right-wing activist Grover Norquist once expressed his desire to reduce government to “the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” If Manchin forces work requirements and intrusive, demeaning means tests, it will be substantially easier for Republicans to drown Biden’s legacy in the bathtub once they are back in control.

To resist that fate, Democrats must convince Manchin to build back better for everyone.

Charlottesville “Unite the Right” trial devolves into fight over juror views of Antifa

Plaintiffs in a landmark civil trial that began today in Charlottesville, Va. will try to prove that organizers of the deadly Unite the Right rally four years ago conspired to commit racially motivated violence.

But as the trial got underway on Monday, controversy surrounding prospective jurors’ negative views of “Antifa” sent an ominous signal about the prospect of defendants deflecting blame.

Richard Spencer, the one-time figurehead of the alt-right, and neo-Nazi Christopher Cantwell, who is currently serving an active prison sentence on a separate matter, are representing themselves.

Jason Kessler, the local organizer of the Unite the Right rally, and Nathan Damigo, founder of Identity Evropa were represented by two lawyers in court.

Other lawyers are representing James Alex Fields Jr., who is currently serving a life sentence for murder in the car attack that killed Heather Heyer; Matthew Heimbach and Matthew Parrott of Traditionalist Worker Party; Michael Hill and Michael Tubbs of League of the South; and Jeff Schoep, former commander of National Socialist Movement.

Defendants Augustus Sol Invictus, Robert “Azzmador” Ray, Andrew Anglin, Elliott Kline, Vanguard America, Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and East Coast Knights of the Ku Klux Klan did not appear in the courtroom or have lawyers present to defend them.

Two days before the start of the trial, the plaintiffs requested that Cantwell be severed from the other defendants, in consideration of his due-process arguments, suggesting he could be tried at a later date when he is no longer incarcerated. Cantwell said in open court on Monday that he opposed being severed from the case, and Judge Moon denied the motion in accordance with his wishes.

While the plaintiffs’ request was turned down, the matter afforded them the opportunity to head off a post-trial appeal by Cantwell. Roberta Kaplan, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, told Judge Norman K. Moon the request to sever Cantwell from the other defendants was made to balance the need to move forward with the trial after four years against Cantwell’s “legitimate right to have documents in real time — or as in real time as possible — to prepare.”

She added, “If he opposes being severed from the case, we believe he has waived any due process argument for appeal.”

Going into the trial, the plaintiffs have harbored concern that negative views of “Antifa” could prejudice jurors against holding the white supremacist organizers of Unite the Right responsible for the violence that ensued during the rally. In a motion filed on the eve of the trial, the plaintiffs requested that the court automatically excuse “any prospective jurors who hold extreme views about ‘Antifa’ and its members.”

During voir dire on Monday, Judge Moon asked prospective jurors who had expressed negative views about “Antifa” on their questionnaires if they were able to set aside what other counter-protesters may have done, and “try the case between these plaintiffs and these defendants.” Moon reminded some of the prospective jurors that the plaintiffs were not “Antifa.”

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

Karen Dunn, a lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told Judge Moon she didn’t think his questioning on jurors’ views of “antifa” was sufficient.

“People with extreme views of antifa may be less inclined to believe that defendants could be responsible and more inclined to believe defendants’ claims of self-defense,” Dunn said.

Judge Moon dismissed Dunn’s concern, suggesting that counsel for plaintiffs and defendants confer to mutually agree upon jurors that should be excused because their responses exhibited bias towards one party or the other.

The court seated a prospective juror who told the court he views “antifa” as “involving themselves in racial riots and stuff and causing a lot of problems.” While questioning the juror, Moon clarified: “No one is claiming that any member of antifa is a party in this case.”

Cantwell indicated that, in fact, he does plan to claim during trial that at least one plaintiff is involved with “Antifa.”

“It’s actually my understanding that one plaintiff is an adherent or at least a sympathizer of Antifa,” Cantwell interjected, referring to Seth Wispelwey, a United Church of Christ pastor who organized an interfaith clergy group to protest the Unite the Right rally.

(The plaintiffs have stated for the record that they are not members of Antifa.)

In response, Judge Moon admitted his lack of knowledge about the antifascist movement, saying, “I don’t know the structure of Antifa. Do they have members sign up?”

Dunn jumped in, continuing to press her case: “Mr. Cantwell’s argument underscores why it would be wrong to have people with extreme views about Antifa on the jury.”

Later, as Moon questioned another juror who said she believes Antifa is a “terrorist organization,” Dunn said she was concerned about the juror’s ability to be impartial considering that Cantwell plans to draw connections between the plaintiffs and Antifa.

Moon suggested he wouldn’t allow the defendants to pursue that argument without evidence.

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

“If you have evidence, bring it,” he said.

“I intend to ask, Mr. Wispelwey if he tweeted, ‘Jesus was Antifa,'” Cantwell said. “Because, in fact, he did.”

Moon declined to excuse the juror for cause, but the plaintiffs later used one of their peremptory strikes to keep her off the jury.

Moon dismissed another juror who said he views Antifa as “terrorists” and that he did not believe he could set aside his opinion.

Judge Moon dismissed a Black woman from the jury for cause. A school bus driver, the woman wrote on her questionnaire that she had “feelings towards hate groups that disrupt the peace.” Under questioning by Judge Moon about whether she could set aside her own opinions and follow the evidence to reach a fair decision about the defendants, the woman said, “I would think I could. I don’t know. I have so much personal opinion. I know how to be fair and listen. I don’t know why that’s difficult for me to explain. I would like to think that I could. But a hundred percent? I don’t know.”

The juror caught Spencer’s attention. During the lunch break, a hot mic caught him saying, “The bus driver who couldn’t answer the question — that strikes me as a cause.”

When defense counsel formally objected, Dunn noted to the court that she was the only minority on the first of four panels to seat the jury. Moon responded that he gave the woman an opportunity during questioning to convince him that she could put her personal beliefs aside to render an impartial judgement solely on the evidence.

“I felt I went as far as I could to rehabilitate her, and I feel she did not,” the judge said. “I’m going to excuse her for cause.”

By the end of the day on Monday, which ended with a deluge outside the courthouse in Charlottesville, Judge Moon had seated seven jurors from two panels. He said he plans to call two more panels tomorrow, but said jury selection could run over to Wednesday morning, adding that he would like to have opening statements on Wednesday afternoon.

Tom Holland is baby Indiana Jones in “Uncharted” trailer

After over a decade in development hell, Sony has finally released a trailer for “Uncharted,” its adaptation of the long-running video game series about globe-trotting treasure seeker Nathan Drake, his mentor Sully, and their assorted friends and enemies.

This new movie is a prequel, with the baby-faced Tom Holland playing a young Nathan Drake recruited by Sully (Mark Wahlberg) to go find . . . what else? . . . a long-lost treasure. Standing in their way is Antonio Banderas and at least one wild, very improbable-looking action set piece involving cargo falling out of a plane in mid-flight.

Watch below!

“Uncharted” is the latest in an upcoming series of high-profile video game adaptations that seem designed to finally dispel the notion that video game movies are terrible. (See also “The Last of Us” series on HBO, the “Fallout” series on Amazon, and so on.) With this kind of star wattage behind the movie, Sony is taking this seriously.

“Uncharted” also stars Sophia Ali and Tati Gabrielle. It’s directed by Ruben Fleisher, the buy behind “Zombieland” and “Venom.” It lands in theaters on February 18, 2022.

“Squid Game” costumes are being banned from some schools for “violent message”

Following the tremendous success of Netflix’s “Squid Game,” costumes inspired costumes are all the rage this Halloween season.

It’s easy to see why. Ranging from tracksuits to jumpsuits (so many suits!) the appeal of “Squid Game” costumes has been twofold, driven by the show’s popularity and the ease and simplicity of recreating these looks.

But the costumes aren’t appealing to everyone. The Fayetteville-Manlius district in New York has said these costumes “do not meet our school costume guidelines due to the potential violent message aligned with the costume,” CBS New York reports. Three elementary schools in Syracuse have explicitly banned “Squid Game” costumes from school Halloween events. CBS also reports that schools in Ireland and Spain have also banned these costumes.

Of course, these policies haven’t gone over so well with some parents who spoke to CBS New York about the “overbearing” policy. Dr. Joseph Ricca, superintendent in White Plains, New York, told the outlet “Squid Game” costumes won’t be banned in his schools, calling the costume ban a “slippery slope,” and noting that some costumes that mimic historically violent people like pirates (or, hey, police officers!), aren’t subject to the same rules.

“We understand that different types of costumes have different types of experience and historical connections, and it’s hard to single out one particular type of costume and say that’s not allowed,” Ricca said.

