Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

What happens to America’s mental health under a second Trump administration? Very bad things

Donald Trump’s presidency and the destructive forces it unleashed are a mental health emergency — as well as a public health emergency in general. Trump may no longer be president, but his fascist political movement and the political party he controls continues to cause harm.

Trumpism is both a political cult and a manifestation of collective narcissism. Tens of millions of his followers now live in an alternate reality sustained by the Big Lie, an upside-down world in which Donald Trump is still the “real” president of the United States. Many of Trump’s followers believe that he should be returned to power by any means available, including terrorism and other political violence.

The Trump regime and Republican policies more generally have literally caused trauma — physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual — for millions of Americans, including of course the deaths of at least 700,000 people from the coronavirus pandemic. 

In a recent essay, author and pastor John Pavlovitz addresses this:

[F]or the first time in America’s history the latent ugliness in people was revealed and validated and celebrated by a sitting president — it was officially normalized. And what we’re experiencing now; this staggering, insensitive posturing in the face of so many people’s suffering, is the late-ripening fruit of something that has been set into the bedrock of half our nation. It is the malicious entitlement that MAGA was designed to nurture from the beginning….

This quickly metastasizing moral cancer is something we’ve never experienced on this level in our lifetimes and it’s something we’re going to have to reckon with regardless of the political outcomes of the next four years. If the former president somehow takes that office again, these stories will surely grow exponentially more violent and more commonplace, but either way, the ugliness is here now.

The Trump Effect on America, is that once reasonable, rational human beings whose prejudices, fears, and phobias were all bound by some baseline decorum and common courtesy that kept them from intentionally harming others — have been empowered to revel in the worst of themselves. They believe cruelty is their birthright.

As early as 2015, many mental health experts began to warn that a Trump presidency would be disastrous for America and the world. They were correct in nearly all of their predictions.

It is likely that Donald Trump will be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee in 2024. (In fact, the only unknown variable is whether he will actually decide to run.) Contrary to the naïve thinking of those Americans who believed Trump might magically go away, as president or otherwise he will be a fixture in American life for the foreseeable future.

What will happen to the American people’s collective mental and emotional health if Donald Trump runs for president again — or if he is elected? What kind of damage would Trump inflict on America and the world in a second term? And how do we explain why so many Americans — both ordinary citizens and members of the political and media classes — continue to be “surprised” by the torrent of revelations about Trump’s mental pathologies and his antisocial, anti-democratic behavior?

I recently asked several leading mental health experts — all of whom I have previously interviewed for Salon — to offer their warnings and predictions.

Dr. Lance Dodes is a retired assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a training and supervising analyst emeritus at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute.

The latest revelations about Trump confirm what we have known for years. Stephanie Grisham, his former press secretary, says, “The truth was that pretty much everyone eventually wore out their welcome with the president.” This points to Trump’s inability to comprehend or value other people; he can only use them while they serve his endless need to aggrandize himself, then discard them when they do not. 

Grisham says, “When I began to see how his temper wasn’t just for shock value or the cameras, I began to regret my decision to go to the West Wing.” Here, she finally sees that Trump is not “crazy like a fox” but is truly a severely disordered person, in poor control and a danger to others. In Bob Woodward’s book, as reported in the Guardian [and elsewhere], on Trump’s way out of office, he drops F-bombs, “spewing expletives” and screaming at cabinet colleagues: “I don’t care a fuck. You’re all fucked up. You’re all fucked.”

This is an example of his paranoia, in which he denies responsibility for his multiple failures and losses, projecting these to others whom he condemns as worthless. Each of these revelations points to one or another aspect of Trump’s delusional sociopathy: his absence of a conscience, incapacity to care about or empathize with others, projection of blame to others (paranoia) and his psychotic distortion of reality in order to maintain his belief that he has a godlike superiority.

Trump’s primitive emotional state make him an enormous danger to democracy, which he cannot abide. As a consequence, if he were to again become president, the end of democracy in this country would become a realistic possibility.

Dr. Justin Frank is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center. He is the author of “Bush on the Couch” and “Obama on the Couch.” His most recent book is “Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.”

Trump once had an internal conflict between being a builder and a destroyer. No longer is it a conflict; he is a destroyer, plain and simple. Unconsciously, his destructive force was originally directed against his tyrannical and punitive father, displaced onto investors, the media, banks, etc. But his ultimate displacement has been on the founding fathers of America’s democratic experiment.

He attacks basic institutions, from the CIA to the FBI to Congress itself. And since November 2020, he has put our entire electoral process in his crosshairs. If he were nominated and elected in 2024 — accounting for skewed results, in the event that right-wing voter suppression tactics are successful — it would mean that more Americans than ever embrace authoritarianism, and that would deliver the deepest blow to our democratic process in our history.

Psychologically, people yearn for strong leadership. However, they fail to understand that sorrow is the vitamin of growth, of strength. President Biden has been strengthened over his lifetime by facing sorrow and loss. Trump denies loss by triumphing over it with powerful defensive grandiosity. A leader who breaks things is also admired, interestingly, by adoring followers. They admire his ability to say and do things they themselves could never say or do in public. Trump fills that need perfectly.

The other major effect of a Trump victory in 2024 would be the likely apathy and despair felt by those who fought against him.

Elizabeth Mika is a psychotherapist and contributor to the 2017 bestseller “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

The “revelations” really just confirm what we have known about Trump for years, long before he was elected. People with his character defect, malignant narcissism, are sadly predictable: They are driven by insatiable drives for adulation and power, and an unceasing desire for revenge on those who may interfere (or be perceived as interfering) with the realization of those drives.

It is really too bad that our media, broadly speaking, has remained in the dark about Trump’s well-defined character pathology. Therefore, many journalists, mostly among the mainstream news media, continue to be shocked by these “revelations” as if unable and/or unwilling to finally arrive at an understanding of Trump’s disordered character.

If Trump runs and wins in 2024, we will see an accelerated continuation of our demise. Every negative trend we are experiencing now will be augmented, especially our polarization, inequality and violence.

As of now, 21 million Americans believe that Trump, whose presidency was stolen from him, should be restored by violent force — and they are ready to make it happen.

Dr. David Reiss is a psychiatrist, expert in mental fitness evaluations and contributor to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

I am totally unsurprised. But vindication does not soothe the national tragedy or my personal frustration and even bitterness (which are of much less significance) at having been ignored by those who had power to intervene.

No one could have predicted Trump’s specific actions while in office or now: His specific behaviors are inherently unpredictable. But the nature of his behaviors, the irrationality of his behaviors, the immaturity of his behaviors and the dangers brought about those behaviors were all quite predictable and in fact, were predicted.

You asked: What do I think will happen to America if Trump runs for office and wins in 2024?

In my opinion, the even more frightening question is this: “What would it mean had happened to the American people and American society if Trump were returned to office in 2024?” 

It would mean there had been: 1) a complete breakdown of rationality within the social order; 2) the destruction of our democratic system of elections and government; or 3) that something so horrible had transpired that all hope was lost and, due to fear and desperation, totalitarianism or fascism had been embraced. 

As to what would happen afterward, it would depend upon who was actually “pulling the strings” of the totalitarian/fascist regime for which Trump was the figurehead. Trump himself, at age 78 certainly would not actually be in command. I cannot begin to predict the exact manner or type of dystopia that would be enacted. I can predict that it would be beyond our current worst nightmares.

Dr. John Gartner is a psychologist, psychoanalyst and former professor at the Johns Hopkins University Medical School, and the founder of Duty to Warn. He was also a contributor to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

Democracy would be dead, and the coup complete. All future “elections” would be Putin-style shams, where the electorate never actually has the power to remove the Republicans from power.

We could expect criminal prosecutions against Democratic leaders, the press and anyone who opposed the regime. Experts of all types would be persecuted. “Patriots” would be encouraged to expose, punish and marginalize citizens at all levels of society who are not MAGA. Fox would become de facto state-TV propaganda. Only loyal “party members” would be allowed to work in government.

Hate crimes would skyrocket. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants would be incarcerated in concentration camps.

Thousands of ordinary citizens would join cells of an “underground resistance,” which would become progressively more violent. This “terrorism” would be used to justify martial law and heavy surveillance. Millions would flee to Canada and Europe.

Internationally, the U.S. would become a Russian puppet state. NATO and our international alliances would crumble. The economy would contract. Global warming would spiral out of control. And we might well stumble into war.

Dr. Seth D. Norrholm is a translational neuroscientist and one of the world’s leading experts on PTSD and fear. He is currently scientific director at the Neuroscience Center for Anxiety, Stress, and Trauma (NeuroCAST) in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences at Wayne State University School of Medicine.

The revelations that are merging from various sources who had access to the Trump White House are not at all surprising. As I and others have commented on for years now, no matter how you label or classify the former president’s behavior (malignantly narcissistic, sociopathic, psychopathic, abusive), there is an underlying thread of immaturity. This immaturity plays itself out as an inability to regulate emotion, a behavioral profile typically seen in children and adolescents. It is therefore not surprising to hear about the former president’s uncontrollable rage and the allegation that he had a handler specifically tasked with soothing him like a toddler. I expect similar stories to continue to come out.

What happens if the former president runs for office again in 2024 – and possibly wins? This would be a complete failure of several social, political, governmental, ethical and professional “guardrails.”

From the perspective of the former president as an abuser, a future Trump candidacy and potential presidency would be a psychological slap in the face to all of his victims from the past six years. I’ve often used the analogy of an abusive relationship when it comes to the former president and his approach to governing. If the watering-down of the Mueller investigation and the acquittal following evidence-heavy impeachment proceedings was akin to the arrest and subsequent release of a criminally abusive spouse, a return to office would indicate zero accountability for, and an acceptance of, physical and emotional abuse from our leadership; a trend that has been gathering steam for some time now.

Considering the former president incited an attack on his own country and has continued to push the Big Lie undermining our electoral process, our democracy (already on life support) would suffer likely irreversible damage if this is further ignored and already eroded norms are obliterated beyond repair.

Moreover, considering that more than 700,000 Americans have died from a pandemic that could have been better controlled, which the former president downplayed to protect his political future, allowing a return to the campaign trail and potentially the White House would frankly forgive an accessory to negligent homicide on an unprecedented scale.

Taken together, the nation and the world would be presented with the psychologically untenable position of having to accept the worst that humanity has to offer, according to almost all of the “standards” established by modern society, as its leader once again.  

In a riotous and timely memoir, a writer tells her story of winning a “free” house in Detroit

For decades, national newspapers have been littered with stories of Detroit’s “decline,” often told vis-a-vis statistics on eviction, infrastructure woes and crime. Whether or not the “decline” narrative is true or not is subjective: often those who push it have an agenda, likely one involving money. Similarly, those who push the opposing narrative — that it is undergoing a “renaissance” — may have similar motivations, if different goals.

Yet the plight of Motown is often told best through the eyes of its residents, who are better situated than demographers or politicians to explicate life in Michigan’s largest metropolis. One such narrative that comes to life in a new memoir is that of author and erstwhile Salon contributor Anne Elizabeth Moore. In 2016, Moore “accidentally” ended up as a homeowner in Detroit after winning the Write A House competition, a contest hosted by an eponymous nonprofit that renovated Detroit homes and then awarded them to writers. 

As Moore tells Salon, she was flabbergasted when she won, and realized she would have to move from Chicago to Detroit. Previously, Moore had lived in Cambodia, producing a book, “Cambodian Grrrl: Self-Publishing in Phnom Penh,” that was peripherally about her experience teaching Cambodian women and girls to make zines. 

Moore, a first-time home owner, certainly had an unusual path to home ownership. But her experience living in Detroit’s BanglaTown neighborhood gave her a perspective on Detroit life and culture that she might never have been able to experience as a passive observer, or even an embedded journalist. And as her life in Detroit wound on, she was as taken by the beauty of Detroit’s civic life just as she was shocked by the regional government’s dysfunction. The memoir she produced from her experience, archly titled “Gentrifier,” is a hilarious and harrowing account of her new life as a homeowner. 

We spoke on the phone recently about her experiences and her book. As always, this conversation has been condensed and edited for print. 

What was your impression of Detroit before you moved there for this house, uh, “situation?” Or was it a fellowship, technically?

I think of it as a fellowship. Although I think technically it was an award or something.

The idea [behind the house-awarding fellowship] was to give writers some space and see what happened, which in my experience is what a fellowship does. Before I had followed the news, although not terribly closely, and of course was concerned about the water shutoffs in Detroit, and then water quality issues in Flint, and some of that stuff.

The way the housing crisis operated there, and the city’s annual property tax foreclosure option — which was of course sold to outsiders as this great way of invigorating investment in Detroit — these were interesting to me, if pretty hard to understand as an outsider. What I was interested in tracking at the time, before I thought I might ever live there, was this idea that there was a certain way that corruption tended to happen in Cambodia. And it seemed like, with the water crisis, a similar thing was happening in Detroit. In Cambodia, the corruption was very blatant and just under everyone’s noses, but often the mass of people were just so exhausted by trying to survive for so long that there was sometimes very little resistance. The oppressors, for lack of a better term for the government, would push through blatantly bad policy that supported no one, and that no one supported. And it seemed like that was also happening in Detroit.

In 2014 I went and I did a couple of events there [in Detroit] with Allied Media Projects as an old school zinester. I did a couple of zine-making projects and actually, for some reason, incredibly, luckily, was given this small tour of BanglaTown, although it was not called that at the time, which is the neighborhood I ended up living in. Which is a Bangladeshi-majority community that officially became designated the neighborhood of BanglaTown, in I think 2017.

I did fall immediately in love with it, although only as a visual of incredibly, brightly colored outfits and women gathered together on porches in this part of Detroit that had been neglected for a very long time. BanglaTown had become this very vital beautiful, thriving, garden- and family-focused community. So I did have slightly more information about the vast array of potential in the city than I let on in the book. And of course, I had known various artists who had moved there, tried to make it work, couldn’t. Left again. Or moved there, were able to make it work and then left anyway. And some who stayed.

And so I kind of heard about how difficult it can be along the range of activities.

On that note, I’d love to talk about the title of the book, “Gentrifier.” At some points you seem to imply you’re the gentrifier, and other parts not so much. Obviously a lot of people would balk at being called a “gentrifier,” so it seems a bit arch, no? 

I think that there’s always got to be a central joke in my work, right? Maybe one that is not quite as funny as you think it is at the time that you make it. So the idea of being a gentrifier—I mean it’s so complicated. When I was living in the house, and even in the couple of years leading up to moving into the house, the line that the organization that gave me was that this this house-gifting project was intended to stabilize neighborhoods. I do think that is something. The people who thought this through are some of the most interesting and thoughtful people that work on urban planning in the city. I do think that there is something to be said for the idea that there are different ways of participating in an area that has been undergoing rampant disinvestment, different means of being a stabilizing force in an erosive environment.

My experience of living in that neighborhood did feel like it took place during some kind of turn-around. I can’t say of course at all that I, myself, had anything to do with that turn-around, but when I moved there, people were moving out of the neighborhood every week. And within about six months it had become a neighborhood to move into again. People were excited to be there. They wanted to be there in a way that they had not just months beforehand.

Interesting. 

Part of that is, it doesn’t take very much to get people excited about having fun. You know, I do think that stuff like, me and my neighbors going for a walk at night, taking nightly walks around the neighborhood, does reflect an increased interest in what is happening in that neighborhood. There’s a slightly increased vitality, there’s a little bit more action. There’s more to talk about. There’s more to think about. And then of course, on a city scale — and Mayor Mike Duggan talks about this later when he’s talking about the street sweepers — the more that you can actually see the city upholding its promises to residents, in terms of the city sending out street sweepers after a seven-year hiatus, the more people get excited about investing long-term in the places that they already happen to be. (Although I will mention that in fact the street sweepers only came to my neighborhood about half the times they were announced.)

And so as that stuff started to happen just a teeny bit, I think the people that were there already got excited about staying, and that is a little bit of the opposite of what we think about as gentrification.

Right.

I have a lot of complicated feelings about that term of course. Because I think that it does end up just being like a big massive bucket term for bad neighboring. It doesn’t fully identify the range of things that happen to promote racial segregation between neighborhoods in cities, or the pricing out of long-term residents, or the increased availability of certain amenities, ridiculous or no. In that frame of mind the title, “Gentrifier,” is a joke. It’s like a response to people who never spent time in Detroit, have no idea what it was about or didn’t understand my neighborhood at all and just automatically assumed that like, a white girl moving to Detroit is a deliberate process of gentrification, of trying to buy cheap, sell high, and take whatever resources I want without regard for existing neighborhood needs or processes. And in that purely profit-minded regard— and I’m pretty clear about this in the book—I dunno. I lost money moving into a free house in Detroit, you know?

But then as we move through the book and it becomes clear that actually being installed in that house was in some ways a project of, I don’t know—in my case, the celebration of me receiving this house after the hidden way it was taken, illegally, from the previous owner—that’s an act of white supremacy. That is about a process of racial segregation. And then we can kind of see the ways that gentrification, or neighborhood disinvestment, or just being a bad neighbor—all of the things that go into our notion of gentrification—then we can kind of see the way that gentrification is a system that works outside of individual control.

And I was, I think, in the end, participating in that system, without comprehending exactly what that system was.

No spoilers here, but I think we really get an impression of that when you start digging into the history of your house, and its ownership.

Yeah. And that’s where [the book] “Unmarketable” tended to come in for me. In both books I talk about being stuck in the middle of a very complicated system, and even if you’re thinking through it and trying to be aware of all the strains and desires and manipulations and the extraction of labor, you eventually have to face how complicit you are. 

That brings me to what I felt was another side of the book — which was maybe not necessarily even Detroit-specific. Much of the book was about home ownership in general, and some of the horrific, well, maybe “horrific” is the wrong word — rather “shocking” or “difficult” or “painful” moral and financial decisions that come with it. 

And that was the first home that you’d owned before, right? I feel like I remember you saying that in the book.

It totally was. And it was odd because since I didn’t buy it, it dropped me into the system in this really weird place where all of a sudden I was like … I didn’t actually sign up for this …

Home ownership is actually very difficult, and now that I have actually purchased a house, I think it’s even more weird. 

And you write that your “free” house had all these unexpected and expensive issues, including the roof having problems. 

There was a lot of disappointment. I mean first of all, if anything weird happens in your house, if you’re renting or if you have purchased it, it’s bad when a fundamental structure starts falling apart. And like, having a roof that has a hole in it is a bad thing in most of the world. Definitely in Detroit. So it was bad on that level. And then also there was the thing of, “okay I can’t afford to do this. I’m a person that doesn’t have a ton of money.” And so it was terrifying on that financial end, but then also the realization that the organization just wasn’t going to deal with it or help me in any way. I felt left in the lurch and lied to. It was disappointing and sad.

You mentioned corruption earlier, in Detroit and Cambodia. I think Detroit is a complicated city in a lot of Americans’ minds, partially because it’s unclear maybe to some people whether Detroit’s path is the future of any American city that gets de-industrialized, or if it’s unique. Like, if the tech industry uprooted itself from the Bay Area, I wonder if it would become like Detroit — or if the oil industry left Texas, say. The analogues which you saw in Cambodia are interesting, in that it makes you wonder if Detroit’s circumstances (or Cambodia’s circumstances) can happen anywhere. Is Detroit America’s future, assuming the industry in our country keeps being hollowed out? Do you see Detroit as a harbinger for what future American cities might be like in an era of increasing economic inequality and the industrialization?

Of course there is a loss of industry that’s central. That I think what people focus on and get concerned about, right? And that is not to be underestimated for sure.

However, the built environment of Detroit put the city in particular danger for something like the housing crisis. Given the political makeup of Michigan, and how that state has tended toward a certain kind of conservatism and really doesn’t prize education, and everything that follows from that.

And of course there’s also the history of absolute violence there, against residents. The Algiers Hotel. Black Bottom. The very intense majority-white police violence against the majority Black population.

Regarding housing — there is a strong and smart anti-eviction movement in Detroit, for sure. But when a quarter of the housing stock in the city is foreclosed on over property taxes within a three or four-year period, no organization could be expected to keep up.

The housing stock thing is really interesting, because the city was almost entirely made up of single family homes. I mean it was just absolutely a city that was constructed on the notion of traditional families. Going to work in the factories and buying their houses and driving their cars to and from the factories every day. There weren’t even really apartment buildings. There are still very few and they’re built very slowly. 

That means then that you don’t have renters. Students either have to rent a house together or figure out how to buy one. What that means is that if there are few other affordable housing options in the city, then of course home ownership is going to be where the contest happens.

So in Detroit, it was all property tax foreclosures. Not all, most. Vast majority. That’s where the crisis is going to happen. It’s not going to happen with evictions from non-payment of rent or whatever. It’s going to be around the primary housing stock that’s available. Entire families being yanked from their homes.

I didn’t totally know that thing about the domination of single family homes in the city’s housing stock, although I guess that makes sense given its industrial history.

Yeah, it continued to shock me for about a year.

Once I arrived in 2016–2017, people were like, “there are no places to rent. There’s no place for me to live”. Like, “how am I supposed to be here and go to Wayne State or get a job and pursue my work? How am I supposed to test out living in the city without making the big commitment of putting my down payment down?”

And because it’s all single-family homes, the stakes are just that much higher. So then you have all these weird ways that people buy homes, like rent-to-own deals and land contracts. Land contracts are these very weird agreements between the original owner of the property and the person who wants to buy the property. And they basically allow that second person to be making small payments towards ownership over a period of time. But these contracts are not regulated like a mortgage is, and given the varying ways they can be implemented, they can be terminated at almost any moment and for any cause, and they often are in Detroit. They’ve created a lot of housing insecurity in the city. 

I remember in the book you said you have a little bit of ambivalence about speaking for Detroit or representing yourself in Detroit or something like that. Do you still feel that? Do you feel like its complicated to sort of politically to talk about it and place? I got a sense of some of that in some points in the book.

Yeah, I mean there’s a lot, right? It is a place that ultimately that I did not commit to for the long term so I do feel like there are other people better suited to actually talk about the future potential for the city. Or like what can happen, or how to fix stuff. Or even like, how to make it survivable for people now. And those are the people that absolutely should be answering those questions. But for sure, what I can own is my own experience, my love for my neighbors and my absolute adoration of how my neighborhood ended up navigating the lack of support from the city itself in order to foster some deep bonds, across all sorts of barriers.

Anne Elizabeth Moore’s new book, “Gentrifier: A Memoir,” will be released on October 19 from Catapult Books. 

Court rules Ohio’s GOP governor can be questioned under oath in gerrymandering case

Gov. Mike DeWine (R), Senate President Matt Huffman, and other members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission can be questioned under oath as part of redistricting lawsuit proceedings, according to a new ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court.

On Thursday, October 7, the court ruled “that commission members’ attorneys must respond to plaintiff’s questions and document requests by Tuesday,” reports the Columbus-Dispatch.

According to the Columbus-Dispatch, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) — who is representing Ohio officials including DeWine, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, and Auditor of State Keith Faber — pushed back against the requests for depositions. Attorneys representing Huffman and House Speaker Bob Cupp (R) argued that their clients’ cooperation was not needed as part of the lawsuit’s discovery.

Per the Columbus-Dispatch:

“The court, comprised of four Republicans and three Democrats, will allow attorneys to jointly take one deposition of each Republican member of the Ohio Redistricting Commission: Gov. Mike DeWine, Senate President Matt Huffman, House Speaker Bob Cupp, Secretary of State Frank LaRose, and Auditor of State Keith Faber. Depositions are limited to two hours apiece and must be conducted by October 21.”

The ruling follows lawsuits against the commission from several groups including the League of Women Voters of Ohio and National Redistricting Action Fund. The plaintiffs are accusing the Ohio panel of “unconstitutional gerrymandering in drawing and approving maps that preserve a Republican supermajority in both chambers.”

The lawsuits also highlight a number of discrepancies with the maps. “The lawsuits argue the maps don’t correspond to the statewide preferences of voters, a requirement added to the Constitution in 2015,” the publication writes. “The votes case in recent statewide elections average about 54% Republican and 46% Democratic, while the approved maps gave Republicans between 67% and 69% of legislative seats.”

“I need my next meal”: Lindsey Graham responds to charges he’s freeloading off Trump

Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham paints an unflattering picture of Sen. Lindsey Graham in her new book, “I’ll Take Your Questions Now” — and the South Carolina senator was clearly uncomfortable when far-right Newsmax TV host Rob Schmitt discussed that book with him this week.

Schmitt attacked Grisham as “another turncoat,” and he asked Graham about her claim that he wanted to “mop up the freebies like there was no tomorrow” during Donald Trump’s presidency.

Schmitt asked a nervous Graham, “What exactly is she implying here, and what’s your response?” — to which he replied, “Apparently, she’s implying that the only reason I want to be around President Trump is because of the food…. I’ll let you determine if that’s why I spend time with the president: because I need my next meal.”

Watch the video below:

 

The absolute best — and worst — way to mash potatoes, according to so many tests

In Absolute Best Tests, our writer Ella Quittner destroys the sanctity of her home kitchen in the name of the truth. She’s boiled dozens of eggs, seared more Porterhouse steaks than she cares to recall, and tasted enough types of bacon to concern a cardiologist. Today, she tackles mashed potatoes.

* * *

The world’s first potato moved from a pocket of dirt to a mouth sometime between 8,000 and 5,000 B.C.E., in Peru. Some millennia later, Spanish conquistadors brought the tubers back to Europe, resulting in the earliest recorded recipe for mashed ones. It came courtesy of “The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy,” written in 1747 by Hannah Glasse, and went something like this: Boil your potatoes until fork-tender, then peel, then mash within a small saucepan. Add a pint of milk, some salt, stir — with attention to the layer at the pan’s very bottom — and a quarter-pound of butter. Stir again. Serve.

Many have tried to hack the humble mashed potato since.

Take, for instance, Jeffrey Steingarten, who documented his attempts two-and-a-half centuries later in a 1997 essay called “Totally Mashed.”

“My mashed potatoes still get gummy on me. Sometimes they go cataclysmically wrong, turning sticky and gluey or doughy and pasty, bonding to my teeth and gums and the roof of my mouth,” he writes, before sharing his breakthroughs in boiled potato manipulation. (More on that later.)

In 2010, the intrepid J. Kenji López-Alt over at Serious Eats broke down the science behind velvety purées, versus fleecier mounds. His findings? It all boils down to the starch. A few years later, Food52’s own Sarah Jampel took to the lab (kitchen counter) to put a handful of masher-less mashing techniques to the test, and our resident genius, Kristen Miglore, scouted a clever trick for richer flavor: Add the butter before the heavy cream.

But the absolute best way to mash a potato? Out of every single way? I had to know for myself. So with the findings of all the potato pundits before me in hand, I set out to pit 11 cooking and mashing methods against one another. Which would yield a batch so fluffy one could use it as a pillow on the drive home from Thanksgiving dinner? Is a side dish of creamy whipped potatoes without a trace of gumminess a myth?

And before you say that spending an entire day straight obsessively poking, peeling, and mashing potatoes sounds somewhat unhinged, well — actually, you’re correct. I haven’t had contact with a human since. All of my friends are potatoes now. Let’s dive in.

***

Control factors

“Mealy types fall apart into individual cells and small aggregates,” writes food scientist Harold McGee in “On Food and Cooking,” referring to Russets and the like, “so they offer a large surface area for coating by the added ingredients, and readily produce a fine, creamy consistency. Waxy potatoes require more mashing to obtain a smooth texture, exude more gelated starch, and don’t absorb enrichment as easily.” Sold: All tests would feature Russet potatoes of a similar size.

“Rinsing the boiled potatoes of excess starch both before and after cooking was the key,” found López-Alt when, in 2010, he engineered the fluffiest possible spuds. So to minimize excess starch, all potatoes — except the baked batch — would be peeled, quartered, and rinsed once before their cook method and once before their mash test.

After its initial rinse, each batch of peeled potato quarters (excluding the Instant Pot group, the Jeffrey Steingarten bunch, and that pesky baked one) would make its way into a large pot of cold, heavily salted water — one tablespoon kosher salt per quart of water — and cooked until tender all the way through. Once rinsed a second time, the potato pieces would return to a pot on the stovetop, where they’d be nudged around gently over a low flame to eliminate excess water.

When it came time to mash, each test group would receive (per pound of potatoes): three tablespoons of melted butter, first — based on Miglore’s findings — then a quarter cup of warmed cream and a half teaspoon of kosher salt.

1. Potato Masher


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why it should — or shouldn’t — work:

The key to keeping mashed potatoes from going the way of glue is to separate their cells, while taking care to slash as few as possible. “The gooeyness develops when you break open the cooked potato cells and literally beat the starch out of them,” McGee wrote in 2008, in response to a New York Times reader inquiry.

A hand potato masher should allow its user to separate the potatoes’ cells — not as gently as, say, a ricer, but more gently than something fitted with a blade for slicing, or a paddle for bashing — and offers control over the intensity of cell separation and aggregate mashing relative to a motorized machine.

So, what happened?

Hand-mashed potatoes are a lump lover’s dream. Wielding the implement by hand — versus a stand mixer fitted with a paddle — did facilitate more textural fine-tuning. And the lack of brutal (sharp or mighty) cell separation made for a fairly fluffy batch. But it’d have been impossible to arrive at a perfectly silky batch with a pleasant texture using a hand masher, because one would inadvertently mash the same cells too many times (glue! glue! glue!) while seeking out unseparated ones.

2. Fork


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why it should — or shouldn’t — work:

The tines of a fork should mimic those of a potato masher, if on a much smaller scale.

So, what happened?

Mashed potatoes by fork were neither inedible nor completely enjoyable. Due to the inefficiency of the fork’s size — as in, very little ground could be covered by each oscillation of the utensil — patches of the potatoes began to get gluey more quickly, which meant putting an end to the mashing sooner. A lumpier lot was born. The tubers’ cells also seemed to absorb less of the melted butter and cream, resulting in a slightly greasy mound of mashed potatoes. Not so greasy that they couldn’t be proffered to wine-glutted Friendsgiving guests, but certainly not the best of the bunch.

3. Food Mill, 4. Ricer, and 5. Tamis


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why they should — or shouldn’t — work:

A potato ricer, first patented in 1909, is essentially a large clamp with which one may extrude a boiled potato through tiny holes.

Food mills — developed around the same time by the Foley Manufacturing Company — force soft foods with the turn of a crank through a sieve-like bottom layer that catches any seeds or pulp too chunky to make it through.

The tamis is a round, drum-shaped utensil with a flat mesh bottom. “It dates to around the Middle Ages, and it’s been used in professional kitchens pretty much since,” reports the Los Angeles Times. Especially soft foods can be pressed through the fine holes of a tamis using a dough scraper.

In theory, all three contraptions should separate the boiled potatoes’ cells more gently than anything from a stand mixer to a tool fit with a blade, and more consistently than something like a hand masher.

So, what happened?

Each of the ricer, food mill, and tamis produced mashed potatoes with significantly different textures.

The airiest batch with the best flavor hailed from the food mill, which came with its own pros and cons. Let’s start with the cons: It’s unwieldy, difficult to clean, hard to store when you’re not embroiled in an 11-method mashed potato face-off, and results in the loss of more boiled spud than a masher or tamis thanks to the thin, flat sheets that accumulate around the mill’s inner edges while larger chunks pass through its bottom. And the pros? It produced an ethereal mash, and said mash had an inexplicably superior ability to absorb the flavor of the butter and the silkiness of the cream.

Mashed potatoes made by ricer and tamis were largely similar, in that both were somewhat denser than those from the mill, and less dense than those produced in a stand mixer. But the tamis-mashed potatoes were perceptibly smoother than the ricer-mashed potatoes, and despite their lineage from Russets, made for a credible pomme purée stand-in.