In the dystopian thriller the impoverished and desperate contestants who play deadly games for a chance at a huge cash prize wear simple and now iconic green tracksuits. Very easy, not to mention comfortable to wear, especially for groups of friends. Of course, most of those characters wind up shot dead by guards, falling from a great height or offed by a fellow competitor.
Front Man punishes a worker who broke the “Squid Game” rules (Noh Juhan/Netflix)

If that’s not your thing, then you can dress in the hot pink jumpsuits of the workers who keep the contestants in line (with guns) or as the bloodthirsty VIPs, who bet on the outcome of the games while wearing elaborate and sparkly animal masks.

Yes, most of the characters on the show kill or are killed; there’s no denying “Squid Game” is one of the more violent shows streaming right now, but children and adults can wear the costumes without watching the show.

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

It’s worth noting many if not most Halloween costumes are derived from violent characters, traditions or histories in some way or another, so it’s interesting that imagery from a popular Korean drama is where some schools in New York are choosing to draw the line.

In any case, school bans on “Squid Game” Halloween costumes aren’t the first controversy around them. Some have speculated about how in some cases, non-Asian people donning the costumes could be a slippery slope to cultural appropriation. In other cases, exorbitantly wealthy and powerful people wearing the “Squid Game” costumes of the show’s impoverished has also raised eyebrows for tone-deafness.

As a worldwide phenom, “Squid Game” has been sparking powerful conversations about capitalism, Korean culture and language since its release last month, and the buzz doesn’t appear to be letting up any time soon.

More stories like this:

From Goop to puppets, how Netflix is offering sex ed for a new age

Recently, research has confirmed that lockdown took a toll on our collective sex and dating lives. Well, Netflix is here to help with two new wildly sex-positive offerings: Gwyneth Paltrow’s appropriately Goop-y series “Sex, Love & goop,” and rapper-singer Saweetie’s “Sex: Unzipped,” featuring puppets and sex therapists galore.

Rapper-singer Saweetie’s “Sex: Unzipped” is a raunchy, hilarious and surprisingly informative hour-long Netflix special that aims to demystify sex and show how to make it enjoyable for everyone. Saweetie hosts the show by posing some of the most pressing questions on sex and sexuality today, and is joined by an all-star and diverse lineup of comedians and sexperts who share their most graphic sexual experiences and insights. But the highlight of the special is easily its chorus of sex-crazed, Muppets-esque puppets at Saweetie’s side to talk through the literal ABCs of different sex positions, sex toys, and sexual pleasure broadly.

The special isn’t afraid to get into the nitty-gritty, surveying its guest stars on their first sexual experiences, and how they would describe orgasm, while also exploring LGBTQ-inclusive sex toys, sex after transitioning for trans folks, and more.

Gwyneth Paltrow‘s six-part “Sex, Love & goop,” which she co-hosts with friend and sexpert Michaela Boehm, is a bit different — although a clitoris puppet does make a cameo. What else do you expect from the vulva-friendly lifestyle brand? The six-part series is an intimate, unapologetic celebration of female and queer sexual pleasure that surveys a handful of couples of different ages, sexualities and even gender identities about what’s missing from their sex lives, and how to get there.

At the core of both new Netflix titles is a demystified, unembarrassed and uniquely modern perspective on sex and sexuality. Here’s how each series approached today’s sex ed, a course that it’s clear that nobody had enough of in school:

Defining your sex language, aka erotic blueprint

“Goop” introduces what’s called an erotic blueprint, through which couples can understand their sexual compatibilities and bridge their erotic differences. In some ways, it’s similar to the widely popular love languages, but is more specific to sexuality and the different ways people experience sexual pleasure. Per the blueprint, there are five erotic types:

Sensual: turned on by all of their senses being ignited and seeks full-body arousal
Energetic: turned on by building up sexual energy and anticipation before the actual act of sex itself
Sexual: turned on by the traditional symbols and conceptions of sex, like nudity, genitals, and penetration
Kinky: attracted to what’s tabboo, physically or psychologically
Shapeshifter: turned on by all of this

Sex without traditional sexual intercourse

Even if someone falls into one of these types, just how much pleasure can one get beyond actual “sexual” touching that we identify with sex? One very, very brave couple finds out with hands-on experience in “Sex, Love & goop.”

Erika and Damon have been struggling with their sex life, which extends from Damon’s belief that he’s just innately more sexual and horny than Erika is and that she’s “conservative.” What a crock! What they discover is that neither is “more sexual” than the other — they just have different turn-ons.

It turns out that Erika is actually high on the energetic and kinky scale, and Damon tests more traditionally sexual at first but once he lets go of his preconceptions, he finds that’s he’s also incredibly high on the energetic turn-ons. In fact . . . he even has an energetic orgasm onscreen that’s so powerful, he’s high from the experience much longer than from traditional sex.

Hear Damon discuss it in this trailer for “Sex, Love & goop,” via YouTube.

The ABCs like you’ve never heard them before

“Sex: Unzipped” doesn’t introduce the erotic blueprint, but the special definitely explores the many ways beyond penetration that people experiment with sexual pleasure. Guest stars detail their varied familiarity sex toys for their various cavities, while puppets sing the ABCs of varying alternate sex behaviors.

This is far beyond elementary, my dear.

“A is for anal, B is for ball sack, C is for cunniligus, cock, clitoris and climax, D is for dildo, it’s a d**k without a guy, E is for ejaculate . . . F is for fisting, have you found your G-spot? H is for a handjob round the back of the chemistry block.” By the letter M, the song hits its stride, as the puppets sing, “M is for mutual masturbation, N, nipple stimulation, Oral, Penile, just a Quickie, Rimming or Scrotalingus.”

The truth about losing your virginity

In 2017, Rihanna joked that if she could go back in time to any moment in her life and disappear from it, she would choose the moment she lost her virginity. It’s a sentiment shared by the roster of stars and comedians who feature in “Sex: Unzipped,” as they detail just how uncomfortable their first times were.

Unlike some of the others, Nikki Glaser, comedian and host of “FBoy Island,” had an OK time — but with a twist. “I luckily met a guy who knew I was a virgin, and took a lot of care and pride in taking my virginity . . . and then he eventually moved to New York to be with his girlfriend, and never really called me again,” she said.

Dominique Jackson, a trans actress best known for her role in FX’s “Pose,” recounted the discomfort of her first time, before she eventually transitioned. “My parts didn’t feel like they were supposed to be mine, so it was a bit confusing,” she said. “I tried to find the pleasure, but it was more a mental thing, ‘Oh my gosh, I’m having sex,’ rather than a whole spiritual and body engagement that I feel now.”

All said, there’s a wide range of experiences when it comes to virginity, many of which lack the glamour, romance and sexual savvy of the teens of “Riverdale.” And virginity, or first-time sexual experiences, will always mean something different — or nothing at all — to different people. As one puppet on “Sex: Unzipped” puts it, “I don’t believe in virginity. I don’t think your first sexual experience is defined by penetration. It’s not like some magic d**k comes along and changes you forever.”

Unpacking queer and trans sexual experiences

On “Sex, Love & goop,” lesbian couple Camille and Shandra open up about their struggles to feel confident in their sex life. Sex and intimacy coach Darshana Avila introduces them to unique vibrators for lesbian sexual encounters, and other sex toys to allow them to shed their inhibitions and just have fun. Camille ultimately realizes what’s holding her back is insecurity and an overarching feeling of shame and discomfort about her sexual expression, which is instilled in all of us from a young age, and can especially affect people who aren’t cis and straight.

On the other hand, another couple, Sera and Dash, who’s nonbinary, have a thriving sex life. What they seek is unlocking a deeper level of emotional intimacy, and healing from past wounds, like the conflicts and inner struggles that led to both of their prior divorces before meeting each other.

To that end, Sera and Dash have a session with Family Constellations facilitator Katarina Wittich, who performs that particular therapy, “a group practice that helps investigate what it is that’s stuck in an individual’s life.” The session is facilitated “not by talking or thinking,” but using other members of a group to represent one’s family of origin and allow you to see “the patterns that led to you being who you are.”

This may be a bit woo-woo or trippy for some. There are literally strangers speaking and acting as if they are you, your parents or other loved ones from a first-person perspective. And what they reveal supposedly gives insight into their hang-ups and how they might have affected you.

Family constellations, which were adopted by a German psychologist named Bert Hellinger from people the Zulu people in South Africa, may not be for everyone, and it was certainly eyebrow-raising to see a mostly white group practice a South African tradition. But the therapy session certainly shed light on the different yet universal challenges we all face to experience true intimacy, regardless of gender identity or sexuality.

There’s a (dating) app for that

Speaking of the diversity of queer and trans sexual experiences, on “Sex: Unzipped,” the special’s dating app segment further highlights all the different ways people of all genders and sexualities are connecting nowadays. As Joel Kim Booster (“Sunnyside”), a gay Asian comedian puts it, “You gotta cast a wide net if you want to catch a lot of fish.”

“RuPaul’s Drag Race: All Stars” winner Trixie Mattel walks us through how “Tinder [is] for the straight people, Grindr [is] for the people who grind,” and another app, Growler, is hyper-specific to find bears, the larger and usually hairier gay men who often have a rugged, masculine charm to them. Alexander Cheves, a gay sex writer and author, says he uses Scruff, a dating app for gay men that allows users to “woof” at each other if they’re interested.