6. Stand Mixer


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why it should — or shouldn’t — work:

Some devotees of creamy mashed potatoes swear by stand mixers to get the job done. The general idea? Use the paddle attachment for a dual mash-and-whip, and cut the speed before things get too gluey.

So, what happened?

Stand mixer mashed potatoes went from fluffy to just-about-to-be-gluey more quickly than they went from chunky to smooth. Which is to say, the resulting mound of spuds retained some textural diversity. All in all, they were similar to the hand-masher batch, but a little bit creamier and a little bit stickier.

7. Food Processor and 8. Immersion Blender


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why they should — or shouldn’t — work:

The unremitting blades of a food processor — or, of its handheld counterpart: the immersion blender — rupture the potatoes’ cells readily, releasing lots of sticky starch and a sense of impending doom.

So, what happened?

Both batches were like glue that had been glued together with more glue. The immersion blender–mashed potatoes had the added flaw of many tiny pieces of unblended spud, floating throughout.

“Any cookbook that sanctions the use of a blender or food processor for mashing should be carefully shredded,” writes Steingarten. Here, here.

9. Baked


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why it should — or shouldn’t — work:

“When you bake a potato, the starch granules absorb the moisture within the potato,” says The Exploratorium. But less moisture is absorbed overall than would be by a boiled potato. So it’s possible that baking potatoes whole, then hand-mashing their interiors with the same amounts of melted butter, warmed cream, and salt could bear the fluffiest, least-waterlogged mash yet.

Plus, McGee says that baked potatoes should deliver more depth: “The flavor of boiled potatoes is dominated by the intensified earthy and fatty, fruity, and flowery notes of the raw tuber,” he writes in “On Food and Cooking.” “Baked potatoes develop another layer of flavor from the browning reactions, including malty and ‘sweet’ aromas (methylbutanal, methional).”

So, what happened?

Baked mashed potatoes were pleasant and fluffy, almost snowflake-like. But because they skipped the initial round of seasoning enjoyed by most other test batches — the jaunt in a tub of salty water — they had a much more muted flavor, despite McGee’s note.

10. Instant Pot


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why it should — or shouldn’t — work:

Instant Pot mashed potato recipes — in which an electronic pressure cooker is used to steam potatoes before they are mashed — have developed something of a cult following in recent years. (Search the term on Google, and you’ll find over 5 million recipes.) The idea is that it’s more efficient to soften the spuds at high pressure, before draining the vessel and mashing in the same pot with a hand masher or other preferred tool.

So, what happened?

Steaming the potatoes on high-pressure mode for 10 minutes produced potato quarters that were much tougher than fork-tender. Accordingly, the mash required more force to achieve any cohesion, and was riddled with lumps.

11. Hot-Cold-Hot (“The Steingarten”)


Photo by Ella Quittner

Why it should — or shouldn’t — work:

“Years ago the instant mashed potato industry found that if you precook potatoes in 163-degree water for 20 minutes and cool them, the amount of free starch in the final mash will be reduced by half . . . It appears to work like this,” writes Steingarten. “Cooking a potato is a two-stage process. The starch swells and gelatinizes within the cells when the potato reaches 160 degrees; then, nearer to the boiling point, the pectic cement between the cells degrades, and the potato can be safely matched. Cooling the potato slices after the starch has gelled causes a process called retrogradation to take place; the starch molecules bond to one another and lose much of their ability to dissolve again in water or milk, even if you later rupture the cells.”

Put more succinctly by McGee in “On Food and Cooking,” “[They] can be made firmer and more coherent, less prone to the ‘sloughing’ of outer layers when boiled, by treating them to the low-temperature precooking that strengthens cell walls.”

So Steingarten suggests the following: Add potato quarters to water that’s been brought to 175 degrees. Using cold water as needed, keep the water’s temperature around 160 degrees for the next 20 to 30 minutes, until the potato pieces “become tough and resilient and lose their translucent appearance.” Drain the potatoes and transfer them to a bowl — run cold tap water into the bowl until the potato pieces feel cool, then leave them there for 30 minutes. Proceed to the final cooking step, such as submerging the potato pieces in actively simmering water until tender. Then, mash, such as with a ricer or mill.

So, what happened?

Unfortunately for perfectionists who also have day jobs, these fussy mashed potatoes are nearly perfect when paired with a ricer. They’re equal parts fluff, creaminess, and flavor (thanks to salting the water in both simmering phases).

***

The final verdict


Photo by Bobbi Lin. Stylist: Anna Billingskog. Props: Brooke Deonarine.

The absolute best way to mash potatoes depends entirely on how you prefer to eat them: If you like them fluffy and somewhat lumpy, use a hand masher. If you like them perfectly smooth and airy, use a food mill. If you like them velvety but not at all gluey, use a tamis. If you have all day or have invited me for dinner and are desperate to impress, use the Jeffrey Steingarten method.

And if you want to punish someone? Use a food processor.

***

Our best mashed potato recipes

Diane Morgan’s Classic Mashed Potatoes

Now that you’ve learned how to make mashed potatoes for Thanksgiving or any other occasion, it’s time to put your skills to the test. This recipe for perfect mashed potatoes calls for large russet potatoes mashed with melted butter and milk.

Garlic-Garlic Mashed Potatoes

Add 10 (yes, 10!) cloves of sautéed garlic to melted butter and pour the mixture over warm, pre-mashed mashed Yukon golds. For an even richer, even more savory spin, add Parmesan cheese and goat cheese.

Pre-Seasoned Mashed Potatoes

Instead of infusing the butter and cream with herbs, or salting the potatoes after they’re cooked and mashed, add a combination of herbs and spices like garlic, bay leaves, peppercorns, and thyme to the boiling water.

Mashed Potatoes with Caramelized Onions

The inclusion of caramelized onions takes these mashed potatoes over the top: They have the depth of flavor and sweetness particular to slow-cooked onions, but the lightness and fluffiness of our favorite mashed potatoes.

Instant Pot Buttermilk and Leek Mashed Potatoes

Ditch the slow cooker and make use of the Instant Pot for these speedy mashed potatoes. Not only do the potatoes cook a little faster than if they were in a large pot of boiling water, but it also frees up space on the stove, which is essential during holiday prep like Thanksgiving.

Salt and Vinegar Mashed Potatoes

Inspired by one of the most popular types of potato chips, baking potatoes are mashed with butter and milk, plus salt and malt vinegar until the flavor feels just right.

Vegan Mashed Potatoes

Looking for a recipe for vegan mashed potatoes? We’ve got you covered. Our recipe calls for a combination of russet and Yukon gold potatoes, which are seasoned with garlic powder, smoked paprika (the secret to the orangey color), dried parsley, and dried oregano. 

How to make a Calvados Sour, the perfect cocktail to enjoy on a cozy autumn day

Things disappear. Take that bottle in your hand. It was there, and then it wasn’t, though you don’t remember passing over the open mouth of the garbage can without breaking stride and letting the ridged plastic slip through your slackening fingers, an act of both care and carelessness. You did that, didn’t you? You must have. When you look down a moment later, having walked another block or more, your hand is empty, and you’re not one to litter. Awareness of autumn can happen like that, too — summer slips away quietly, and suddenly it’s a little foggy on your morning walk, a little darker in the evening, the degrees sliding away one by one off the day’s high. A single red leaf no bigger than a baby’s empty hand appears on the sidewalk. Then the trees dazzle the sky with so much color and blanket the ground with softness until one day you look up and there’s Bash­­ō’s solitary crow, perched on a bare branch, reminding you that endings are lonely if you let them be.

Winter and summer, times of extreme, can feel like they last forever. States of fullness or emptiness will do that. Spring and fall, on the other hand, blink by so fast precisely because the change around you is constant. If you don’t take the time to notice, you can miss it. Likewise, cocktails for summer and winter are plentiful and designed to make the heat or the cold more pleasant, while fall, with its pleasing temperatures and riotous color palette, is already pretty damn delightful. That doesn’t mean we don’t want to appreciate the season with a cocktail that draws on its strengths. A cocktail made with Calvados — a distilled apple cider brandy traditionally from France’s orchard-rich Normandy region — pays homage to the harvest season with a fresh, light flavor that can incorporate spice quite easily.


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


To give yourself more time to be outside appreciating fall’s beauty, keep it simple and make a Calvados sour. The sour is one of the most adaptable of cocktail families — all you need is a base spirit, lemon or lime juice and a sweetener. (Egg whites can be incorporated, but I’m going to skip them this time.) This recipe plays with the traditional sour building blocks a bit, but not by much. I used Roger Groult Calvados, a family company since 1860 located in the Pays d’Auge, a defined district within the larger Calvados region. It’s lovely for sipping all on its own, but it also plays well with others. I paired it with Mathilde Poire, a distilled pear liqueur from Maison Ferrand (home of the excellent Pierre Ferrand Dry Curaçao), to keep with the French theme and give an extra dose of early autumn flavor.

Because those flavors are more mild than, say, a spicy rye, I recommend going for a mellow sweetener like a honey syrup, or as I used below, maple (but only if you have the real stuff, not an ersatz squeeze bottle — I happened to have a little bottle of Daniel’s Organic, from West Virginia’s Greenbrier Valley, on hand thanks to a friend’s recent visit). I also dialed the lemon juice down from what I would use in, say, a whiskey sour, so it doesn’t overwhelm the apple flavor. 

Ingredients 

Serving size: One drink

  • 2 oz. Calvados 
  • 0.5 oz. pear liqueur 
  • 1 oz. real maple syrup 
  • 0.5 oz. lemon juice (freshly squeezed is best)
  • Cinnamon bitters
  • Cinnamon stick for garnish
  • Ice for shaking
  • One large ice cube for serving

Gear:

You don’t need any specialty equipment to mix a simple cocktail. Improvise with what you have. But here’s what I keep at hand:

Instructions:

Shake the Calvados, pear liqueur, lemon juice, syrup and bitters with ice until chilled. Strain into rocks glass over large ice cube, garnish with a cinnamon stick and serve. 

More Oracle Pour:

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

K-dramas cured my prejudice against Asian men

Here’s a confession that I’m still a little ashamed of: back in college, I once got voted as “Most Likely to Bag on Asian Guys.”

It was graduation season, which made everyone a little nostalgic for the inanities of high school and its superlatives, and so my friends put together their own award show for the disembarking seniors. Next to the usual plaques for “Best Hair” and “Cutest Couple” were novel ones that reflected our snark and particular cultural milieu as a heavily Asian-American and white group of overachievers: “Worst Driver” became a toss-up between the only two people with cars on a campus marked by walkability (coincidentally, both also Asian); “Most Likely to Marry Asian” went to a white guy who exclusively dated girls from Southern China and was unafraid to use this line to explain to me why we could never be together. (If the motherland was a rooster, my hometown — Nanking — hails from its belly, and this apparently was disqualification enough.) 

I’m not going to lie; “Most Likely to Bag on Asian Guys” captured the general ethos I held about my race for most of my life. As the kid who spent every other year of elementary school in a different town (San Juan, Puerto Rico; Ames, Iowa; College Station, Texas) with no other Asians besides the members of my family, I spent my nights watching American television with my parents in a joint and concerted effort to learn English.

“Golden Girls” and “Married . . . with Children” were our favorites, but occasionally a public broadcast for a dated movie or miniseries would make it into the mix. The characters occupying the 24-inch screen before us varied, but one thing stuck: American men — and by that I meant white men — were a different species from the men I knew at home. White guys professed their love often, bought flowers and gifts whether they were rich or poor, gave their women rings and hugs and words of affirmation, kissed in public.


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


I asked my father why he didn’t do these things for Mommy. He laughed and shrugged and went back to work. So I took things into my own hands. In fifth grade I took my lunch money and walked to Conroy’s Flowers on the corner of Anza and 190th. I bought three carnations. The white gentleman behind the counter smiled at the small change in my small hands and promised, “I’ll dress them up nice for you.” He added baby’s breath, a few greens and cellophane on the house. 

I skipped home with the bouquet and handed it to my father. “Give these to mommy,” I suggested (or was it a command?). He did, and I was happy; as immigrants, we could fake it till we made it with the best of them. 

The following Christmas, I asked my father to take me to Kmart during their going out of business sale and led him to the fine jewelry counter. I pointed at a 1 carat cubic zirconia solitaire, brassy and yellow. “Mommy needs an engagement ring,” I told him. “How much?” he asked the woman behind the counter. I don’t remember what she said but I know exactly what drawer that ring is in in my parent’s bathroom today, because every time I visit I check on its whereabouts. My mother has never worn that ring in her life but no matter; every time I see it in its faded blue box, a little part of me simmers with hope — although for whom, I cannot say. 

My successful streak at turning my Chinese father into the kind of white man I saw on TV abruptly ended when one day, I politely asked him to pick my mother up. Like a baby, I clarified, when neither of them understood what I was saying. I grabbed a Cabbage Patch kid and simulated the scooping movement I saw on television when lovers found themselves in the heat of passion. They laughed in a way to suggest that I was too stupid to deserve an answer. I went into my room and vowed that I’d never marry a man who couldn’t carry my own body weight with ease and finesse; physics be damned. Based on the anecdotal evidence before me, I figured that my best chances of achieving this was with someone white, and therein my own romantic prejudice was born. 

By college, this racism against my own had metastasized; whenever the topic of boys came up, I’d explain to the girls in the room, “I only like white/Black/Latino guys.” I spent the rest of college crushing on various shades of white — although two Asian guys and a hapa guy infiltrated that mix when I wasn’t paying attention — and it wasn’t until I got that award plaque that I considered the possibility that the problem lay with me, and not Asian men.

I went to the only Asian professor in my major — a thick-accented Chinese man named Kaiping — and said I wanted to do my senior thesis on why Asian girls like white guys so much. Being a good scientist, he opted not to take offense at my question and helped me design a series of psychological studies that tested this theory. Three years later, halfway through graduate school, its findings became my first publication; it turns out, I was not alone. There are even fancy terms for this phenomenon: self-stereotyping, in-group derogation, or the most succinct and accurate — racism. 

Interestingly, Asians like myself appear to take the lead on the phenomenon; as with math and filial piety, we’re overachievers when it comes to prejudice too. Everyone is ethnocentric, but leave it to us to take it one step further and turn our racism inward, against ourselves. We’re not the only ones, of course. But somewhere between the double eyelids stitched by man (or lotteried by God) on every translucent-skinned female celebrity hailing from the East and the proliferation of Asian wives coupled to white men in America (myself included), our Eurocentrism seems par for the course, a hereditary feature of our Asian heritage, more of a birthright than an acquired taste. 

These days, I spend my hours teaching undergraduates that psychologists have come up with an elegant model — called the stereotype content model — to capture its flavor profile: if all our prejudices can be determined by our perceptions of two dimensions — a) their warmth, and b) their competence — then Asians unanimously occupy the low warmth-high competence category. People respect our academic prowess and STEM skills but otherwise do not see us as particularly nice or pleasant; classic stereotypes of the so-called “inscrutable” Chinese or ninjas or dragon ladies or any of Lucy Liu’s onscreen personalities attest to this. 

But here’s what I’ve never managed to solve: my own capacity for gendered racism. And once again, as all the studies on implicit bias — or a quick scan of America’s current racial reckoning — proves, we are far, far way from a post-racial utopia. 

Crash Landing on YouSon Ye-jin as Yoon Se-ri and Hyun Bin as Captain Ri Jeong-hyeok in “Crash Landing on You” (Lim Hyo-seon/Netflix)

The other day, though, I found a serendipitous way to counter my own biases when my supremely white mother-in-law called my (also white) husband and refused to shut up about how spectacular Netflix’s Korean drama, “Crash Landing on You,” was. It was even better than anything she had ever seen come out of Hollywood, she declared.

Curious, the two of us logged in to Netflix and spent the next three days reading the small white text parading across the television screen, glued to a story we had not heard before and could not turn away from. In the series, North Korean soldier (Hyun Bin) falls for a South Korean socialite (Son Ye-jin) who accidentally crosses the DMZ while paragliding during a windstorm. However, their love is the kind that survives multiple murder plots, traitorous families, cultural differences and class divides.

As I tell my students, storytelling at its best is nothing sort of sorcery; the greatest stories we can’t help but remember and retell and be changed by. In my case, K-dramas became the perfect antidote against the perpetual stereotypes of Asians perennially competent but never quite as warm or likable. Because if there’s anything shows like “Crash Landing on You” are good at, it’s having audiences fall for just about all the Koreans in the cast (and not just Hyun Bin either, whose apparent magnetism appears to rival God’s).

Maybe this is why representation matters: loving a fictional character is the gateway drug for cherishing the real people they represent. No matter that these dramas hide everyone’s pores and glosses over the hero’s benevolent sexism. I didn’t realize it until I saw it, but I’ve been waiting my whole life to see Asians on TV screens in America idealized to the same degree that white characters have always been privy to, where Asians men are not just competent but also sexy, and where Asian people across the board are not just useful but kind, funny, immensely interesting.

I doubt that all Korean men cry with the kind of poetic abandon their actors do on TV or go to great lengths to purchase scented candles for the woman they are pursuing. I also suspect that the netizens of Pyongyang don’t all dwell in the kind of idyllic villages whose quaint kimchi basements and neighborly investment in each other’s love lives makes up for whatever geopolitical divides exists between them and their Southern compatriots. But no matter: idealization is a privilege, and all the more so compared to invisibility. 

When I turned on Netflix that day, I didn’t know that there was going to be a competition for hearts and minds (turns out, there always is). “Crash Landing on You” tasted so sweet going down that I didn’t realize its medicinal value in countering our old stereotypes about f**kability and want. 

As for me, if I was ashamed of being crowned “Most Likely to Bag on Asian Guys” some decade and a half ago, I was even more embarrassed last week when I discovered that it took binge-watching an entire Korean drama to remember the immense desirability of men from my own group — and not just the Hyun Bins either — in all their imperfection and glory.

“Crash Landing on You” is streaming on Netflix (where you can also watch “Squid Game”).

Do dogs miss us when we leave? A “talking” dog offers insights

Any dog owner knows how hard it is to leave their pup for an extended period of time. We wonder: Do they miss us when we’re gone? Do they know how long we’ve been gone for? Or even worse, do they think we’ve abandoned them?

The way humans are excitedly greeted by their dogs upon return — and the way many whine when we leave — suggests they recognize our absence, and mourn it. However, it’s hard to know what is really going on in a dog’s brain — perhaps they just miss the food we give them? — partly because we can’t really communicate with them.

Well, most of them. Alexis Devine is the human parent of Bunny the “talking” dog. Bunny, a sheepadoodle, has been trained to communicate using a sound board with large buttons keyed to different words. By pressing them in sequence, Bunny can relay basic sentences and sentiments — “Bunny sad,” or “where mom,” for instance. Though there is debate over the extent to which she understands language, most animal behavior researchers and laypersons alike agree that she is positively communicating and seems to understand what she says and hears back. Devine shares videos of Bunny “talking” on her social media accounts, giving the internet a glimpse into what it might be like to have a casual conversation with Fido.

Recently the beloved sheepadoodle has been concerning herself with the absence of people and animals in her life. And to answer the question about animals missing us when they are gone: if they are anything like Bunny, it would seem that yes, they are very curious about where we go when we leave.

Devine recently filmed Bunny asking her questions about Uni, Devine’s lost cat who has been gone for nearly four months. As Devine told Salon, prior to Uni’s absence, Bunny didn’t “talk” much about Uni.

“It was maybe like two months before he went missing that she had finally finally used the buttons, ‘Uni family together,’ which was a huge accomplishment because they had had such a tenuous and challenging relationship,” Devine said. “And then, last week, it was just heartbreaking, she pressed ‘cat bye,’ and I just about burst into tears. My little heart couldn’t handle it.”

It’s not the first time Bunny has appeared to wonder about some one or some animal while they’re gone. A couple months earlier, Devine’s partner Johnny was at work. “Where dad bye?” Bunny asked.

Devine said Johnny worked from home all last year because of the pandemic. He’s a high school teacher, and he’s finally back to teaching in-person.

“The first week that he was back at school in the classroom, Bunny was very much asking about Johnny, pressing ‘Where dad?,’ ‘Where dad bye?’ for a lot of the day, for several days in a row,” Devine said.

Bunny, who has 7.1 million followers on TikTok, is one of nearly 2,600 dogs and 300 cats enrolled in a project called TheyCanTalk. The study’s aim is to understand if animals can communicate with humans through augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. AAC systems, such as Bunny’s giant labeled buttons that speak a single word when pressed, were originally designed to help humans with communication disorders. Recently, they have been adapted for use in language experiments with animals.

Of course, as Salon has previously reported, it is unclear (scientifically speaking) whether Bunny has been trained to use specific buttons on her AAC device, a sound board made up of buttons with a different word vocally recorded on each, or if her communications are actually spontaneous. Through it, Bunny has appeared to report her dreams, ask existential questions, and now answer one of the most frequently thought of questions among dog owners: do they miss us when we’re gone?

Federico Rossano, director of the Comparative Cognition Lab at UC San Diego, said in Bunny’s case it’s “certainly” possible that Bunny is missing Uni and Johnny.


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


“Most social animals living in small groups or packs are aware that somebody is missing,” Rossano said. “This is most obvious in a mother keeping track of their cubs and going to retrieve one that has gone too far.”

Rossano added that in a pack of wolves, one might howl when an individual has been separated from the pack. It’s a way of saying “we are here,” Rossano explained.

“Dogs tend to form close bonds with the animals they live with (humans and non-human) that would be comparable to the forming of a pack (though it is unclear to what degree hierarchy is as important as in wolves).” Rossano said. “So Bunny’s behavior in those videos makes perfect sense.”

But of course, scientific studies are still pending. To date, not many have tested this precise hypothesis.

Yet there have been an array of studies that show that dogs do love their humans. For one, neuroscientist Gregory Berns trained nearly 90 dogs to stay put so he could do a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan on their brains. In one of his studies, he gave dogs five different scents — their own scent, a familiar human, a strange human, a familiar dog, and a strange dog. Researchers found that the brain region associated with positive rewards, the caudate nucleus, was most activated by the scent of their familiar human; the study was published in the​​ journal Behavioural Processes in 2014.

In 2011, two Swedish researchers Therese Rhen and Linda Keeling performed a scientific study on 12 dogs to determine how they behaved before, during, and after an owner’s absence. They found that when an owner had been gone for two hours, dogs had more tail wagging and face licking compared to when the owner was gone for 30 minutes. However, after two hours, there didn’t appear to be much difference in the dog’s behavior, suggesting that perhaps a dog’s sense of time after two hours gets blurry.

Rossano emphasized that, while this study is often referred to, it only involved 12 dogs. There is room for a follow-up to answer some bigger questions around how dogs understand whether animals from their pack are gone or not, and to what extent they miss them.

“So much more research needs to be done to confirm this finding; there are also a series of clear confounds that any future study would need to address,” Rossano said. “Indeed, it is possible that the over-excitement after two hours could be due to a desire to obtain food or get out of the house or simply play with the human.”

In other words, Rossano said, “it is not that I know you have been gone for long and therefore I am nicer to you [but] rather, I (the dog) am now feeling hungry, or need to pee or am bored and therefore I am trying to engage with you, and if enough time has passed, these states might be reached independently of the dog’s awareness of how long the human is gone.”

Indeed, it’s hard to study what’s going on in a dog’s mind because we can’t communicate with them. But that’s part of what the study that Bunny is part of hopes to eventually accomplish.

“If the dogs could tell us how long a human has been gone, it would clearly help us understand their representation of time and how their memories are structured,” Rossano said. “This is why we are extremely interested in assessing how training dogs to use buttons and soundboards can lead to novel paradigms and findings concerning dog cognition.”

As heat waves intensify, tens of thousands of US classrooms will be too hot for students to learn in

Rising temperatures due to climate change are causing more than just uncomfortably hot days across the United States. These high temperatures are placing serious stress on critical infrastructure such as water supplies, airports, roads and bridges.

One category of critical infrastructure being severely affected is the nation’s K-12 schools.

Ideally, the nation’s more than 90,000 public K-12 schools, which serve over 50 million students, should protect children from the sometimes dangerous elements of the outdoors such as severe storms or extreme temperatures.

But since so many of America’s schools are old and dilapidated, it’s the school buildings themselves that need protection – or at least to be updated for the 21st century.

Twenty-eight percent of the nation’s public schools were built from 1950 through 1969, federal data shows, while just 10% were built in 1985 or later.

As a researcher who studies the impact of climate change, I have measured its effects on infrastructure and health for over a decade. During that time, I’ve seen little attention focused on the effects of climate change on public schools.

Since 2019, climate scientist Sverre LeRoy, at the Center for Climate Integrity, and I have worked to determine if the nation’s schools are prepared for the heat waves on the approaching horizon.

Comparing the climate conditions under which U.S. schools were built with the projected conditions over the next two decades, we looked at the vulnerability of all K-12 schools to increasing temperatures. We determined whether current schools have air conditioning or not and whether they would be required to add air conditioning in the future.

The results of our study, “Hotter Days, Higher Costs: The Cooling Crisis in America’s Classrooms,” show that by 2025, more than 13,700 schools will need to install air conditioning, and another 13,500 will need to upgrade their existing systems.

Hot classrooms

Research has shown that high classroom temperatures can make it harder to learn. Hot school days cause difficulty in concentrating, sleepiness, a decrease in energy and even reduced memory capacity.

Local school districts have policies for extreme heat events. However, rising temperatures mean these guidelines are no longer limited to rare occurrences.

Over the past several years, schools across the U.S. are increasingly forced to take “heat days,” cutting school days short because of classrooms that are too hot for students to effectively learn.

This is happening in places that range from Denver to Baltimore and Cleveland.

Compounding the increase in temperatures is the national trend that seasonal temperatures are rising in both the spring and the fall. For example, both Rhode Island and New Jersey have seen average spring and fall temperatures rise over 3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.7 Celsius). Rather than high temperatures only occurring when students are on summer break, these heat events now occur regularly during the school year too. Students today in a greater number of cities are beginning and ending the school year in classrooms that often exceed 80 F (27 C).

Expensive upgrades

The problem of more hot days is due to average temperatures increasing over the past 40 years. The number of days with high temperatures has risen across the country, with notable increases in large northern cities. For example, Chicago has seen the number of days over 80 degrees during the school year increase from 27 in 1970 to 32 in 2020 and a projected 38 by 2025. These increases affect schools in two distinct ways.

Schools in the traditionally cooler north – especially older schools – will need to be retrofitted with new air conditioning systems at an accumulated cost of US$40 billion by 2025. For schools in the traditionally warmer South and West, many existing systems will need to be upgraded at a projected cost exceeding $400 million.

Temperature increases are especially costly in large cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles, where existing efforts and continued needs will result in outlays exceeding $500 million, $1.5 billion and $600 million, respectively. These large districts have a greater number of older buildings that require upgrades in electrical and structural systems to support new air conditioning systems.

For all schools – even ones that don’t require system upgrades — the additional costs of operating air conditioning systems to meet the new demands will exceed $1.4 billion per year.

An equity issue

Since school districts are dependent on local taxes or bond measures to finance the school system, districts in affluent areas have a greater opportunity to obtain funds through tax increases or voter-approved bond measures.

In contrast, districts located in less affluent counties — including Bell County, Kentucky; Scott County, Tennessee; and DeKalb County, Alabama — face the challenge of creating safe learning environments without a financial safety net. With household incomes for the entire district in the bottom 20% of national averages, or less than $43,000 per year, these districts are unable to absorb significant tax increases.

In this regard, classroom environments become an equity issue. While the increase in temperature may affect all children, the relative impact of the increase and the ability to adapt is not equal.

Unsustainable solutions

Increasingly, school districts are turning to individual window units to address classroom overheating. However, window units do not cool interior offices, cannot circulate and exchange air within the classrooms, and will not meet expected lifespans due to extensive use. Furthermore, they create uneven cooling patterns and classroom disturbance due to noise. While these solutions are popular from an initial budget perspective, they ultimately fail to solve the hot classroom crisis.

Where mechanical systems are not an option due to budgetary constraints, school districts are looking at altering the school year to start later or end earlier. However, there are limits to this approach because there are minimum requirements for the number of days that are in the school year. Some schools are even experimenting with remote learning as a response when extreme temperatures are an issue.

The bottom line for schools and their surrounding communities is that rising temperatures from climate change are a growing threat to school infrastructure. Schools will need additional funding to install or upgrade air conditioning systems, pay for increased energy usage or redesign school buildings to enhance natural cooling. Various cities and states argue that fossil fuel companies have a duty to pay these infrastructure costs associated with climate change.

The only other choice is for America’s students to continue to endure classrooms where it’s simply too hot to learn.

[Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter.]

Paul Chinowsky, Professor of Environmental Design, University of Colorado Boulder

On “The Morning Show,” Bradley’s bisexuality is ground zero for the “identity politics” debate

By the end of the most recent episode of “The Morning Show,” Bradley (Reese Witherspoon) is so desperate to be a moderator of the upcoming presidential debate that she almost reveals to the network’s president, Stella (Greta Lee), something she’s only just realized about herself: that she’s bisexual.

The almost-confession, an attempt to sell how she would bring the underrepresented, queer perspective to the debate, nearly comes out . . . but doesn’t.

“I think I can offer a perspective that Alex doesn’t and Eric doesn’t, and this is something I barely acknowledge about myself because quite honestly I just don’t know how I feel about it, but I want to be truthful,” Bradley begins to tell Stella via anxious word vomit, “I’m, I’m from a Southern conservative family.”

Stella, of course, is unmoved by this unremarkable confession, but the moment is eye-opening, both for Bradley herself and for audiences. The exchange is the cherry on top of this episode’s refreshingly nuanced glimpse into the ways we perceive and wield what’s often called “identity politics” in the modern era. 

In the previous episode, Bradley realized her feelings and sexual attraction toward Laura Peterson (Julianna Margulies), a fellow UBA journalist who interviews Bradley and is told by UBA CEO Cory Ellison (Billy Crudup) to mentor her. Bradley doesn’t initially seem conflicted or ashamed of this budding same-sex relationship, but it’s clear that she still doesn’t know how to incorporate this newfound aspect of her identity into who she is at work or in any public arena.

Throughout the episode, Bradley is primarily focused on trying to clinch a spot as a debate moderator. She admits that she can understand why there’s little chance she’ll be chosen to join Alex (Jennifer Aniston) as moderator because, as she tells Laura, “You can’t just trot out two straight white women.” 

“Bradley, you just called yourself straight,” replies Laura.

What follows is an agonizing conversation between a newly queer woman in 2020, and a slightly older woman, who was outed as a lesbian in the ’90s when homophobia was significantly more overt. Back then, being gay nearly ended Laura’s career. Now, she argues to Bradley, there are actually major benefits to coming out, and she pushes Bradley to take advantage of rather than conceal her sexual identity.


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


“There is something inside me that wants to resent you for not being grateful for this,” Laura tells her. “I see someone who is walking the same path, honestly a path I helped lay, and it’s a little annoying, and I’m envious. I lost a job for being gay. You should embrace it. It’s not like you’d be lying.” 

Bradley responds that she just isn’t “interested in using my identity like that.” When Laura points out how Bradley wields her background from a Southern, conservative family to her advantage whenever possible and accuses Bradley of being “repressed,” the younger woman smashes a vase and storms out in rage.

There are many layers to Bradley’s newly discovered, queer sexuality, like the fact that she’s in her 40s and is thus exploring her sexual orientation somewhat later in life. Her uncertainty about what to do with this new piece of herself is relatable and familiar to plenty of other people who come out or struggle to come out at an advanced age, and it’s an experience that’s rarely represented onscreen.