We’ve known dating apps have rapidly expanded beyond Tinder and Bumble. Now, “Sex: Unzipped” walks us through the wide range of online dating platforms that have become a safe, sexy haven for people of all genders and sexualities.

More asexuality representation and understanding needed

Still, as progressive as these shows may be, it’s also important to recognize that at different points, both projects contribute to the erasure of asexuality and the ace spectrum. “Sex: Unzipped,” in particular, opens with Saweetie telling audiences, “Making love, hooking up, smashing, knocking the boots, getting pipe — sex, whatever you want to call it, is a huge part of life,” when this isn’t necessarily true for everyone.

Acknowledgement of the ace spectrum can perfectly coexist with raunchy sex specials like “Sex: Unzipped,” or intimate sex therapy shows like “Sex, Love & goop.” But it’s crucial that shows and specials like this put in the effort to educate about sexual desire without universalizing it.

That said, we can all learn from them about the diversity of what intimacy and sexual pleasure look like for all the different people and erotic types out there. Both projects are keenly aware that society remains uncomfortable and in many ways conservative when it comes to talking openly about sex, let alone non-cis-straight people sex. But “Sex, Love & goop” and “Sex: Unzipped” ultimately treat this discomfort as a fun challenge. They take audiences to entirely new places, offering upbeat commentary on the increasingly joyful and open state of our modern conversations on sex, today.

“Sex, Love & goop” and “Sex: Unzipped” are now streaming on Netflix.

More stories like this:

Texas Republican offers $1 million voter fraud bounty; Democrat who caught a Republican collects

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Trump backer who offered a minimum of $25,000 to anyone who could find evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election, has finally paid out his first bounty – to a progressive who found evidence of Republican foul play.

The unlikely recipient, Eric Frank, a poll worker from Chester County, Pennsylvania, is set to collect the $25,000 minimum, according to The Dallas Morning News. Frank reportedly caught sight of 72-year-old Republican voter Ralph Thurman attempting to vote twice – once for himself and once for his son, a registered Democrat. Thurman pleaded guilty last month to repeat voting. He was sentenced to three years probation and is now prohibited from voting for the next four years, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Back in November of last year, during the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election loss, Patrick announced that he would be offering up to $1 million “to incentivize, encourage and reward people to come forward and report voter fraud.” The Republican specifically promised that reports leading to convictions would earn at least $25,000, telling would-be informants to contact their local authorities.

“I support President Trump’s efforts to identify voter fraud in the presidential election and his commitment to making sure that every legal vote is counted and every illegal vote is disqualified,” Patrick said at the time. “President Trump’s pursuit of voter fraud is not only essential to determine the outcome of this election, it is essential to maintain our democracy and restore faith in future elections.”

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

But Patrick’s bounty, ostensibly put in place to catch Democratic fraudsters, now appears to have backfired.

“I just think it’s extremely ironic…they were trying to see voter fraud from someone that was a Democrat. And it turns out that, at least for me, for my case that I witnessed, it was a Republican voter. So, in fact I think it kind of blew up in their face a little bit,” Frank told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in an interview last week. “I never thought in a million years that I would get paid.”

It isn’t the first time that Republicans have been caught attempting to defraud the 2020 election, CNN noted.

Back in May, a Republican township trustee in Delaware County, Pennsylvania was sentenced to five years probation after he was caught trying to cast a ballot for Trump in his late mother’s name.

me thinking about that handsome reward rn pic.twitter.com/sVZYoeHBPn

— John Fetterman (@JohnFetterman) December 21, 2020

All about Brandy Snaps, the lacy biscuit from “The Great British Bake Off”

The second episode of the 12th season of “The Great British Bake Off” premiered on Sept. 28, and once again, there were some sweet recipes. Most notably were Brandy Snaps, which were introduced as part of the show’s signature challenge. They sound delicious, right? Are they just gingersnaps made with brandy and filled with cream? Yes and no. Ahead, find out how to make a traditional batch of Brandy Snaps, plus how to make them your own.

What are Brandy Snaps?

These thin, rolled cookies only call for a few ingredients but they’re quite fragile to make, which is why they’re the perfect recipe to introduce in a competition baking show like “GBBO,” especially during “Biscuit Week.” In this week’s challenge, bakers could form the cookies in any shape they pleased but they had to be coated, dipped, or filled, a signature feature of Brandy Snaps. They also must look identical, another signature feature of these British cookies.

According to Prue Leith, “It’s not a Brandy Snap if it doesn’t snap.” Seems simple enough, but the problem is that any cream filling or coating contributes moisture, which could cause an otherwise crunchy cookie to turn soft, soggy, and sad quite quickly.

A traditional Brandy Snap is made with butter, granulated brown sugar, dark molasses or corn syrup, a blend of warming spices (think: ground ginger and cinnamon), flour, and of course, brandy. The wet ingredients are combined in a saucepan and heated to form a caramel sauce; the caramel is then mixed with flour and brandy and formed into a dough. Once the dough has chilled thoroughly in the fridge, individual balls are formed and baked; as they bake, they spread out into paper-thin discs, which are later rolled into hollow logs and filled with whipped cream. Add a splash of brandy to the cream for even more sweet, spiced notes.

Variations of Brandy Snaps

During this week’s episode, bakers took the liberty of developing their own recipe for Brandy Snaps. Contestant Lizzie filled hers with crème diplomat, a nearly indestructible pastry cream, and apples caramelized in Calvados brandy. Contestant Crystelle shaped her Brandy Snaps into an open shell and filled each one with apple cider vinegar-soaked apples and piled a crumble topping with vanilla chantilly cream on each biscuit. Other bakers formed a traditional cigar-shaped snap and filled them with varied cream fillings: blackcurrant and crème de cassis, orange blossom and pistachio, and coffee.

***

Recipe: Brandy Snaps

Makes: 60 to 70 cookies (feel free to halve the recipe)

Ingredients

1 cup butter
1 cup granulated sugar
2/3 cup dark molasses
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon ginger
2 cups all-purpose flour
4 teaspoons brandy
Heavy whipping cream (optional)

Directions

Preheat oven to 325° F.
Stir butter, sugar, molasses, cinnamon, and ginger together over low heat until melted.
Remove from heat and add flour and brandy. Chill the dough until firm enough to shape, about 20 minutes.
Roll into 3/4-inch balls and place on the baking sheet. Leave room for them to spread.
Bake for approximately 12 to 13 minutes on Silpat- or parchment paper-lined cookie sheet.
When the cookies have cooled enough that you can touch them but they are still warm (about 5 minutes), use a spatula to pull them from the sheet and quickly roll them around a pencil to form tubes (rubber gloves recommended to prevent your fingers from burning). When the cookies are flat, they should look almost like a lace cookie. They are very fragile, so if you over bake, they’ll break and be too brittle to roll; under-baking just a smudge is good.
If you’d like (and are serving immediately), whip up some heavy whipping cream and dot each end of the rolled cookies with it.

In the world of Star Trek, would people still cook even though they have access to a replicator?

One of the great narrative dilemmas for sci-fi and fantasy writers imagining wondrous alternative realities is the question of want. It’s fun to conjure worlds where, through magic or technology, humans have conquered the twin problems of needing resources and having to work to get them. But it’s also harder to devise the conflicts that drive narrative fiction in worlds were people’s material needs are all met.

In the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling splits the difference, giving wizards the ability to do away with drudgery through magic, but still needing money to buy food, property, and goods. In his Magicians trilogy, Lev Grossman leans into his characters’ ability to generate money with magic, exploring the question of how insufferable want-free people might actually be. In Marvel’s Avengers series, Tony Stark’s invention of free energy mostly frees up the characters to focus on big, comic book-y threats, like A.I. robots and space invaders. (Though one wonders why Tony doesn’t do more to address the resource problems that drive Thanos to commit universal genocide.)

Then there’s Star Trek, the 800 pound gorilla of utopian fiction, in which a futuristic Earth has solved the problem of want and even abolished money, so that people only work if they wish to. The narratives, then, take place almost exclusively off-planet, where challenges arise for characters because they are at the farthest reaches of the universe, instead of the safety of Earth. But even in outer space, characters have access to the replicator, an imaginary bit of futuristic technology that can generate most resources — especially food, air, and even machine parts — out of their access to near-infinite energy.

Apparently, a lot of Star Trek writers hated the replicator, which was conceived for the 90s revival series “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” In 2017, famed screenwriter Ron Moore complained to Bleeding Cool that replicators “are the worst thing ever,” and that they destroy “storytelling all the time,” because nothing “has value in the universe if you can just replicate everything.”

I came to Star Trek fandom only a few years ago. From the vantage of being a semi-plausible foodie with a CSA account and strong opinions on kitchen gadgets, it was easy to spot another storytelling problem with the replicator: A world where people regularly eat food but never need to cook it is, frankly, unsettling. So long as it’s programmed into their nearly-infinite memory databanks, the characters on Star Trek can have whatever food or drink they want at the push of a button. No one has a kitchen, and no characters need even basic kitchen skills, like toasting bread or chopping vegetables.

It’s clear some Star Trek writers also find it uncanny, the concept of a world without cooking. Characters often make comments about how various replicated dishes just don’t taste quite as good as their earthbound counterparts that are presumably made by hand. In purely scientific terms, this doesn’t really make sense. This isn’t like the 21st century, where mass produced instant foods are laden down with preservatives and made with inadequate ingredients. Replicated food is an exact copy of a dish made by hand, right down to the molecular level, and so should be indistinguishable from homemade food.

But the jokes about replicated food’s shortcomings serve a function, to anchor the characters in this fantastical universe in their humanity. They may be flying through space, surrounded by impossibly sophisticated technology, but the characters on Star Trek still long for Mom’s sweet potato casserole. As with the characters’ constant use of familiar cultural references — they seem to never talk about books written or records recorded after the early 21st century — it’s about signaling to the audience that these characters are just like you and me.

Preparing food, it turns out, is central to the human conception of ourselves, so much so that it’s impossible to imagine that people would give up this form of labor entirely, even if they could. As the Star Trek series went on and expanded into various spinoffs, writers fleshed out the relationship of the characters to their food traditions, rooting them in human cultures that are familiar to the viewers.

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

On “Deep Space Nine,” Commander Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks) is son to a New Orleans food restauranteer, and has a kitchen awkwardly set up in his quarters, so he can keep touch with his roots by making Cajun dishes, presumably with replicated ingredients. The more recent series “Picard” on Paramount+ portrays the now-retired Starfleet captain running his family’s vineyard, reminding viewers that Jean-Luc is supposed to be French, despite actor Patrick Stewart’s English accent. Both “Deep Space Nine” and “Next Generation” have a bar setting, where characters gather not just to drink and socialize, but to be waited on by bartender characters — Quark (Armin Shimerman) and Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg) — instead of simply ordering a computer to conjure up beverages from thin air.

A lot of this is driven by storytelling needs, of course, and creating character beats and settings that are legible to viewers. But there’s also something deeper revealed in the way that Star Trek keeps circling around this idea that humans wouldn’t give up on food cultivation and preparation, not entirely, just because they can.

After all, real people in our very un-sci-fi world still garden, even when they can buy whatever they want at the grocery store. It’s why folks spend real time and money in the kitchen, instead of ordering off Seamless every night. It’s why the dinner party persists, even with restaurants as competition. And it’s why even people who can barely boil water still get caught up in cooking competition shows like “Top Chef” of “The Great British Bake-Off.” There’s something visceral about growing and preparing food that is satisfying beyond just the eating of it. And while we all rely on fast food at times to keep ourselves fed, slowing down and actually making our food nourishes our creativity and our humanity in a way no push-button convenience ever could.

More stories about what we watch and eat:

Humans domesticated pigeons, then abandoned them. Is it time for a reappraisal?

What words come to mind when you think about pigeons? Nasty, dirty, gross — maybe just plain “ew“? Pigeons are ubiquitous to urban life, but humans are not generally fond of them. And while they may have a reputation for being the rats of the sky, author Rosemary Mosco is here to change that.

In her new book, “A Pocket Guide to Pigeon Watching: Getting to Know the World’s Most Misunderstood Bird,” Mosco, a bird-watcher and science communicator, argues that our ignorant assumptions about pigeons are all wrong. They are not the “rats of birds,” as some say. Rather, they are unique and intelligent dinosaur descendants that have been abandoned by today’s humans. Despite their tendencies to use their sharp beaks and claws to tear their way through human trash, the societal hatred toward pigeons is unwarranted. In fact, if only people really understood how special these birds are, perhaps we’d treat them better — or at the very least, give them the respect they deserve.

But Mosco isn’t painting these urban cooers as saviors to whom we should build shrines, either. Rather, she argues that we should seek to enjoy them instead of hating them. For instance, pigeon-watching could be a relaxing and entertaining activity for city dwellers, if not for our stigmas towards pigeons. Though it may sound like the realm of bird nerds, Mosco makes the case that pigeon-watching can be just as thrilling as traveling to your nearest national park to watch hawks.

Salon chatted with Mosco to learn more about why pigeons are so misunderstood, how to see beauty in them, and how people can enjoy the presence of pigeons instead of loathing them. This interview has been condensed and edited for print.

I’m curious about why you decided to write a book about pigeons, of all birds.

Well, I’ve been a bird watcher for most of my life. I really like how birds are pretty much everywhere. That means that anytime you’re bored, you just look around, and you’re going to be amused and pulled into [bird] drama — you’re going to see beautiful things.

I’ve also lived in all sorts of different cities, my whole life. So, pigeons are kind of a natural thing to start watching when you live in cities — and then the more you look at them, the more amazing they get.

Part of the book is about how pigeons are misunderstood. And I’m curious if you’ve come across someone in public who perhaps saw a pigeon and was like, “Ew, I hate pigeons.” What might you tell this person?

That did actually happen to me once. And it sort of triggered the idea for the book, or at least got the idea cooking.

I was waiting to catch the subway, and there was a woman waiting. She looked about my age, she was sort of frustrated and she took, like, a kick at a pigeon. She didn’t kick it, but did kind of threaten it. I was really shocked, and I said “Oh, don’t kick them,” and she just turned on me and said, “You know, they’re garbage, they’re trash, they shouldn’t be alive.”

Wow, that’s intense.

Yeah. And I thought, “what is it about pigeons that engenders that kind of intensity?” I’m really hoping that this book will help people understand why they’re here, and why they like to hang out on roofs, and maybe why we should be a little more understanding.

Can you summarize why people should be more understanding and kinder towards pigeons?

The wildest thing to me about pigeons, at least the city pigeons around us — there are different kinds of pigeons — that they are feral domesticated animals. They’re just like a dog, a cat, or a feral horse or a feral goat. They were domesticated by humans a really long time ago, thousands of years ago. But the difference with pigeons is that we’ve sort of forgotten that we domesticated them.

So we brought them from their homes in parts of Europe, Asia and North Africa, and then forgot why we did it. And now we’re sort of angry that these animals are in our space. And I think that that’s kind of a real shame, because you learn more about nature when you understand the history and the context of why they’re here.

When you put it into perspective like that, it’s really a sad story about humans abandoning these birds.

Right? And they were really bred to be good at living near us. And then, we forgot, and now they keep hanging around us. And we’re like, “why are they here?” Well, that’s why.

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

In the book you compare pigeons to dinosaurs and puppies, which I thought was really clever. Could you explain to our readers that connection?

A few different things happened. Probably the first is that they went feral, which would have happened pretty much around when we domesticated them; some of them would have gotten out. And then all of the reasons that we domesticated them became obsolete. So, I think of them as kind of like a fax machine. It used to be really useful to use pigeons for meat, and later they were useful for carrying messages, and to use them for their poop — which is an excellent fertilizer — and a whole bunch of other reasons, all of which have been replaced by technology, pretty much. Or in the case of meat, you know, we have factory farms with chickens now.

So they became obsolete. And then in New York in the 1960s, we started to blame them for a bunch of illnesses, in particular a meningitis outbreak. So then people started to think, ew, not only are they these sort of useless stray things, but also they’re getting sick. And up until then, for the most part people had pretty much held them in either neutral or really high esteem.

I was really surprised to hear the super-rich, back in the day, really valued pigeons. Or, how you said that pigeons were like, the original internet. Is there a way to reintegrate these uses back into our society?

Well, there are definitely places in the world where people still eat them, or still breed fancy pigeons So partly what’s going on is just that, where we live, people sort of got less into pigeons for this part. And there are even pigeon clubs in America — there are pigeon shows, like dog shows. I’ve never been to one, because I wrote this book mostly during the pandemic, but I really want to go to one.

But people are definitely being innovative with pigeons. There’s an artist who was attaching LED lights to pigeons and having them fly around, doing an organic drone show. And more and more, people are keeping them as pets, which I think is really interesting. You can carry them around on your shoulder and have them run around your house and you buy pigeon pants for them, which are basically diapers. There is this huge community of people online who have pet pigeons, they share cute photos . . . they definitely have a role to play.

I’m curious what surprised you the most about pigeons while you were reporting on this subject?

I think the most surprising fact about pigeons might be that they feed their babies milk. Both male and female pigeons are able to produce milk in this area of the digestive system called their crop. It’s really amazing. It’s stimulated by prolactin, which is the same hormone that stimulates breast milk in human women. It’s got proteins and fats and it helps boost the immune system. It’s so wild to me that they’ve independently evolved this way to support their babies, and it’s really interesting that both the males and the females can do it.