Bradley’s discomfort with the idea of coming out may be rooted in any number of reasons, and no one, not even someone who’s experienced workplace homophobia firsthand, should pressure her to come out before she’s ready. That said, Laura isn’t necessarily the bad guy here. She’s right about the progress and strides forward that we’ve made on LGBTQ rights in the last few decades, and the shifts in how we treat marginalized identities in workplaces and politics in general. That doesn’t mean we should demean the experiences and struggles of newly out LGBTQ or marginalized people today.

Laura isn’t the first woman on this season of “The Morning Show” to scold someone for being ungrateful for the rights they have today. Earlier this season, we’re introduced to Paola (Valeria Golino), a feisty Italian woman who shuts down a young feminist as the younger woman confronts Mitch (Steve Carrell), a former “Morning Show” co-host ousted for sexual misconduct, in public. Paola chides the young woman for “whining and throwing tantrums until you don’t have to feel uncomfortable anymore,” and tells her, “I fought for your right to be an asshole, b***h. Don’t make me regret it.”

It’s a familiar sentiment to anyone who’s ever been involved in activism, and had their modern experiences with identity-based oppressions or demands for more progress dismissed by people from their communities who are senior to them. But two things can be simultaneously true: 1) that we’ve made progress and discrimination and oppression were once worse, and 2) that there’s infinitely more progress to be made. Bradley and young queer people, or young women like the one who confronted Mitch, aren’t ungrateful to those who came before them — they’re just different, have new and different experiences, and want new and different things. 

And contrary to Laura’s insinuation to Bradley that being openly queer is entirely advantageous today, there may be some benefits for those with marginalized identities that didn’t always exist, but they also will always face greater scrutiny. Especially as a journalist, if Bradley came out, she would always have to reckon with the ways her journalistic “objectivity” and credibility are held to a higher standard, because of her supposedly biased, female and now queer identity. 

It’s often said that the term “identity politics” otherizes all experiences beyond that of the white man’s, which is held as the universal default. Those who speak about their lived experiences or marginalized identities remain accused of using “identity politics” for personal advancement — the worst nightmare of a career-driven journalist like Bradley.

When a marginalized person’s efforts are rewarded with any sort of prestige or inclusion in spaces of power, they’re told they didn’t earn it. The unique challenges and barriers they had to overcome due to their identities are dismissed by the idea that it’s actually advantageous to be a woman, queer person, or person of color today. And even in the spaces that are supposedly welcoming of marginalized people, when they make any sort of demand for respect, for acknowledgement of their existence or experience, they’re often treated as if this basic demand is an impossible inconvenience for others.

At the end of the day, Laura isn’t wrong. If Bradley did come forward, on the surface, she would likely be embraced and celebrated by a corporation like UBA that’s desperate to present the image of diversity and inclusion after being mired in a sexual harassment scandal. But beneath the surface, and certainly from the massive hordes of bigoted trolls who continue to run the internet, coming out could also stand to harm Bradley and her career in other ways. 

Like all queer people who are still in the process of discovering and accepting themselves, Bradley’s choice should be entirely her own, rather than a result of external pressure from someone who “paved the way” for her. And whatever she or any privately queer person decides is best for themselves is valid.

“The Morning Show” releases new episodes on Fridays on Apple TV+.

Is Trump like Andrew Jackson? Yeah — in all the bad ways, and none of the good ones

In a recent editorial for The Washington Post, historian J.M. Opal criticized Donald Trump by comparing him to Andrew Jackson, who Trump has said is his favorite president. Since historian Arthur Schlesinger’s masterful study “The Age of Jackson” is one of my favorite books, this got my attention.

Opal opens by mentioning the most recent humiliating setback in Trump’s post-presidential career: The “audit” of the presidential election in Arizona’s largest county completely backfired, reaffirming Joe Biden’s victory in that state. That was one more piece of damaging news in an unbroken chain that has undercut Trump’s attempts to spread the malignant normality he has created for his fascist cult, one which asserts that he (and by extension they) was the real winner of the 2020 election.

Opal’s reference to Jackson conjured up a peculiar memory. A few months after financier Anthony Scaramucci was hired — and almost immediately fired — as White House communications director, I interviewed him about Trump’s understanding of American history—  which meant that we talked about Andrew Jackson. I referred to a passage from Jackson’s 1832 message vetoing renewal of a charter for America’s national bank, in which he argued that “there are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does it rains, shower favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and poor, it would be an unqualified blessing.”

Scaramucci’s response was about how Trump could or could not get closer to that standard by living up to the idea that “responsible government protects minorities, whether they voted for them or didn’t vote for them.” I’ve thought about that a lot in subsequent years. Donald Trump was in a position to win a legitimate victory in 2020 had he tried to expand his base rather than appeal to its worst impulses. And Trump’s abuses of power after losing the 2020 election give new weight to Scaramucci’s observations.

As far as we can tell, Trump has not wavered in his choice of Jackson as a presidential beau idéal. (The photograph above this article shows Old Hickory’s portrait hanging near Trump in the Oval Office.) As Opal noted, one could argue that Trump’s claim to being a latter-day Jackson has strengthened since the 2020 election. Trump’s Big Lie has been to insist that he was the rightful winner, and Jackson himself lost an election through what he alleged (with far more plausibility) was a “corrupt bargain.” In 1824, Jackson lost to John Quincy Adams (even though Jackson probably won the popular vote, which Trump has never done) after no candidates won a majority in the Electoral College and the election was thrown into the House of Representatives, where Speaker Henry Clay was instrumental in securing Adams’ victory. Adams later appointed Clay as secretary of state, making him next in line for the presidency under the rules of succession at that time.


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


By refusing to accept Biden’s victory in 2020, was Trump behaving like Jackson? Well, not so much. 

“Honestly, there’s very little to compare,” historian Matthew J. Clavin told Salon by email. “When Jackson lost the election of 1824, despite winning a plurality of both the popular and Electoral College votes, he was outraged. Some would say rightfully so. But he did not challenge the election results. Nor he did question the election’s integrity.” Jackson argued instead that the Electoral College should be abolished and replaced with direct election by popular vote — a constitutional change that would have altered history, undoing the presidencies of Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush, as well as Trump.

Opal makes much the same point, writing that “to be sure, Jackson seethed at the Corrupt Bargain, especially since he hated Clay as much as he hated any other person, no small thing. (He actually liked Adams for having supported his illicit war on Black, Creek and Seminole fighters in Spanish Florida in 1818.) Nonetheless, Old Hickory contained his legendary temper and accepted the outcome.”

To avenge what he perceived as a terrible wrong, Opal continues, Jackson created a “loud and proud” political coalition of “slavers and sailors, farmers and workers who believed that the people were sovereign, that government was corrupt, and that the United States had suffered too long at the hands of European empires and North American ‘savages.'” They ultimately formed the Democratic Party — which still exists today, although it switched sides on racial-justice issues partway through the 20th century — and Jackson was legitimately elected in 1828.

Trump and his allies in the Republican Party may well believe that winning a legitimate election is not possible for them — and they may be right. Barack Obama’s election in 2008 suggested the possibility of a coalition of racial minorities and white liberals that might control government for at least the next generation. Facing that, the Trumpers have used the Big Lie to roll back voting rights, making it more difficult for Democratic constituencies to vote — and worse yet, empowering Republican state legislatures and local officials to overturn unfavorable election results.

So Andrew Jackson tried to strengthen democracy after his defeat in 1824, as execrable as some of his personal and political views were. Trump has done exactly the opposite, effectively trying to destroy or short-circuit democracy. There’s a good reason for that: Jackson had at least a plausible claim that he’d been cheated. Trump did not.

Biden “decisively won the majority of both the popular and Electoral College votes” in 2020, Clavin pointed out. “With absolutely no evidence of fraud, President Donald Trump claimed, and continues to claim, that he won the election. The belief that Biden stole the election is utterly absurd, and it subverts the whole idea of democracy and republicanism.”

That support for American democracy makes the differences between Jackson and Trump clear in other important ways. Jackson worked hard to prevent a civil war from tearing apart the Union; Trump actively encouraged a coup after losing a valid election. Jackson was a fierce patriot (and skilled fighter) who risked his life for his country on a number of occasions; Trump is a draft dodger who referred to soldiers who died in war as “losers” and “suckers.”

“Jackson was a penniless frontier orphan who through sheer grit and determination became a lawyer, Army general, plantation owner, politician, and president,” Clavin said. “Trump is a son of privilege.” He concluded with an even stronger note: “Trump’s efforts to overthrow an election by sending a mob into the Capitol would certainly make him one of Jackson’s arch nemeses. Trump is fortunate that Jackson is not around today, for the seventh president did not tolerate traitors or treason.”

Nobody should glorify Jackson, a bonafide white supremacist who committed what could reasonably be called genocidal crimes. Like Trump, he created a cult of personality that whipped up his supporters into angry mobs. Historians like Schlesinger have made the case that Jackson’s populism was authentic — as Clavin wrote to Salon, Jackson was, “for his time, a champion of the common man” — but it never extended beyond the white male population. Trump’s supposed populism is largely a matter of parroting whatever he absorbed from the right-wing media ecosystem. 

Like Jackson, Trump has immense sway over his followers, and in theory he could have rallied them behind causes that would have helped “the high and the low, the rich and poor.” It’s obvious he has no such vision, and only wanted to use  his power to amplify his tantrum over losing an election into a full-on constitutional crisis. So here’s the short answer: Trump is toxic in many of the same ways Andrew Jackson was, but lacks any of his redeeming qualities.

Anti-vaxxers finding ‘clever workarounds’ to Instagram’s anti-misinformation algorithms: report

No matter how high the COVID-19 death count climbs — Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, as of October 4, reports more than 4.8 million deaths worldwide, including 701,000 in the United States — many anti-vaxxers continue to falsely claim that COVID-19 vaccines are more dangerous than COVID-19 itself, sometimes using social media to make their claims. Journalist Kiera Butler, in an article published by Mother Jones on October 4, examines the presence of anti-vaxxers on Instagram. And she notes the ways in which they are trying to get around Instagram’s anti-misinformation policies.

Anti-vaxxers, Butler explains, won’t necessarily post misinformation on Instagram itself, but they will provide links to anti-vaxxer websites. Butler cites Instagram user Janny Organically as an example.

“If the content in these links were posted on Instagram itself,” Butler observes, “they could trip the platform’s misinformation algorithms because they contain factually incorrect statements. The vaccine guide link, for example, suggests that vaccines cause autism, which isn’t true. If the algorithm picked up on this, the account could be suspended or even banned. But Janny Organically and a host of other Instagram users have figured out a clever workaround: They’ve found sites that allow you to curate a list of links under one tidy and unassuming URL.”


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


Instagram’s moderators may have gotten wise to what Janny Organically was up to — perhaps because of Butler’s reporting.

Butler linked to Janny Organically’s Instagram page from her Mother Jones article, but that link now says, “Sorry, this page isn’t available. The link you followed may be broken, or the page may have been removed.”

Butler explains, “I counted dozens of popular anti-vaccine Instagram accounts that use link lists, including a chiropractor in San Diego with 33,000 followers, an essential-oils-peddling homeschool mom in Tennessee with 101,000 followers, and an Australian podcaster with 80,000 followers. Some organizations use them, too: A powerful anti-vaccine advocacy group called Freedom Keepers United uses a Campsite link on its Instagram account, which has more than 66,000 followers. Another anti-vaccine group, Moms for Liberty, uses Linktree in several of its local chapters.”

California pipeline deal may keep oil pumping for 20 years, despite disastrous spill

A little more than a year before an underwater pipeline leaked 144,480 gallons of crude oil, tarring Southern California beaches and killing fish and wildlife, the city of Long Beach signed a lease with Houston-based Amplify Energy that could extend the pipeline’s life through 2040, according to government records.

A subsidiary of Amplify, the oil company responsible for the leak, is paying the city $84,449.83 a year for 37,430 square feet of property, according to a lease agreement signed on June 17, 2020.

Since 1979, offshore oil drillers have leased an area now known as the Beta Pump Station from the city of Long Beach. The pump station is located at the Port of Long Beach’s southeast basin, where there are also active oil wells.

The 17.5-mile pipeline that ruptured on Oct. 1 transports oil to the station from three offshore platform rigs that went into operation in the early 1980s. The platforms are about 9 miles southwest of Huntington Beach, in the Beta Field located in federal waters of the Catalina Channel.

The land at the Port of Long Beach was first leased by the city to Shell Oil Company, and is currently leased to Amplify Energy through subsidiary San Pedro Bay Pipeline oil company. The rigs are operated by another subsidiary, Beta Offshore.

Amplify Energy is the company responsible for the oil leak. It is part of a unified command — including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States Coast Guard — responding to the spill.

At a press conference hosted by the unified command on Monday, Amplify Energy CEO Martyn Willsher said the company hadn’t noticed the leak until Saturday. State records show the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported the presence of oil to EPA’s National Response Center early Saturday morning and that other reports had come in on Friday.


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


The U.S. Coast Guard’s criminal division is investigating whether the company failed to notice a drop in pressure that would have immediately alerted it to a leak, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The pump station is an essential part of the infrastructure bringing oil produced from Amplify Energy’s offshore rigs to market. After reaching the station, the oil is sent to various regional refineries via another pipeline owned by Crimson Pipeline, according to Kevin Tougas, the Oil Operations Bureau Manager for the city of Long Beach’s Energy Department.

The fact that the pipeline will be 60 years old by the end of the lease in 2040 is concerning, says Miyoko Sakashita, Oceans Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. It may also conflict with state, national and international climate goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions via fossil fuel combustion.

“I think there’s a good argument here that there has been such an environmental disaster, coupled with our current climate emergency, that there are reasons of public safety and public trust to not continue with producing oil from these platforms,” Sakashita tells Capital & Main.

A spokesperson for the Port of Long Beach declined to make available for comment Mario Cordero, the executive director for the Port of Long Beach who signed the pump station lease, adding that the city would wait for results from the ongoing investigation before making any changes to the lease.

A voicemail to Amplify Energy’s corporate office wasn’t returned.

The renewed lease between Long Beach and Amplify Energy was part of an agreement to settle disagreements over the city’s new international bridge, which opened a year ago. During bridge construction, Amplify Energy said it didn’t have full access to the area covered by the lease and that some parts of the facility incurred minor damage.

Long Beach agreed to reimburse the company for some of those damages. In addition, because a portion of the bridge runs above high-pressure equipment at the Beta Pump Station, the city will reimburse Amplify up to $1.5 million for building protective steel and concrete structures between the equipment and the bridge.

Initial reporting indicates that the spill has already caused an ecological crisis and may keep affected beaches closed for months. Though Amplify Energy’s offshore oil wells operate under a federal lease, the spill has renewed calls among California environmentalists for Gov. Gavin Newsom to end state permits for offshore drilling.

Since the start of his term, his administration has issued 138 such permits, mostly for well reworks for older wells, according to Kyle Ferrar, Western Program Coordinator for the FracTracker Alliance.

“This is a red flag for the risks of future oil spills in California,” Ferrar said.

In a call to investors from August, Amplify Energy CEO Willsher said the company was overseeing development projects at the Beta Field that included two sidetracks of existing wells that were expected to produce hydrocarbons by the end of the year. Sidetracking, which includes horizontal drilling, can be a way of increasing production from poorly producing wells.

Amplify Energy’s oil and gas assets generated a total of $200.9 million in revenue in 2020, according to an SEC filing. This included revenues from active wells on company platforms in the Beta Field; the company also has operations in Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and the Rocky Mountain region. Fifteen percent of its proven oil reserves are off the coast of California.

The company has no registered lobbyists in California and is reportedly not part of the Western States Petroleum Association, the largest oil trade group in the state, but it has a robust lobbying presence in Washington, D.C.

Federal disclosures show Amplify Energy paid $610,000 to Capitol Hill Consulting Group for lobbying work from 2019 through the third quarter of 2020; the listed reason is “Working with [U.S. Department of the Interior] and Congress on specific royalty rates and decommissioning funds.”