So that’s why it’s hard to raise pigeons in a factory farm setting, because they have to feed their children milk for the first few days, which is wild to me.

Then some of the wilder notes from history, like Nikola Tesla falling in love with a pigeon. She was the only love of his life; that blew me away.

For people who don’t really live near nature, do you think that pigeon watching can provide readers with a nature fix?

Yeah, for sure. There’s so much nature in our cities, and so much of it is connected with human culture and human history. And I feel like for a long time, people have written off urban nature, because they see it as not, like, “real” nature. But there’s so much cool stuff that you can see in cities, and you can really just immerse yourself in nature, even in the depths of the city. And pigeons can be a gateway for that.

Do you have any tips for people who are interested in getting into pigeon watching?

Yes, keep your eyes open and when you see some pigeons, give them a second look. Start to notice the different colors and patterns. If you see pigeons, maybe two pigeons near each other, ask yourself: “Are they a romantic mating-for-life pigeon pair?” They might very well be. Then look at their behavior. If they suddenly take off in the air, look for a falcon.

That’s kind of how you pigeon-watch, it’s pretty easy. You can do it when you’re commuting or when you’re grabbing lunch. Just give them a second look.

Mike Pence is “still angry” that Trump put his life “in jeopardy” on Jan. 6

Speaking to Vanity Fair, a friend of Mike Pence says the former vice president is still upset over the fact that Donald Trump put him and his family in danger on Jan. 6.

Pence is reportedly “still angry that Trump placed his and his family members’ lives in jeopardy,” Vanity Fair reports, citing Pence’s friend. Trump and Pence “still trade phone calls sporadically,” according to their advisers.

During the Capitol riot, Trump supporters were caught on video chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”

“I heard at least 3 different rioters at the Capitol say that they hoped to find Vice President Mike Pence and execute him by hanging him from a Capitol Hill tree as a traitor,” reported Reuters photographer Jim Bourg. “It was a common line being repeated. Many more were just talking about how the VP should be executed.”

Trump and Pence have avoided being seen together in public. Pence is reportedly seeking a 2024 presidential bid.

“He’s making real money for the first time in his life,” said one longtime friend. “Running for president is also a great way of making six-figure speeches.”

After Republicans push anti-mask policies, Arizona’s COVID death rate now as high as New York’s

As Arizona Republicans fight vaccine and mask mandates, the state has caught up to New York in total deaths per capita — even as deaths from COVID-19 are falling nationwide, deaths in Arizona are going up.

According to The Washington Post, deaths have risen 138% in the seven-day average per 100,000 people last week.

In March, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, R-Ariz., lifted all pandemic restrictions, including prohibiting government mask mandates, citing vaccination rates and declining COVID-19 numbers. The move faced criticism from Democrats and health experts. In a statement from the Health System Alliance of Arizona, a group representing Arizona’s hospital chains said at the time, “A downward trend is not synonymous with the elimination of the virus,” and “COVID-19 mitigation strategies work.”

Cases have also been rising in Arizona, up 10% in the last 14 days according to The New York Times. Ducey has encouraged vaccines, but vaccination rates have stalled in Arizona — only a little more than half of the state’s population is vaccinated, at 53% .

Will Humble, executive director of Arizona’s Public Health Association, told the Post, “we’ve hit a brick wall when it comes to vaccinating vaccine-resistant seniors.” Only around 21% of Arizonans under 20 are vaccinated as well, which is causing them to transmit to COVID-19 to unvaccinated adults and seniors.

“It’s not like the kids are ending up in the hospitals, but they are starting chains of transmission [to] vaccine-resistant adults and seniors who do end up in the hospitals,” Humble told the Post.

As public health officials and health workers worry about the rise of cases and deaths and the stalling of vaccinations, Gov. Ducey and his colleagues have led a fight against COVID mandates. Arizona was the first state to sue the Biden administration over it’s vaccine requirements for federal employees and private-sector workers. Most recently, Arizona’s Attorney General, Mark Brnovich filed a request for a restraining order to block the vaccine requirements.

In a news release, Brnovich said “The COVID-19 vaccine mandate is one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberty … by any administration in our country’s history.”

Vaccine mandates have long been a part of American history. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905, the Supreme Court ruled a Massachusetts law that mandated smallpox vaccines as constitutional, saying a city or town may mandate vaccines if “it is necessary for the public health or safety.”

Greg Abbott approves Texas redistricting that preserves GOP power, dilutes voters of color

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday signed off on new congressional and legislative districts produced by the Republican-dominated legislature to protect its majority.

Texas gained two congressional seats in Congress after the 2020 U.S. census, with people of color making up 95% of the state’s population growth. But Republican lawmakers targeted communities with large numbers of voters of color, which are more likely to vote Democratic, and “grafted them onto massive districts dominated by white voters” while also making more districts less competitive, according to the Texas Tribune.

Texas has a long history of racial gerrymanders. Though the state was banned under the 1965 Voting Rights Act from discriminating against voters of color, Texas has been found in violation of federal law after every redistricting cycle since the law was passed. The Supreme Court in 2013 gutted a section of the law requiring states with a history of racial discrimination to pre-clear electoral changes, including new maps, with the Justice Department. The court later ruled that federal courts have no jurisdiction over partisan gerrymandering, though they can still intervene in cases of blatant racial gerrymanders.

State Sen. Joan Huffman, a Republican who led the redistricting process, insisted that the lawmakers who drew the news maps are “race blind.”

“We have not looked at any racial data as we drew these maps, and to this day I have not looked at any racial data,” she said at a hearing earlier this month.

Voting rights advocates pushed back on Huffman’s argument.

“Color blind has two meanings — one that decisions are made without racial bias. These maps have obviously been made with racial bias,” retired teacher Elisa Gonzalez said at a hearing. “However, this committee is also color blind in terms of being deliberately blind to citizens of color by making maps that silence their impact.”

Valerie Street, president of the voting rights group Our Vote Texas, said that Texans of color feel that their voting power has been “taken from us.”

“It’s very difficult to try to convince Texans that they are truly and fairly represented in a map where our voice has been silenced, where our voting strength has been diminished,” Street told the Texas Tribune. “You can’t say you represent us if you don’t see us.”

The new maps have already sparked a federal lawsuit from Latino voting rights groups, who allege that the redistricting plan violates the Voting Rights Act and unconstitutionally dilutes the voting power of Latino voters.

Latinos made up nearly half the state’s population growth over the last decade, but the new state legislative maps reduce the number of Latino-majority districts from 33 to 30, while the new congressional map shrinks the number of Latino-majority districts from eight to seven.

“Despite having only recently been found liable by a federal court for intentional racial discrimination in redistricting, Texas has once again adopted plans that dilute Latino voting strength,” said Nina Perales, vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which successfully sued the state over its maps a decade earlier. “The new redistricting plans are an unlawful attempt to thwart the changing Texas electorate and should be struck down.”

Another federal lawsuit filed by the advocacy group Voto Latino and backed by the National Redistricting Action Fund was filed Monday, and similarly accuses the state of violating the Voting Rights Act.

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

“We simply cannot allow Governor Abbott to deny Texans a free and fair election through these undemocratic, gerrymandered maps that fail spectacularly to represent the state’s growing communities of color,” former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, chairman of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement. “Abbott is running away from a fair fight and is doing everything possible to avoid elections with a map that properly reflects Texas’ significant demographic growth over the past decade. These communities deserve a new map that complies with the Voting Rights Act and puts power back in the hands of Texans.”

The maps would appear to solidify the Republican grip on the state’s electorate. Though Donald Trump won Texas with 52% of the popular vote, he would have carried 65% of the new congressional districts. The map also protects Republicans in the state Senate. Trump carried 16 state Senate districts in 2020 while President Joe Biden carried 15, but Trump would have won 19 districts under the new map.

“With his signature today, Governor Abbott continues the shameful five-decade-long tradition of ramming through extremely gerrymandered maps in an undemocratic process,” Anthony Gutierrez, the executive director of the nonpartisan good-government group Common Cause Texas, said in a statement. Gutierrez added: “None of the maps accurately reflect the changing population of our state. Instead, these maps are intentionally designed to silence Black and Brown voters from having a voice in our democracy and erase their representation in our government.”

Read more on the Republicans’ redistricting power grab:

New census data should be a boost to Democrats — but GOP is likely to win anyway

New round of GOP gerrymandering in Southern states could be the most racist yet

GOP poised to gerrymander its hold on power — Democrats fall short in nearly every key state

The right’s latest anti-trans hysteria just blew up

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — who is on quite the rampage against the rights, and even lives, of Texas residents — has struck again. On Monday, the governor signed a law barring trans athletes from teams corresponding to their gender. The law requires students to play on teams based on the gender listed on their birth certificate, not the one they live as, even if they take gender-affirming hormones that could affect their athletic performance. This impacts not just minor students in junior high and high schools, but legal adults who are in college athletics.