Capitol Hill Consulting Group didn’t return a phone call or an email asking for further information.

Copyright 2021 Capital & Main

Why prescription drugs can work differently for different people

Different people taking the same drug can have markedly different responses to the same dose. While many people will get the intended effects, some may get little to no benefit, and others may get unwanted side effects.

As a pharmacist who researches the safety and effectiveness of drugs, I know there are several reasons why this occurs, including individual physical differences, drug interactions and inflammation.

Genetic differences

The liver has a collection of enzymes called the cytochrome P450 system that metabolize, or break down, many drugs so they can be removed from the body.

The DNA, or genetic material, of cells contain the blueprint on how to create these enzymes. Unfortunately, some people have small errors in their DNA called polymorphisms that result in enzymes that don’t work as well.

Where these errors show up in the enzyme matter. If they occur in parts of the enzyme that aren’t directly involved in drug breakdown, they will have little effect on how well you metabolize a drug. Errors affecting the enzyme’s active site that binds to drugs, however, can cripple its ability to break down a drug and subsequently mean there’s more of the drug circulating in the blood. If the rising blood concentration exceeds the drug’s therapeutic range, serious side effects can occur.

Some people have a polymorphism that instructs their body to create two of the same enzyme instead of just one. These “ultrametabolizers” break down drugs faster than normal, resulting in a lower concentration of active drug in their bodies. If the concentration falls below the therapeutic range, there may not be enough drug for a beneficial effect.

Clinicians can test patients’ DNA for these enzyme polymorphisms. If a known polymorphism is detected, they can alter the dose or avoid certain drugs altogether if they don’t work as well as they should or are more likely to cause side effects.

Drug interactions

Genetic variability only explains a portion of the variability in drug response. Another factor to consider is drug interactions.

Some drugs block the active site of the liver enzyme cytochrome P450 so it can’t be reused, preventing other drugs from binding to it and getting metabolized. As drug concentrations rise, so does the risk of side effects. For example, the heart rhythm drug amiodarone can block metabolism of the blood thinner warfarin, which results in very high warfarin concentrations that could lead to life-threatening bleeding.

Conversely, the antiepilepsy drugs phenytoin and carbamazepine can stimulate production of even more metabolic enzymes than usual. Other drugs may be metabolized faster than usual, and their beneficial effects may be lost.

Inflammation

When the body is newly infected or injured, the inflammatory response brings white blood cells and increased blood flow to the area to sterilize and repair the problem. Inflammation is meant to last for only short periods of time. But the immune systems of some people may also attack unaffected areas and result in chronic inflammation that can damage tissues and joints, or even increase the risk of heart disease.

Inflammation from a new infection or chronic inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis could also impair how well enzymes like cytochrome P450 can metabolize drugs.

 

The inflammatory response is one way the immune system reacts to injury or disease.

In addition to producing cytochrome P450 enzymes, the liver is one of the major organs that create special proteins called cytokines and interferons that participate in the immune response. When the liver is busy making all of these proteins, it does not have the capacity to make as many drug-metabolizing enzymes, which results in a decline in drug break down. When the infection goes away or the source of inflammation is blocked with anti-inflammatory drugs, however, the liver’s ability to metabolize drugs goes back to normal. This means that someone with an infection or chronic inflammation might need a lower dose of drug than normal since their liver enzymes aren’t clearing them as quickly as usual. And when that inflammation is resolved, they may need to increase their dose to maintain the same desired effects they had before.

One of the prime ways to see if you have increased inflammation is by checking your c-reactive protein (CRP) concentration. While CRP doesn’t directly cause inflammation, the body produces more CRP as a result of inflammation. So a higher CRP level in the blood could indicate underlying inflammation and, subsequently, increased suppression of drug metabolism.

Other factors affecting drug metabolism

Even if drug interactions are avoided and inflammation is kept in check, there are many other factors that can influence drug effects.

Liver or kidney damage could reduce how well drugs are broken down and eventually expelled in the urine or bile.

Body size also affects drug response. Drug concentration in the body is determined by both the dose given and the volume of an individual’s body fluids. Giving the same drug dose to a smaller-sized person could cause a higher blood concentration than when given to a larger person. This is why many drugs are given in lower doses to children than adults.

And finally, some people either don’t have many receptors in their body for the drug to bind to and produce its effects, or the receptors that they do have don’t work well. This could be due to genetic mutations or underlying disease. An average dose of a drug would only produce a limited response in these patients.

Talk to your clinician

One reason why there are so many types of drugs and available doses for different diseases is because your response to the drug might not be the same as the average person’s. When you start a new drug regimen, it might have to be adjusted to the right level, and that will take patience and cooperation between you and your clinician.

To identify any potential drug interactions, tell your pharmacist all the prescription, over-the-counter and dietary supplement products you are taking.

If you develop a new infection or disease that causes inflammation, the dosages of the others drugs you are currently taking might need to be reduced. If you notice new side effects, let your clinician or pharmacist know right away.

If you have a severe chronic inflammatory disease like rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis and start a potent anti-inflammatory drug, let your clinician or pharmacist know if the other drugs you’re taking aren’t working as well as before so your dose can be adjusted.

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

C. Michael White, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut

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

Pseudonym: On vision loss and hiding in plain sight from my high school classmates

We gathered in the library a week before the first day of school, me and my teachers and a liaison from the school board. I had never liaised before. Attending high school while legally blind would be another first. We were meeting to inform my teachers what I could and couldn’t do after the genetic burnout of my optic nerves.

“Can he see the chalkboard?” asked Senora M, my Spanish teacher.

“You’ll have to ask him,” said my liaison, Leann.

I figured my teachers were directing their questions to Leann because she had set up the meeting, or because she was the adult and I was a shy teenager. My disability only months old, I hadn’t yet discovered how many people would ignore me because I could no longer see them.

I said I could read the chalkboard with my expensive telescope from the Johns Hopkins low vision clinic, but it turned out I could not. For the first few weeks of school, high-powered magnifiers allowed me to take exams enlarged on the copier with extra time — most of a day for anatomy/physiology — but my central blind spots continued to expand throughout the year, and my remaining peripheral vision continued to blur.

As reading became increasingly difficult, deciphering my handwriting must have been a struggle for my teachers. If Mrs. Jones, my English teacher, hadn’t asked if I’d prefer to take my tests orally, I might have kept answering questions I could only partially read. I hadn’t yet learned how much help I needed, let alone how to ask for it. Perhaps, too, acknowledging that my eyes could no longer manage a few hundred words was a bridge I wasn’t ready to cross.

One morning I showed up in Mrs. Jones’s cubicle when I wasn’t scheduled to make up a quiz or exam. In my hand were six typed, double-spaced pages, the first thing I had ever written that wasn’t an assignment.

“If I gave you something to read,” I said, unexpectedly nervous, “would you read it and tell me what you think?”

“Is that it there?”

Mrs. Jones, whom I’d had junior year as well, had a smile like moms on classic sitcoms. I could still hear it around her words even if I could no longer see it. She also had a way, throughout that year I was adapting to vision loss, of understanding when I was asking for more than her time.

Thanks to an extensive selection of books on tape from the National Library Service for the Blind — and an inability to play video games — I had turned to books for the first time since a fourth-grade obsession with Choose Your Own Adventures. I could still follow most TV shows with my ears, but audiobooks left me with fewer questions. They also made my shrunken world a little bigger. Writing my own stories offered another escape hatch.

I spoke sentences into the microcassette recorder I hadn’t been using to record lectures. I had been a fast typist when I could see the keyboard, but learning how to type with fingers on the home keys wouldn’t happen until the following summer. Until then, my Mom typed all my papers for me, sometimes with her eyes closed after a twelve-hour day of selling insurance. I told her my short story was for school, which was true enough.

The plot involved an average, nameless man who must answer a question posed by a celestial gatekeeper. The assassination of John F. Kennedy was somehow involved. It was pretty deep. More ambitious than the pedestrian classics we had been reading that year.


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


“I don’t think I get it,” Mrs. Jones told me a week after I had given her the story. “Tell me what’s going on here.”

“Which part?” The allusions and symbolism were pretty subtle. I was prepared to make them more accessible for a wider audience. Did English teachers have connections to magazines that published short stories?

Mrs. Jones seemed to stare at the first page. “All of it, really.”

I walked her through the man’s culpability in his own demise.

Mrs. Jones turned pages. “Is he supposed to be dead?”

I gave her a big nod. Now she got it.

“But who was he? Before he died. Why are we supposed to care about this character?”

Mrs. Jones explained what made my story different — bad different and not good different, she meant but did not say — from the stories we had been reading in class. The more she said, the less I liked what I had written.

Somehow, instead of feeling discouraged by her critique, I felt inspired. Weeks later, I laid another story on Mrs. Jones’s desk. The verdict on that first one being what it was, I delivered my latest when I knew she wouldn’t be there. One day after class, she asked me when we were going to discuss “Bane.”

Named for the main character, my new story was about a small-town man haunted by the house fire that killed his wife. Through encounters with townspeople, it becomes clear that everyone blames him for her death. By the end of the seven-page story, Bane himself becomes the victim of a fire of mysterious origins. Is it suicide? Murder? Whatever the cause, “It would be a fitting burial,” muse the neighbors who discover the flames.

The plot was probably inspired by the noirish black-and-white video for Richard Marx’s “Hazard.” That I pictured Harrison Ford as the main character probably hints at some additional borrowing from the recent film version of “The Fugitive.” If my tale lacked the texture and depth of a film or a four-minute music video, I hoped it was less confusing than my previous effort.

“That scene where everyone in the post office is staring at him ,” said Mrs. Jones. “It’s so vivid.”

She turned pages.

“And the ending,” she said, sounding genuinely moved.

She named some moments where I could provide more detail, a section where I could slow down, a few sentences that tripped her up. Her criticism, rather than undermining her praise, lent credibility to her compliments.

I’m not sure I had ever revised anything, let alone a piece of fiction that wasn’t for a grade. Nor had Mrs. Jones asked to see another draft. But for whatever reason, that night I found myself speaking new sentences into my tape recorder. After so many doctors told me what couldn’t be corrected, I think it felt good to fix something with only words.

Again, I left my stapled pages on Mrs. Jones’s desk when she wasn’t there. Days later, she told me how much better my revisions had made it. It was a good story already, she said. It was something people should read, she said.

“I’d like to teach it,” she said.

“Do what?” I said.

“Can I? We could use a pseudonym.” She said pseudonym with an air of mischief, as though it were a German sports car we were going to boost from a neighbor’s garage.

By this point, I had read enough books on tape to realize “Bane” wasn’t destined to grace the syllabi of English classes across America. On the other hand, what did I know? I had just turned 17. Mrs. Jones probably read more books in a year than I had read in my entire life.

Saying no never crossed my mind. If classmates hated my story, so what? They didn’t care much for D.H. Lawrence or William Faulkner either. Besides, I wasn’t the author. That would be J. Griffith Chaney, the pseudonym I crafted from Jack London’s birth name.

I liked the idea of classmates talking about me without knowing it was me. I liked the idea of disappearing behind a fake name — of choosing to disappear. I remained close to my two best friends, but since losing my sight, I had become invisible to so many of the people I once sat with in the library and cafeteria. Unable to locate anyone whose voice I couldn’t hear, I spent a lot of time in the conference room beside my guidance counselor, pretending to do homework.


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


On the day Mrs. Jones distributed copies of my story, I worried for the first time that people would see through our scheme. Wouldn’t it be obvious that these photocopied, word-processed, double-spaced pages weren’t written by some long-dead wordsmith? This fear was allayed the following morning when the guy who gave all our teachers nicknames only he ever used complained about “Jonesy” giving us more reading a few weeks before graduation.

“She must really love this story,” he said. “She typed the freaking thing herself.”

If I was nervous in the days leading up to my story being discussed, it was hard to separate those nerves from the anxiety I had felt all year — hiding my identity was nothing new. When the school bell signaled the start of our discussion, however, I felt the unmistakable shiver of excitement.

“So what did everybody think?” Mrs. Jones asked.

No one replied.

From the lack of voices, it seemed like only half the class had shown up. Apparently, the physics teacher was holding a review session for the upcoming AP exam.

After a few unsuccessful tries to stoke conversation, Mrs. Jones asked questions about the plot, confirming that we had read it. Only a few of us had.

I was deflated but not disappointed. I hadn’t expected enthusiasm from classmates who had not outwardly enjoyed anything we read all year. Mrs. Jones’s opinion was the only one that mattered, and I already knew how she felt.

Other sections went about the same as mine, Mrs. Jones told me in her cubicle the next day. Unable to fill the period, she’d had us write down what we liked about my story. She read me some of the compliments. One girl said she enjoyed it so much she read it to her boyfriend over the phone.

Other comments were more general, perhaps to conceal how little of the story had been read. One exception was a student who said “this story reeks of drafts.” Mrs. Jones dismissed him as someone who hadn’t liked anything we read all year, but it would have been easier to dismiss someone who never did the reading at all.

On our final day of high school, Mrs. Jones led us to the large lecture hall to watch a movie. In light of what happened after class began, I’ve never been able to recall which movie it was.

“And I have one final announcement,” Mrs. Jones began.

Somehow I knew what was coming. The smile around her words sounded too big for an announcement about makeup work. She probably spoke for less than half a minute, but the time felt endless. Having given no details about J. Griffith Chaney on the day we discussed “Bane,” she now offered a brief biography of the author.

“Whoa. He’s like our age,” said a guy behind me.

Mrs. Jones made her way up the aisle where I was sitting and laid a hand on my shoulder.

All year I had imagined everyone’s eyes on me, appraising the difference between who I used to be and who I had become. In hindsight, low as I was in our high school’s caste system, it’s unlikely that most of my classmates gave my vision loss a second thought, if they were aware of it at all, but everyone’s eyes were on me now. Discomfort stayed with me after the applause faded.

Later that day, in the cafeteria, a girl who took AP English asked me if it was true that Mrs. Jones had taught a short story I had written. Her tone was nothing but friendly, but when she asked if I had a copy of the story she could read, I was grateful that I did not. Unfortunately, someone else at the table still had their copy and passed it to her.

The sudden attention made me queasy. It might have been a loss of faith in my story following that student’s negative comment. How many other students, I couldn’t help wondering, had felt similarly and weren’t brave enough to say so? But I was more embarrassed, I now realize, because I had tried all year to fade into the background. All attention had become unwanted attention.

In the coming days, months, years, I would wonder if that short story was any good at all. It seemed likelier that Mrs. Jones wanted to teach it because I had lost my sight, not because I was the next Jack London. Self-doubt comes easily and often when you can no longer see what’s in front of you.

But if Mrs. Jones had wanted to teach my story out of pity, wouldn’t she have said nicer things about that first one? And hadn’t she still pointed out ways the earlier drafts of “Bane” could be improved? If it was no good, why was she still teaching it two years later when my cousin had her for honors English?

It would be a long time before I’d learn the difference between how people felt about me and how I expected them to feel. The trick was letting go of the internalized shame related to my blindness. Revising how we see ourselves is rarely as easy as revising a short story.

“You don’t write because you want to say something,” said F. Scott Fitzgerald. “You write because you have something to say.”

At 17, I wasn’t sure what to say, but Mrs. Jones must have realized I was trying to say something. Twenty-seven years would pass before I’d publish a memoir about losing my sight and my misguided attempts to hide what I couldn’t see, but in that simple story of loss and resentment, my teacher probably saw more of myself than I was able to recognize. By revealing that I was the author, perhaps she was telling me there was no reason to hide.

With nearly a hundred seniors, I don’t imagine Mrs. Jones gave out many graduation gifts. I was surprised, days after we went over my classmates’ comments in her cubicle, when she handed me a wrapped box. Inside it was a small metal cup.

“It says Class of 1994,” she said. “On the other side, there’s a line from a poem we read this year.”

I turned the cup in my hand, running my thumb along the engraving.

“It’s the last line from Tennyson’s ‘Ulysses.’ ‘To strive, to seek, to find…’ Do you remember the rest of it?”