The cover story for this attack on trans rights is that it’s about “protecting” girls and women, on the unevidenced grounds that trans girls and women have unfair advantages in sports. Rep. Valoree Swanson, the Republican who is the lead sponsor on the bill, has been maximally smarmy in her rhetoric about her supposed love of girls, her desire for them to be safe, and her enthusiasm for their ambitions.

“It’s very important that we, who got elected to be here, protect our girls,” Swanson said earlier this month in defense of what she described as a “need a statewide level playing field.”

She is lying.

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

Swanson doesn’t care about girls or women, and, in fact, is a classic Aunt Lydia type, a standard female misogynist. Like Abbott, she has a long track record of backing laws that will derail the ambitions of young women, make their lives much harder, and undermine both their health and safety. For instance, she not only voted for SB8, the infamous Texas law that bans abortion through a literal bounty hunter system, but also has a long history of sponsoring anti-abortion legislation, as well as opposing contraception education that can prevent abortions. Far from wanting young women to have fulfilling lives chasing their dreams, Swanson wants to wield forced childbirth as a weapon to derail their ambitions. The language about “protecting” girls is just bad faith posturing, trying to make a vicious attack on the rights of young trans people sound somehow ennobling.

Unfortunately, time and again, Republicans are able to get away with lying to the press about the motivations behind their anti-trans beliefs and actions, pretending that they’re just trying to “protect” women. Their history, however, shows that they will hurt women and undermine women’s rights every chance they get. Texas’ latest attack is particularly egregious as the anti-trans law comes right on the heels of the state’s passage of a draconian abortion ban that has gutted Roe v. Wade and left thousands of women and girls, many of whom are rape victims, facing the dire prospect of forced childbirth.

The extreme bad faith driving the current anti-trans hysteria sweeping the country is also evident in Virginia, where Republicans are campaigning for gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin by bashing trans people and hiding behind phony postures about the “safety” of women and girls as an excuse.

While most of the theatrical displays of incoherent right-wing outrage at school board meetings has been about white parental anger about kids learning historical facts about racism, there’s been a hefty side dose of hysterics at the idea that trans kids might be allowed to use the bathroom and play on sports teams in peace. In the closing weeks of the gubernatorial race in Virginia, the GOP’s culture war strategy has zeroed in on Loudoun County.

The deeply troubling situation in Loudoun County involves a rape that happened in the bathroom of one of the county’s public high schools in May. Rumors started to fly throughout the community, aided by national right-wing media, that the accused rapist was “gender fluid” and was wearing a skirt during the attack. The implication was that the school’s pro-trans policy regarding bathrooms allowed the kid to pretend to be female in order to lurk in the bathroom and attack students.

This right-wing spin on the story, unsurprisingly, turned out not be true.

The rapist — who has been identified in the press as a “boy” and whose gender identity and clothing was not discussed during trial — was convicted in juvenile court on Monday. Testimony revealed that the true story was one of dating violence, and has nothing to do with the bathroom policies at the high school. As the Washington Post reports, the rapist and his victim had been seeing each other and “had agreed to meet up in a school bathroom,” and “chose to go in the girls’ bathroom because the two had always met in the girls’ bathrooms in the past.” Once there, the boy the victim thought was her friend raped her.

It’s a terrible situation, especially as the school district appears to have mishandled everything, allowing the assailant to attend another school, where he attacked another girl. But notably, this story is yet another example of the ongoing problem of sexual violence being minimized and disregarded — a problem that exists predominantly because of sexism. Indeed, the same Republicans seizing on this story have a robust history of sticking up for accused sexual predators, even in the case of Donald Trump, who has been accused by over two dozen women and is on tape bragging about his crimes.

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

This case has nothing to do with trans rights but is very much about the ongoing problem of dating violence. But, of course, the same Republicans up in arms over trans kids aren’t super interested in doing anything to fight back against domestic violence, which is an actual threat against girls and women.

Multiple GOP candidates for Senate in the 2022 race have histories of violence against women, and by and large, it doesn’t seem to be affecting their chances. The majority — 172 — of Republicans in the House voted against the Violence Against Women Act earlier this year, with nary a ripple of protest from the same people pretending trans people are a threat to women and girls. In Texas, a law that would mandate dating violence education, which could help prevent crimes such as the one in Loudoun, was vetoed by Abbott over the summer.

In a recent speech, Rep. Madison Cawthorne, R-N.C., instructed parents, “if you are raising a young man, please raise them to be a monster,” on the grounds that non-monster men are emasculated. Of course, the primary victims of monster men are girls and women, as any look at the epidemic of sexual and domestic violence will demonstrate. There’s no universe in which Cawthorne’s advice can be squared with claims of “protecting” girls and women.

The abuse of trans people and the abuse of women are tied closely together, both rooted in support for cis male supremacy that depends heavily on rigid gender policing. The reality is that trans people are more likely to be victims than victimizers, and the vast majority of sexual assailants, regardless of the victim’s gender identity, are cis men. There’s no conflict between protecting cis women and girls and protecting trans rights. On the contrary, both require fighting sexist oppression that normalizes violence, deprives people of sexual autonomy, and demonizes anyone who rejects patriarchal gender roles. Above all, don’t get it twisted — the same people who are attacking trans rights are also out to destroy the rights of cis women and girls.

GOP congressman says he would be “proud” to learn his staff helped plan “Stop the Steal” rally

Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., appeared to shift blame to his staff while also heaping praise on them following a report that he and other Trump-friendly lawmakers had meetings with organizers of the Capitol riot.

“I don’t know if my staff did,” Brooks told CNN when asked if he played any part in planning the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6. “But if they did I’d be proud of them for helping to put together a rally lawful under the First Amendment at the ellipse to protest voter fraud & election theft.”

In a recent report from Rolling Stone, two right-wing organizers of the “Stop the Steal” rally alleged that Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., Madison Cawthorn, R-N.C., Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, corresponded with them ahead of the demonstration on January 6. The sources reportedly described “dozens” of briefings with these lawmakers and were at one point offered “blanket immunity” in another investigation to sweeten the deal.

Brooks, the first member of Congress to formally object to President Biden’s win in the 2020 election, spoke at the rally beforehand.

“Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” he said during his speech, during which he wore body armor.

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

Shortly after the insurrection, Brooks was sued by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who alleged that the Republican – along with Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and ex-Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani – were responsible for the civil damages incurred by the riot. Brooks has sought immunity from the suit, claiming the speech was part of his official duties, but the Department of Justice has refused to defend him. Brooks reportedly spent a week dodging private investigators hired by Swalwell in order to avoid being served the papers for the suit.

In a July court filing, Brooks attempted to bat away the lawsuit by ostensibly putting the blame on Trump, saying that he “only gave the Ellipse Speech because the White House asked him to, in his capacity as a United States Congressman.”

According to a Washington Post report, Ali Alexander, a far-right activist who helped organize the “Stop the Steal” rally, fingered Brooks as one of the three chief lawmakers that came up with the idea for the demonstration.

“We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting,” Alexander said in a since-deleted video. Brooks denied the allegation, with his staff even claiming that the Alabama lawmaker “has no recollection of ever communicating in any way with whoever Ali Alexander is.”

In August, Brooks expressed sympathy with a man who threatened to bomb the library of Congress.

“Sadly, threats of violence targeting America’s political institutions are far too common,” Brooks said after the man’s arrest. “Although this terrorist’s motivation is not yet publicly known, and generally speaking, I understand citizenry anger directed at dictatorial Socialism and its threat to liberty, freedom and the very fabric of the very fabric of American society. The way to stop Socialism’s march is for patriotic Americans to fight back in the 2022 and 2024 election.”

Brooks is currently seeking to replace Republican Senator Richard Shelby, who announced he’d be vacating his seat.

Madison Cawthorn wants American women to raise more “monsters.” They already are

When they keep telling you who they really are, believe them. Unfortunately, too many Americans are still in a state of denial, five years or more after Donald Trump and the Republican fascists dropped the mask and revealed their true intentions.

If America’s democracy crisis is a fever, it shows no sign of breaking. Indeed, the normalization of political and social deviance has taken a firm hold among tens of millions of Americans who support Trump and the Republican-fascist movement — and their numbers keep growing.

But the Trump phenomenon is not the root cause of what’s wrong with America: it reflects a much deeper political and societal sickness.

Last week on Twitter, Dr. Bandy Lee, co-editor of the bestselling book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” used powerful language to describe America in this moment: “We know that, when the sewage system is not cleaned up, it becomes a breeding ground for disease. It is the same for society: when the political and economic systems are not cleaned up, it becomes an environment for mental pathology to thrive.”

No one is draining the sewers; Republicans and their followers want to wallow in them. To wit: Consider Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a North Carolina Republican and Trump loyalist, a believer in the Big Lie and supporter of the right-wing coup attempt of Jan. 6.

He said the following in a recent speech, as reported by the watchdog organization Right Wing Watch:

Our culture today is trying to completely de-masculate all of the young men in our culture…. They’re trying to de-masculate the young men in our country because they don’t want people who are going to stand up…. All you moms here — the ones who I said are the most vicious in our movement — if you are raising a young man, please raise them to be a monster.