I remembered. “And not to yield.”

Kentucky Common beer: an all-American brew being resurrected from Prohibition-era oblivion

There’s a fact that Kentucky bartenders and distillery tour guides like to share with visitors: The state is home to more aging barrels of bourbon than people.

It’s true — there are about 10 million barrels to 4.51 million folks. Patrons will inevitably “ooh” and “aah” over these numbers before they order a drink or buy a bottle and some souvenir shot glasses to take home. 

The sheer dominance of bourbon in the Bluegrass State is undeniable

However, some beer lovers are on a mission to ensure that Kentucky becomes equally well known for an all-American beer style that was developed in the state before it faded into obscurity. According to Michael Moeller, the co-founder of The Louisville Ale Trail, it’s time for Kentucky Common beer to make a comeback. 

RELATED: Negotiations on the rocks: Bourbon giant Heaven Hill faces strike as workers demand “respect”

“It has historical significance,” Moeller said. “Pre-Prohibition, the style was pretty much brewed everywhere in the region. The reason for that was that it was fairly cheap to produce.” 

It was also a quick turnaround from start to stein, taking only six days to complete (which is basically instantaneous when compared to the minimum two-year aging period for Kentucky straight bourbon). 

“But what’s really cool is that pretty much every beer that you’ve had — whether it’s an IPA, a stout, Porter, lager, Pilsner — all these styles of beer that exist out there, they pretty much all come from other places around the world,” Moeller said. 

According to Andy Crouch’s 2006 book “Great American craft beer: A guide to the nation’s finest beers and breweries,” the U.S. can only claim a few varieties of beer: California Common, amber ale and cream ale. Kentucky Common beer is a prime example of the latter. 


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


In a presentation for the Beer Judge Certification Program (BJCP), Leah Dienes, who is the head brewer at Apocalypse Brew Works in Louisville, and BJCP judge Dibbs Harting wrote that “when prohibition was declared in Kentucky (two months in advance of the Volstead Act) in November 1919, at least 75% of all beer sold in the Falls City area was Kentucky Common.” 

But how did it taste? According to an early 20th-century edition of “American Handy Book of the Brewing, Malting and Associated Trades” by Wahl & Henius, the ingredients for this style of beer included “barley malt and about 25 to 30% of corn, with some sugar color, caramel or roasted malt to give color.” 

“The easiest way to describe it — it’s a dark cream ale,” Moeller said. “So, a cream ale, being really light and flavorful — with kind of a thicker mouthfeel, though — and then dark because of the malt used — just the darker malts. It’s kind of a sweet flavor — caramel and toffee, some bread flavor, very low hop bitterness to it. Pretty easy drinking despite the color.” 

Despite Kentucky Common’s multifaceted appeal, Dienes and Harting wrote, it still faded from popularity amid Prohibition “along with the six remaining breweries of the region.” However, it looks like things are steadily changing on that front. 

Earlier this year, the Brewers Association — the country’s de facto beer trade group for small and independent brewers — added Kentucky Common to its updated Beer Style Guidelines. 

“Craft brewers in the U.S. and around the world continue to push the boundaries of beer by reviving long lost styles and by innovating in new beer flavor spaces,” Chris Swersey, competition manager of the Brewers Association, said in a press release. “The 2021 Beer Style Guidelines reflect many exciting trends in brewing with numerous additions and updates for accuracy.”

This means that the style can then, in turn, be put up for judging in certain competitions, which is great for breweries in the region that have started to make it again, including Against the Grain ApocalypseChimera Brewing Co. and Falls City Beer.

Additionally, Moeller has embarked on a campaign to get Kentucky Common designated as the official state beer of Kentucky. The state doesn’t currently have one, though it does have a state beverage — which is, oddly enough, milk. His idea has already garnered some traction. 

“I am in talks with some folks in the General Assembly,” he said. “And it’s not guaranteed, but it looks like there might be a possibility that this will be up for a vote in the January session.” 

Moeller hopes that the official designation could be another concrete step towards Kentucky Common getting more attention from both those who live in the state and those who have never visited Kentucky. 

“This started off as kind of a personal mission,” he said. “I’ve always liked the style, I’ve always appreciated that style and I’ve always wondered why we aren’t promoting it more in the state as a whole. You know, we obviously talk about bourbon a lot, but this is something that is so uniquely Kentucky — and uniquely American — that we should be talking about it more.” 

More great stories about beer: 

How to store apple pie for a fresh slice

No matter how many guides there are for making the right amount of food for Thanksgiving (we even have our own chart for preparing enough food based on your guest count), there are always leftovers. Not that anyone complains. As you’re wrapping up leftovers on Thanksgiving night, you may be wondering how to store apple pie so that the crust stays crisp and the filling stays flavorful. On Friday morning, enjoy a slice of pie to accompany your breakfast sandwich made with cranberry sauce, turkey slices, and stuffing piled between a sliced buttermilk biscuit. Ahead, find even more delicious tips for ensuring that your apple pie tastes fresh days after Thanksgiving.

How to store apple pie 

Of course you may be asking, do I have to store the pie? What if I just ate the rest of it right here, right now? I hear you. I see you. And I’m with you. But if you’re a responsible adult that can practice restraint around baked goods like apple pie, you may want to learn how store it properly so that it stays good for Black Friday and beyond. So what’s the best way to store apple pie? “Once the pie is baked and fully cooled, store it at room temperature on a cool counter (i.e. out of direct heat), under a pie domein a pie box, or wrapped in plastic wrap,” says Lana, the office manager of Sister Pie in Detroit, Michigan.

If you won’t be serving the apple pie for a day or two after Thanksgiving, you can store it in the fridge, but Lana recommends letting it come up to room temperature before serving. However, she advises against storing a fully baked pie in the freezer.

In addition to location, location, location, it’s also important to properly wrap and seal an apple pie. If using plastic wrap, Lana recommends double wrapping the pie. To do this, “pull a long sheet of plastic wrap, place the whole pie tin on the wrap, and fold the ends over each other,” says Lana. Folding the ends over each other ensures that both the tops and sides are securely covered, which keeps the apple pie protected and fresh for as long as possible. If you want to reduce your plastic usage, Lana adds that can store your pie under a pie dome, in a pie box, or in an airtight plastic container.

“The trick for all of these methods is to make sure the apple pie is at room temperature before storing it; otherwise condensation can gather from the warm pie and make the whole thing a slick, soggy mess,” advises Lana.

But wait . . . I haven’t baked it yet 

If you are ahead of the game and prepared your pie a few days early, first of all, props to you! But second of all, there are a couple of steps to follow to properly store a pie before baking it. “While we don’t typically recommend assembling apple pies too far in advance, we would recommend that you store a pre-made, unbaked fruit pie in the freezer and then pop it into the oven to bake from frozen,” says Lana.

How long is pie good for? 

A pie that has been properly stored at room temperature will be good for 2 days. However, fruit pies can also be refrigerated for up to 5 days, says Lana, giving you a few bonus days of sweetness. For the best flavor and texture, it’s best to eat the pie within one to 2 days (preferably with a dollop of whipped cream or a scoop of vanilla ice cream). That shouldn’t be too hard to manage, right?

Dave Chappelle and the warped self-victimhood of transphobes

By now you’ve likely heard of the controversy surrounding comedian Dave Chappelle’s latest Netflix comedy special, “The Closer,” and take it from us: there’s no need to give the hateful stand-up set another view. 

Throughout the not-so-comedic comedy special, Chappelle calls the “white” women who ushered in #MeToo “annoying as f**k,” and seemingly blames them for Harvey Weinstein’s abuses. But the bulk of the special, and the main subject of criticism and protest, is the comedian’s focus on punching down at queer and trans people. 

Among other horrific comments, including proudly referencing a time he beat up a lesbian woman he perceived as a man, Chappelle declares, “I’m team TERF,” referring to trans-exclusionary radical feminists, who don’t recognize trans women as “real” women. He makes a number of degrading and invasive jokes about trans women’s genitals, and goes to bat for J.K. Rowling, the rabidly transphobic “Harry Potter” author who’s lost a sizable following after repeatedly attacking and claiming to be victimized by trans women.

At another point, Chappelle expresses jealousy about his perception that LGBTQ people have made more progress than Black people, because a white gay man once called the police on him at a bar. He begs LGBTQ people to “free” DaBaby and Kevin Hart, as if these men are being unfairly held hostage for the truly horrific comments both have made about queer people. Last we checked, DaBaby just recorded a track on Kanye West’s new album, and Hart has several movies coming out in 2022 alone. They’re hardly suffering.

But perhaps the most jarring bit from the special is Chappelle’s reference to a trans woman named Daphne Dorman, who staunchly defended his transphobia. The audience gasps when Chappelle reveals Dorman killed herself in 2019, and he shockingly seems to insinuate her suicide is the fault of trans people for not accepting her after she defended Chappelle.

“I don’t know what the trans community did for her,” he says, “but I don’t care, because I feel like she wasn’t their tribe. She was mine. She was a comedian in her soul.” And now, because Chappelle reveals he’s since set up a college fund for Dorman’s daughter, he’s not transphobic, period.

Chappelle ultimately concludes by claiming he’ll quit his jokes about queer people.

“I’m done talking about it,” he says. “All I ask of your community, with all humility: Will you please stop punching down on my people?”

It seems that he sees himself and others like him as victims of queer people, whom he codes as exclusively white, while erasing the many queer and trans people of color who exist. The crux of the problem — among many — with Chappelle’s special is his overall equation of the women and survivors of #MeToo, and gay and trans people broadly, as white. Therefore, as he regards queer identity and womanhood as mutually exclusive from being a person of color, he sees his degrading, bullying jokes as punching up rather than down. 

It should go without saying that there are consequences to irresponsibly spreading these ideas. LGBTQ folks and especially trans people of color are routinely harassed, assaulted, and killed — last year was the deadliest year on record for trans people. Yet, following Chappelle’s logic, he and other unrepentant bigots are the real victims of trans people and activists who merely want their gender identities to be acknowledged and treated with respect.


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


Chappelle’s line of thinking is unfortunately part of a larger trend of men who don’t want to seem overtly bigoted, and thus justify their homophobia, transphobia and misogyny by flippantly sticking “white” in front of whoever they’re mocking, when they’re actually attacking all queer people and women indiscriminately. The coded whiteness of Chappelle’s female, LGBTQ boogeymen co-opts legitimate, progressive concerns about white supremacy, and frames women and queer folks as the real persecutors from whom everyone else needs protection. 

Who’s amplifying Chappelle’s voice

We already knew about Chappelle’s bigotry, thanks to his previous comedy specials. But what’s stopped him from merely being bigoted in private and enabled him to publicly bully trans people is the massive, worldwide platform he’s received. Netflix is one of the most popular streaming services in the world, as we’ve seen from the unprecedented global success of the South Korean-produced series “Squid Game.”

The streamer encompasses all genres and programming, from reality shows and cheesy Hallmark-style movies to children’s programming and gripping dramas. Netflix is also home to a commendable amount of groundbreaking, inclusive stories – such as “Orange Is the New Black,” “Sense8” and “Dear White People” – starring and made by LGBTQ actors, writers and creators, whom the streaming service has now thrown under the bus by hosting “The Closer.” 

At this time of surging, anti-trans violence and the proliferation of bills in state legislatures that attempt to write trans people and especially trans youth out of existence, Netflix has chosen to platform and promote Chappelle’s bigotry, despite outwardly pretending to support LGBTQ people. There’s something for everyone on Netflix, which even targets all of these different marginalized identities with its array of social media accounts, such as Strong Black Lead, Most (its queer Twitter) and Con Todo (its Spanglish Twitter). But when Netflix aims at appealing to everyone, they mean everyone, including bigots. 

This forced coexistence of bigots and the queer and trans creators on Netflix can only come at the expense of the latter. Jaclyn Moore, the executive producer of Netflix’s smash hit “Dear White People” and a trans woman, has since responded to Netflix’s streaming of “The Closer” by stating her intent to sever ties with the streamer. 

“I love so many of the people I’ve worked with at Netflix. Brilliant people and executives who have been collaborative and fought for important art . . .” Moore, who shared the story of her transition on Netflix’s LGBTQ Twitter account. “But I’ve been thrown against walls because, ‘I’m not a ‘real’ woman.’ I’ve had beer bottles thrown at me. So, @Netflix, I’m done.”

The other vocal transphobes

When comedians and otherwise famous, bigoted people set up trans women and advocates as their oppressors, this is the violence they feed. Even when anti-trans bigots doesn’t overtly paint trans women as violent, bathroom-terrorizing perverts, at the very least, they insist that basic demands for respect and recognition for trans people are an oppressive inconvenience. 

On Wednesday, novelist and playwright Joyce Carol Oates posted a string of tweets complaining about the use of they/them as singular pronouns, and declaring they’ll never “become a part of general usage.” Her complaints were supposedly for grammatical reasons, but Oates’ subsequent defenses of her tweets were rife with self-victimhood, as if adapting to changing language norms is somehow oppression on par with being attacked and killed for your gender identity. 

Oates’ tweets have since sparked a wave of backlash and justifiably outraged responses from trans folks and advocates: “Can cis folks just leave us alone for a day? One day, that’s all I ask. Would that be possible?”

At roughly the same time as this controversy, The Guardian UK has also come under fire for an op-ed that appears to blame the police killing of Sarah Everard in London this year on the need for more gender-segregated spaces, where trans women would not be welcome. The suggestion here isn’t exactly subtle — following this logic, violence against cis women is a result of trans inclusivity. The offensive article comes after just last month, The Guardian UK was accused of covering for transphobes, as it deleted numerous paragraphs and quotes from an interview with gender theorist Judith Butler. In the deleted quotes, Butler unabashedly condemns TERFs and transphobia against trans women. 

The devotion of Chappelle’s comedy special to his and other bigoted people’s imagined victimhood by trans people is part and parcel with the other aforementioned controversies around the “threat” of trans women. All are rooted in the pretense that transphobes are a noble people, protecting comedians from perceived cancellation, cis women from violence, and language from inconvenient change to be inclusive. Beneath all of these overt lies and obfuscations, it’s not washed-up, entitled and bigoted male comics who need safety and protection, but the trans people they mock.

Anti-vaxxer Allen West taking unproven drugs to treat COVID-19 symptoms: report

Allen West, former congressman and current chairman of the Texas Republican Party, on Saturday announced his plan to suspend all in-person events for his gubernatorial campaign after experiencing symptoms of COVID-19.

According to The Daily Beast, West developed symptoms after his wife, Angela, tested positive for a breakthrough case of COVID.

“After taking COVID and flu shots, Angela West tested positive for COVID yesterday, Friday,” the tweet said.

On Saturday, October 9, the loyal Trump supporter took to Twitter with a series of tweets detailing their illness and the steps he is personally taking to combat the virus.


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


The unvaccinated former Congressman revealed he is “‘already taking Hydrochloroquine and Ivermectin protocols’ —two unproven drugs popular with the anti-vaxxer crowd,” The Beast reports.

“Col. West is experiencing a low grade fever and light body aches. Out of concern for public health, Col. West is suspending in-person events until receiving an all-clear indication.”

He added: “West has publicly stated he supports individual choice and this is reflected in his own family.”

Over the last several months, West has made headlines for his disapproval of COVID restrictions as he joined protesters outside of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s (R) mansion.

As a gubernatorial candidate, West has widely opposed vaccine and mask mandates. Speaking to WBAP back in August, West said, “”If you’re trying to order people to take a shot that you don’t feel comfortable with, that’s not an ethical order. That’s not a moral order.”

32 surprising facts about Freddie Mercury

On September 5, 1946, the man who would become known as Freddie Mercury was born. Here are some things you might not have known about the Queen frontman (and devoted cat fiend) whose iconic voice has been studied by scientists and whose life was turned into an Oscar-winning biopic.

1. Freddie Mercury was born in Zanzibar.

Freddie Mercury was born in Stone Town, Zanzibar (now Tanzania). His family moved there so that his dad could continue his career at the British Colonial Office. He grew up between Zanzibar and India before moving to Middlesex, England when he was a teenager.