After this remarks were met with widespread criticism Cawthorn’s spokesman offered the following excuse-making response: “In the context of his speech Congressman Cawthorn was urging parents to raise their sons as strong, godly, men who are warriors for truth and morality. Monsters and lions, not wimps and sheep.”

During his speech, Cawthorn tried to cloak his call for breeding sociopathic white men with claims that his primary concern was about declining testosterone rates. In reality, he is embracing and encouraging an ideal of (white) fascist motherhood.

In this call for raising up “monsters,” Cawthorn was being “honest” far beyond his conscious intentions: Raising monsters for the fascist movement is one of the main goals of today’s Republican Party and its “family values.”

Indeed, Cawthorn’s speech was a type of “teachable moment” about the role of gender in today’s Republican fascist movement.

For the white right, what does it mean to be a man? What does it mean to be a woman and a mother?

In their 2019 journal article “Demographic Fever Dreams: Fragile Masculinity and Population Politics in the Rise of the Global Right,” scholars Banu Gökarıksel, Christopher Neubert and Sara Smith explore the relationship between right-wing nationalism and what they call “hegemonic masculinity” in a variety of contexts, including white nationalism in the U.S. and Western Europe, Hindu nationalism in India and Sunni Muslim nationalism in Turkey. In these nationalist narratives, they write:

the chaotic diversity of a multicultural world and the messiness of women and femininity are both backdrop and adversary in a story line centering strength and the masculine hero as the true protagonists of all stories. Here, the centering of one man as savior is not a fluke, a distraction, or a sideshow but is critical to the functioning of the dream.

The authors further explore the relationship between a particular type of white masculinity, neofascism and political violence in the American context:

As demographic fever dreams, these narratives center white masculinity as crucial to current right-wing populist rhetoric in the United States and locate threats to the nation in nonwhite, nonmale, and nonheteronormative bodies while seeking purification and power through a series of violent technologies. This technique of power renders class irrelevant, uniting white Americans across class divisions through an embodied fear of the toxic other and sustaining that fear through the constant introduction of new fever dreams. Trump’s “defensive obsession with his embodied masculinity” reveals that gender is central to the feverish panic that is intended to lead to the inevitable conclusion that only Trump’s exaggerated masculinity can save the nation from racial and moral decline.

Authoritarian leaders like Donald Trump, India’s Narendra Modi or Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, they write, perform a specific version of masculinity that is both strong and weak, rooted in “the perception of a strong political leadership” but also in “a sense of grievance and loss … that often relies on a corollary femininity in need of protection.”

That generally fits with the work of other leading scholars of fascism and authoritarianism, who have emphasized the role of toxic masculinity in right-wing populist movements.

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

In a widely-read 2019 essay for NBC News, David Futrelle drew connections between anti-immigrant views, racism and misogyny, seeing all of them as connected to deep insecurities:

What is often overlooked in discussions of the paranoid far-right fear of cultural and racial “replacement” that pervades anti-immigrant rhetoric around the world is its deep connection to a misogynist backlash that has also been growing on the internet for the past decade. The fear of immigrants — at a time when undocumented immigration in the United States, despite a recent short-term uptick, is near historic lows — isn’t just driven by racism. It’s also driven by the same sort of insecurity about masculinity that underlies the so-called Men’s Rights Movement and the increasingly dangerous and self-destructive cult of self-described “involuntary celibates,” or incels.

These men, most of them white, fear that their cultural, political, and economic supremacy is being undercut by women and people of color — even in a country in which the faces of the most powerful are still overwhelmingly white and male. …

But many men in the “alt-right” seem more concerned about a different sort of sexual threat from these “invaders,” worrying less about rape than about white women choosing to have sex (and possibly children) with “alpha males” who aren’t white.

In the white right-wing imagination, women have a very specific role as mothers and wives whose first responsibility is to “support” their husbands and manage the domestic sphere, where of course they will raise the next generation of white children. Among avowed white supremacists and other racial authoritarians the “service” roles of white women are made even more explicit:

Journalist Seyward Darby, author of the 2020 book “Sisters in Hate,” explained the “pro-natal” orientation of white nationalism in an interview with the Cut:

The whole narrative is that white America is under threat and you should have as many white children as you can. Nazis gave women medals based on how many children they had. … But the much more outward facing layer is that women are seen as bridges who can communicate with the mainstream. There are some who say the vilest things imaginable. But there are a lot who say, “We just want to love our heritage. We just want to love our children. Look at me, I’m just a nice white woman trying to live her life. What could be so bad about that?” …

I think that women in this space kind of go back to the idea of motherhood as cherished and unassailable. White-nationalist women are saying motherhood doesn’t have to be sullied by the muck of feminism, the workplace, and multiculturalism. You can just focus on being a cherished, hardworking, domestic goddess. … The idea of whiteness and white civilization under siege by “demographic change”, black and brown people, Muslims, “illegal aliens” and other “invaders” has long been a source of threat, paranoia, and anxiety by “white society” in the West. At present, what were formerly the obsessions of fringe white supremacists and eugenicists has been mainstreamed by Fox News and other parts of the right-wing propaganda machine as “white genocide” and commands to “make more white babies” to offset the browning of America.

At Dame magazine, Brynn Tannehill offers a nightmarish vision of what an America ruled by the fascist dreams of Republican-fascists such as Madison Cawthorn will be:

Outgroup minorities will be targeted with even more blatant and extreme fearmongering and scapegoating by both conservative media and the GOP politicians. We can see these narratives already: Trans people are the center of the moral rot consuming the country, and a threat to women and children. Black people are intellectually inferior, violent criminals, and welfare queens who deserve nothing from the body politic other than a prison cell and crumbling schools. Immigrants are drug mules, destroying Western culture, replacing white people, and spreading disease. All of this will get turned up to 11, and the GOP-led government will act on it….

Like the slowly boiled frog, for most people in a post-democracy America life will be boring and (almost) normal. For those of us who are branded the enemies of real America — trans people, trans-inclusive feminists, Black people, immigrants, and Muslims — life is going to take a very dark turn within a few years.

In too many ways to count, Cawthorn’s fascist monsters are already here — and dominate much of America and the world.

Public opinion research has made clear that hostile sexism and toxic masculinity played a key role in electing Donald Trump in 2016, and continue to fuel his movement.

Trumpism and American neofascism is a masculine racial authoritarian movement, which largely rejects equal human and civil rights for women and girls (let alone LGBTQ folks).

Extreme wealth and income inequality in the United States (and globally) is driven by a male-dominated plutocracy.

The existential threat of climate disaster is a criminal act planned and executed by an overwhelmingly male corporate elite.

Men are largely responsible for war.

Men commit innumerable acts of violence, both on the interpersonal and societal level, against women and girls. Said violence is in no way equivalent or reciprocal by women against men either in scale or scope.

Ultimately and contrary to Madison Cawthorn’s wish and command, America and the world already have too many boys who are raised to become monsters — or who somewhere along the way were seduced into such pathological behavior.

The battle against American fascism and the larger global right is not just some abstract conflict over “democratic institutions” and “illiberalism” but also a day-to-day struggle against right-wing authoritarian masculinities and the harm such identities have done (and are doing) to social democracy and a humane and free society.

More of Salon’s coverage on the ideology of contemporary fascism:

Progressives draw their line in the sand: Medicare expansion must remain in Biden bill

Progressives are drawing a red line in negotiations over President Biden’s landmark $3.5 billion reconciliation bill, insisting that Medicare expansion must remain in the bill — and even suggesting that the intra-party Democratic stalemate won’t end if the provision is removed.

As it currently stands, the provision would expand Medicare to include coverage for dental care, hearing and vision — and introducing added costs that “moderate” Democrats like Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., have thus far vehemently opposed.

“My big concern right now is the 2026 deadline [for] Medicare insolvency and if no one’s concerned about that, I’ve got people — that’s a lifeline,” Manchin said on Monday. “You’ve got to stabilize that first before you look at basically expansion. So if we’re not being fiscally responsible, that’s a concern.”

Manchin’s apparent demand to kill Medicare expansion is just his latest in a series of proposals to water down or eliminate some of the most progressive provisions in the bill. Over the past several months, Manchin has called on Democratic colleagues to remove the bill’s climate action policies, introduce means-testing for the child tax credit and strip any abortion-related health care coverage from Medicaid and Medicare.

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

Although Manchin’s stonewalling has proven successful so far, progressives in the House and Senate have signaled that any failure to expand Medicare will be a deal-breaker.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., a years-long proponent of Medicare for All, said on Saturday that the Medicare provision is “not coming out.”

“The expansion of Medicare to cover dental, hearing and vision is supported by 84% of the public and is one of the most important provisions in Build Back Better,” he tweeted. “It’s what the American people want and, after waiting over 50 years, what they are going to get.”

“Medicare treats your eyes, teeth, and ears like they’re not part of your body,” echoed Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo. “It makes no sense. The Build Back Better Act currently expands Medicare to cover vision, dental, and hearing. We need to make sure that happens. And then we need Medicare for All.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., added that progressive votes in the Democratic caucus needed to be “earned,” not taken for granted.

“Progressives are fighting to tackle the climate crisis, expand Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing, and guarantee family leave in America,” Omar tweeted. “These are the investments major countries make in their communities and we can too.”

Earlier this month, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told Politico that the caucus has “no intention of backing down.” Jayapal has argued that Medicare expansion will yield political dividends for Democrats in next year’s midterms by providing near-term tangible benefits to many seniors, especially those living on fixed incomes.

According to CNN, the unresolved conflict among Democrats could lead to a compromise under which Medicare is expanded to cover hearing and vision, but not dental care. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, roughly half of all Medicare beneficiaries, or about 24 million people, have no dental insurance.

According to Politico, the progressive-backed Medicare plan is estimated to cost $350 billion. To cover that cost, Democrats have proposed allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices individually with pharmaceutical companies. But that issue too is trapped in the Democrats’ internal morass: Manchin has said he supports that proposal, but Sinema — a major recipient of Big Pharma political donations — apparently does not.

More on the Democratic battle over Build Back Better:

Behind Joe Manchin’s attack on “entitlement society”: Billionaires who hate America

Sen. Joe Manchin, echoing the right-wing billionaires’ think-tanks’ PR and every Republican in Congress, recently said his objection to free college for students and eyeglasses for seniors was that such things created an “entitlement society,” a slur that means “a nation of welfare recipients.”

In that, he displays a fundamental ignorance about what governments do and how societies work, as well as the difference between what we usually call the “social safety net” and things people should expect simply as a “right of citizenship” in a first-world country. He also misunderstands the difference between expenses and investments.

A “social safety net” is there to catch you when you fall. Unemployment insurance keeps you from becoming homeless when capitalism has one of its periodic hiccups. Food stamps tide you over in rough times. FEMA programs provide mobile homes and a stipend to keep people rendered homeless by natural disasters like hurricanes, forest fires and floods alive and well.

These are the sorts of things that we generally refer to as “welfare.” They’re there to “catch us” and keep us from falling through society’s “floor.”

They also prevent people from “breaking” when they fall, whether it’s a temporary hiccup in capitalism (recession, depression), a natural disaster or a region that’s failed to invest in itself so long that there are simply no jobs available. We know, for example, that inequality, along with the poverty and mental illness it causes, drives up costs to society that can be covered with these kinds of help.

So these shorter-term programs (or, in some cases, even longer-term for already-wounded people) keep society stable. Finland, for example, is providing free housing for all their homeless; it’s cheaper than the police, hospital and mental health services that houseless people otherwise use. But these are still programs to “catch” people and regions who’ve fallen or been injured by life, not to grow and expand society.

A “citizenship right” is something altogether different. It’s what nations provide as rights of citizenship to keep a society functioning on a normal plane, and to help that society grow and improve socially and economically.

As citizens of America, for example, we expect good public schools, decent roads, police and fire protection and a functioning government funded by tax dollars to keep it all going. We expect as citizens that when we pay into Social Security and Medicare our entire lives, those systems will be maintained in a way that can keep us healthy, productive and out of poverty when we retire.

While the “safety net” protects us from personal, family or community disasters, the “rights of citizenship” provide the foundation for society itself.

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

The physical infrastructure of a nation makes possible normal life, and the more sophisticated and functional that infrastructure is, the more vibrant a nation’s economy will be.

This was the core rationale for Republican President Dwight Eisenhower building the interstate highway system: It not only made it easier to visit Grandpa and Grandma, it also made it easier to transport goods and thus facilitated commerce leading to the economic boom of the 1950-1980 era.

Ditto for an advanced air traffic system, quality public transportation and a national high-speed rail system like in every other advanced country.

The same is true for the “human infrastructure” of a nation.

The more citizens a country has who are college educated, the more competitive and prosperous that nation becomes. The better the health of a country, the more reliable and efficient its workforce. When government helps young parents care for their children, it frees them up to more fully participate in the commercial and civic life of the country.

Thus, infrastructure — be it physical or human — is not welfare. It doesn’t produce an “entitlement society.” Instead, it’s the core foundation on which a functional society rests, the soil in which business can root itself, and the launching pad for a horizon-free future.

Another way to think of it is through the lens of economics and accounting.

“Welfare” is an expense. It doesn’t make things better: When appropriately funded, it simply keeps them from becoming worse. It pays dividends in that it keeps people alive and functional, but just barely. The “return on investment” to the government is minimal outside of its moral duty.

“Rights of citizenship” like infrastructure, on the other hand, are investments. They pay returns and dividends. Invest “x” and over years or decades you’ll get multiples of “x” in return. Even police and fire services, when run right, keep neighborhoods crime-free and facilitate commerce, growing the local economy. New transportation, education and health care infrastructure build prosperity and attract investment in the larger community.

Not understanding this simple distinction is the major failure of neoliberal and “conservative” politicians, guided, in large part, by “think tanks” and pundits funded by right-wing billionaires who, frankly, don’t care about either “welfare” or “rights of citizenship/infrastructure.”

After all, being morbidly rich billionaires, they don’t need either.

They can afford the best health care in the world with their pocket change; they travel on private jets outside public airports (never even having to go through security); and they send their kids to the best private schools in the world, regardless of the local tax base.

And since welfare and infrastructure are both funded by tax dollars — which the morbidly rich go to great lengths to avoid paying — pushing politicians to reject both only adds more dollars to their money bins that otherwise would have gone to taxes.

While Joe Manchin’s understanding of these fundamental, high-school-civics differences in government programs is disappointing, it shouldn’t be surprising. He was born into wealth and is, himself, a multimillionaire coal baron, living on the largest yacht at my old home, the Capital Yacht Club (among his other homes).

But Joe Biden — who spent his life traveling home from Washington to Delaware every weekend on Amtrak — understands this at a gut level. New roads, bridges, and broadband infrastructure are investments that will return dividends to both society and our economy. He knows that strengthening our infrastructure strengthens our nation.

Biden understands that replacing fossil-fuel based energy infrastructure with made-in-America renewables like solar and wind reduce our dependence on brutal foreign oligarchs like Saudi Arabia’s murderous Mohammed bin Salman while producing power for generations with little more than simple maintenance.

He knows that sending young people to college at no or little cost — as is done in every other advanced democracy in the world — is a simple investment in our nation’s families and intellectual infrastructure that will pay dividends for generations into our future.

Progressives working on his legislative agenda realize that providing people with a robust and low-cost health care system is an investment in our ultimate infrastructure: our people. Without healthy workers there is no reliable economy; with healthy workers an economy becomes ever more vibrant, which is why every other developed country in the world except the U.S. provides free or low-cost universal health care and takes care of all their seniors’ medical needs.

Right-wing billionaire propaganda aside, these are not “welfare” or “entitlements,” and they don’t cause people to “become lazy” or “refuse to work.” As we strengthen and “Build Back Better” our physical and human infrastructure, we simultaneously strengthen our nation while moving us into a cleaner, safer and more reliable future.

In every other developed country in the world, these things are simple rights of citizenship. They should be here, too, if we want to compete in the 21st century and improve our (slipping) status as a First World nation.

More on Joe Manchin and the “moderates” waging war on the Biden agenda:

Video shows Marjorie Taylor Greene encouraging fans to support Jan. 6 objection

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., reportedly took part in “planning meetings” with organizers of the “Save America” rally that spilled over into the Jan. 6 insurrection, and there’s even video of her discussing similar plans after leaving a White House visit.

The newly elected Georgia Republican spoke briefly on camera after walking out of the White House in December, discussing efforts to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s election win during a period which subsequent reporting has revealed Donald Trump and his allies were plotting to subvert that process.

“Just finished with our meetings here at the White House this afternoon, we had a great planning session for our Jan. 6 objection,” Greene says in the video, which she tweeted out on Dec. 21. “We aren’t going to let this election be stolen by Joe Biden and the Democrats. President Trump won by a landslide. Call your House reps, call your senators from your states. We’ve got to make sure they’re on board. We’ve already got a lot of people engaged. Okay, stay tuned.”

Organizers for the March for Trump and Stop the Steal rallies that preceded the U.S. Capitol riot told “Rolling Stone” that they held planning sessions for the events with Greene and five other Republican lawmakers, Andy Biggs, Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Madison Cawthorn and Louie Gohmert.

.@realdonaldtrump deserves his day in court, AND we are definitely going to give him his day in Congress.

We have a rapidly growing group of House Members and Senators.

Jan 6 challenge is on. 🇺🇸

Call your Rep: 202-225-3121

Call your Senators: 202-224-3121#FightForTrump! pic.twitter.com/O9YvytKlrS

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) December 21, 2020