2. Freddie Mercury’s birth name was Farrohk Bulsara.

Farrokh Bulsara started going by Freddie when he was at St. Peter’s, a boarding school for boys near Mumbai. He legally changed his name to Freddie Mercury around 1970, when Queen was formed.

3. Freddie Mercury once went by the name “Larry Lurex.”

Before landing on the stage name Freddie Mercury, the singer performed under the moniker Larry Lurex. He later said the name was a “personal piss-take” of Gary Glitter, whom Mercury did not care for. The one single he released under Larry Lurex bombed on the charts. Luckily, Queen’s debut album was released a week later.

4. Freddie Mercury and his family practiced Zoroastrian.

Mercury and family were Parsis and practiced Zoroastrian, one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions. Even though he hadn’t practiced in years, his funeral was performed by a Zoroastrian priest.

5. Freddie Mercury has four extra teeth.

The teeth were in the back of his mouth, which is what pushed his front teeth forward and produced his trademark overbite. He was self-conscious about the way his teeth appeared, but refused to have them fixed, believing that altering anything about his mouth could change his vocal performances.

6. Freddie Mercury’s teeth are responsible for the rise of The Sex Pistols.

In December 1976, Queen had to cancel an appearance on Bill Grundy’s “Today” show because Freddie had developed a severe toothache and had to make an emergency visit to the dentist. The Sex Pistols were brought in as a replacement; their appearance was marked by a barrage of profanity, sarcasm, and alleged drunkenness. The shocking display is often pinpointed as the moment they began their meteoric rise.

7. Freddie Mercury was a major stamp collector.

As a tween, Mercury collected stamps from Zanzibar, the UK, New Zealand, and Monaco. His childhood stamp collecting album is one of the few possessions Freddie’s family kept after his death; the British Postal Museum acquired it in 1993 and sometimes lends it out for exhibitions, such as a 2016 Stampex show that also included the stamps John Lennon collected (and doodled on) as a child.

8. Freddie Mercury worked as a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport.

Long before he became one of the most celebrated singers in music history, Mercury held a slightly less glamorous position: baggage handler at Heathrow Airport. To celebrate Mercury’s 72nd birthday, several of British Airways’s Heathrow baggage handlers took time out of their day on September 5, 2018 to entertain travelers with a choreographed tribute to their former co-worker.

9. The headboard to Freddie Mercury’s bed was a piano keyboard.

Musicians sometimes report that ideas come to them in dreams, and Mercury was prepared to capture inspiration at any time. Before becoming famous, he used an upright piano as the headboard to his bed, and would play it backward when ideas struck. “He was double-jointed and his hands could bend back completely and I think that’s where some of the passages from ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ started,” Mercury’s former manager John Reid once explained.

10. Freddie Mercury has a recorded range of almost four octaves.

Mariah Carey claims five, for some perspective. When he spoke he was more of a baritone, but the majority of his singing fell in the tenor range. In 2016, a team of scientists decided to study Mercury’s voice. Among the many facts they concluded was that Mercury’s vocal cords moved faster than the average person’s. “While a typical vibrato will fluctuate between 5.4 Hz and 6.9 Hz, Mercury’s was 7.04 Hz,” Consequence of Sound reported.

11. Freddie Mercury designed the Queen emblem, a.k.a. the Queen Crest

Thanks to a degree in art and graphic design from Ealing Art College, Mercury was able to be more than just the face of the band — he also helped to brand them. The crest he designed for the band is made of the zodiac signs of the whole band — two Leo lions for John Deacon and Roger Taylor, a Cancer crab for Brian May, and two fairies to represent Freddie’s Virgo sign. The “Q” and the crown represent the band name, of course, and a phoenix protects the whole thing.

12. Freddie Mercury has a hard time relaxing.

“It’s a waste of time,” Mercury told an interviewer in 1985 about getting a little R&R. “I hardly read books. I think that’s a waste of time. People are going to kill me for this.”

13. Freddie Mercury was reportedly very shy.

Although he was known for his wild, outgoing antics on stage, most people who knew Mercury personally said he was very shy in his personal life, which is one of the reasons he very rarely granted interviews. “In real life nobody knew Freddie,” bandmate Roger Taylor once said. “He was shy, gentle and kind. He wasn’t the person he put over on stage.”

14. Freddie Mercury’s partieswere lavish.

Mercury may have been shy, but the movie “Bohemian Rhapsody” didn’t exaggerate the musician’s partying ways. The tales of his legendary gatherings persist even decades later: Birthday parties lasted for days and might involve flamenco dancers, fireworks, $50,000 in champagne, and plenty of illegal substances. One of his most infamous bashes, held in celebration of the launch of Queen’s Jazz album, sounds like somethingStefon from “SNL” would have dreamed up: “Freddie Mercury’s party for the launch of Queen’s “Jazz” album has everything: Snake charmers, 50 dead trees, and strippers with an unusual method of smoking.” His 1987 birthday party in Ibiza was so epic that the hotel still celebrates it every year.

15. Freddie Mercury started writing “Bohemian Rhapsody” in 1968.

That traces the origins of the epic tune to before he joined Queen in 1970. He was still a student at Ealing Art College when he got an idea for a tune he referred to as “The Cowboy Song” because of the Old West feel of the Johnny Cash-like lyric, “Mama, just killed a man.”

16. Freddie was aware that “Bohemian Rhapsody” was going to be in “Wayne’s World” — and he loved it.

Mike Myers told Brian May that they wanted to use the song in a new film and sent the clip for him to review. “I took it around to Freddie, who was not in a good state at that time,” May told the BBC in 2017. “He was . . . confined to his bed, but I took it round and played it to him and he loved it. Strangely enough, the humor in it was quite close to our own. Because we did that kind of thing in the car, bouncing up and down to our own tracks!” After its appearance in the hit movie, the song hit the charts again and made Queen a bigger hit than ever in the U.S.

17. Freddie Mercury performed with the Royal Ballet.

In late 1977, Mercury was the surprise guest of the Royal Ballet at a charity event that took place at the London Coliseum, where they sang and danced to “Bohemian Rhapsody.” Between his costume changes and vocal gymnastics, Mercury performed lifts and impressively high kicks alongside the ballerinas.

18. Freddie Mercury wrote “Crazy Little Thing Called Love” in the bathtub.

His bed wasn’t the only unusual place Mercury wrote. He was taking a bubble bath at a Hilton Hotel in Munich, Germany, when he came up with the idea for the Elvis-inspired tune. Mercury later claimed the song took him between five and 10 minutes to write, and it was time well-spent: “Crazy Little Thing Called Love” would go on to become Queen’s first number 1 hit in the United States. Mercury once said that the song’s style was not “typical of my work, but that’s because nothing is typical of my work.”

19. Freddie Mercury and Princess Diana used to hang out and watch “The Golden Girls” together.

Freddie Mercury and Princess Diana once spent the night hanging out at Royal Vauxhall Tavern, a legendary gay bar in South London. Mercury, actress Cleo Rocos, and comedian Kenny Everett all helped Diana dress up in an army jacket, cap, and sunglasses so that she could try to keep a low profile during her night out. But the real fun seems to have come before they even left for the bar: Mercury and Diana apparently spent the afternoon watching “The Golden Girls,” but turned the sound down and made up their own dialogue.

20. Freddie Mercury took his Scrabble seriously.

Life on the road wasn’t always about filled with debauchery. Queen drummer Roger Taylor said the band loved to play marathon sessions of Scrabble, with the game often coming down to him and Freddie. “Freddie was brilliant because he could score more with fewer tiles,” Taylor said, but Brian May held the band’s record for best word: “lacquers,” with the Q on the triple points square.

21. Freddie Mercury has drag nicknames for many of his friends.

Elton John was Sharon, while Rod Stewart was Phyllis. Freddie himself went by the name Melina. Elton John received a painting from Mercury after his death, with a card that said, “Dear Sharon, I saw this at auction and thought you would love it. I love you, Melina.” The painting is still one of John’s most prized possessions. Not all of Freddie’s nicknames were meant fondly, however: He called Sid Vicious “Simon Ferocious,” which Vicious wasn’t particularly pleased about.

22. Kurt Cobain mentioned Freddie Mercury in his suicide note.

“When we’re backstage and the lights go out and the manic roar of the crowds begins it doesn’t affect me the way in which it did for Freddie Mercury,” Cobain wrote . “[He] seemed to love, relish in the love and adoration from the crowd, which is something I totally admire and envy.”

23. Freddie Mercury revealed that he has AIDS just one day before he died.

Mercury and his manager issued a statement confirming that he had AIDS the very day before he died. It had been widely speculated for a couple of years due to his gaunt appearance and Queen’s sudden lack of touring. Some people were very upset by this delayed statement, saying that an earlier announcement could have raised a vast amount of money for the cause.

24. One of Mercury’s songs was used as the theme for the 1992 Olympics.

In 1988, Mercury put his operatic talents to good use by teaming with opera singer Montserrat Caballé for the semi-operatic album Barcelona. He was a fan of Caballé, stating that she possessed “the best voice of anyone in existence.” The title track had been written with the intention of using it as the theme to the 1992 Olympic Games in Barcelona, but Mercury died the year before. Caballé took the stage alone, with Mercury’s vocals accompanying her.

25. Freddie Mercury has an asteroid named after him.

Discovered in 1991, the year Freddie died, the asteroid formerly known as 17473 was dubbed Freddiemercury in 2016, the year he would have turned 70. “Even if you can’t see Freddiemercury leaping through the sky, you can be sure he’s there, ‘floating around in ecstasy,’ as he might sing, for millennia to come,” said Joel Parker of the Southwest Research Institute. The asteroid is in orbit in an asteroid belt located between Mars and Jupiter.

26. Freddie Mercury was a devoted cat lover.

He loved cats and had as many as 10 at one point. He even had an album and a song dedicated to his cats (“Mr. Bad Guy”). He wrote a song about his favorite cat, Delilah. Here’s a bit of it:

Delilah, Delilah, oh my, oh my, oh my – you’re irresistible
You make me smile when I’m just about to cry
You bring me hope, you make me laugh – you like it
You get away with murder, so innocent
But when you throw a moody you’re all claws and you bite –
That’s alright !
Delilah, Delilah, oh my, oh my, oh my – you’re unpredictable
You make me so very happy
When you cuddle up and go to sleep beside me
And then you make me slightly mad
When you pee all over my Chippendale Suite

27. Freddie Mercury’s cats were rescues.

Although he had one purebred cat, Tiffany — given to him by Mary Austin, his onetime fiancée-turned-lifelong confidante — the rest of Mercury’s cats were all shelter rescues. They included Tom, Jerry, Miko, Goliath, Dorothy, Lily, Oscar, Romeo, and the aforementioned Delilah. 

28. Freddie Mercury recorded servals songs with Michael Jackson.

In 1983, Mercury visited Michael Jackson’s home in Encino, California, to work on three demos: “There Must Be More to Life Than This,” “State of Shock,” and “Victory.” They were never really finished, although a version of “There Must Be More to Life Than This” was released on Mercury’s 1985 solo album, “Mr Bad Guy.” “We never seemed to be in the same country long enough to actually finish anything completely,” Mercury once said of the King of Pop. But he was apparently also frustrated by the fact that Jackson insisted on bringing a llama into the recording studio.

29. The “bottomless mic” was among Freddie Mercury’s many trademarks.

Here’s how that happened: early in Queen’s career, Mercury was apparently mid-show when his mic stand snapped in half. Instead of having it replaced, Freddie just used it as-is. He must have liked it, because he used the mic “stick” from then on.

30 Freddie Mercury’s famous yellow military outfit sold for big bucks.

The yellow jacket and coordinating pants worn during Queen’s 1986 “Magic” European tour sold for more than $36,000 at auction in 2004.

31. Freddie Mercury left the bulk of his fortune to Mary Austin.

Mercury’s former fiancée and forever friend Mary Austin received 50 percent of his wealth and future earnings upon his death. His parents received 25 percent and his sister received 25 percent as well. When Freddie’s parents passed away, their 25 percent reverted to Austin.

32. The location of Freddie Mercury’s ashes is super secret.

Many of Mercury’s friends have said that he had come to terms with his impending death from AIDS complications and wasn’t worried about dying —but he was concerned about what happened to him afterward. “He didn’t want anyone trying to dig him up as has happened with some famous people,” longtime companion Mary Austin told The Daily Mail. “Fans can be deeply obsessive.” After Austin was given Mercury’s ashes, she waited two years to remove them from his home (which he left to her in his will). She has never disclosed what she did with his ashes, and says she never will.

Bill Maher makes “dark prediction” for worst-case-scenario if Trump wins 2024 election

Comedian and television host Bill Maher recently detailed a nightmare scenario of what the future could hold for the United States if former President Donald Trump were to be re-elected in 2024.

On Friday’s episode of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the primetime host used his New Rules segment to discuss the possibility of Trump winning the 2024 election.

“Don’t make me be, and I told you so again. You know, I was a young man of fifty-nine when I started using the term slow-moving coup, and it pains me to have to report it still moving,” Maher said as he noted aspects of the Eastman memo, “which was basically a blueprint prepared for Trump and how he could steal the election after he lost it in November 2020.”

He went on to flip the script with an alternate version of what transpired on January 6, 2021. In Maher’s depiction, Vice President Kamala Harris (D) would be the one tasked with affirming the Electoral College certification; a scenario of outrage that could easily lead to a chaotic inaugural ceremony.

“The Ding Dongs, who sacked the Capitol last year? That was like when Al Qaeda tried to take down the World Trade Center the first time with a van. It was a joke. But the next time they came back with planes,” Maher said, adding “I hope I scared the shit out of you!”

Although Trump has not officially announced a 2024 presidential run, there are many subtle signs that have increased the chances of him doing so.

Feud between GOP, pro-business groups explodes into view after spat over infrastructure bill

After being closely aligned for decades, it appears that Republicans and top business lobbying groups are having a very public falling-out over conservative lawmakers’ lack of support for a bipartisan infrastructure deal currently languishing in Congress.

According to digital politics site The Hill, every major business group in Washington, D.C. — including Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others — has expressed some measure of support for the bill, which was crafted by a group of lawmakers in both parties alongside the White House.

Business groups have long been a key constituency for Republicans, who worked closely with K Street lobbyists to craft a 2017 tax cut that offered hefty benefits to both corporations and the wealthiest Americans. Yet no more than a small handful of Republican members of Congress have agreed to vote for the legislation favored by these groups this time around.

In a conference call with reporters last month Michael Johnson, CEO of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, a longtime conservative-leaning lobby that stands to gain heavily if the bill passes, seemed flabbergasted by Republicans’ refusal to vote for such a popular piece of legislation, which polls well across most demographics, including conservatives.


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


“That’s why it boggles the mind that the progressives in the House have decided to take a very popular hostage and Republican leadership has decided to not rescue that very popular hostage when they easily could,” Johnson said. 

So what’s behind this right-wing change-of-heart?

Neil Bradley, the executive VP and chief policy officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, blamed “misinformation” surrounding the bill during an interview with CQ Roll Call last month — adding that some House GOP members have privately told him that they’d like to vote for the infrastructure deal but feared angering Trump and the new constellation of ultra-conservative groups that were empowered during his tenure. 

“I think there are some unfortunate things going on, and I’m being generous with the term unfortunate,” Bradley said.

“If this vote today was occurring on the merits of the bill, the outcome wouldn’t be in doubt and we’d have a supermajority,” he added. “It’s not the substance that people are disagreeing with here.” 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in particular has become a flashpoint of conservative ire after endorsing a small number of Democratic candidates in Congressional races last year. The group, along with a number of other influential pro-business organizations, also stopped PAC donations to hundreds of Republican lawmakers who voted to overturn the 2020 election results on the evening of Jan. 6.

Following that news, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has taken to saying the U.S. Chamber “sold out” and that he no longer considers it an ally. 

“I didn’t even know the Chamber was around anymore,” McCarthy told the political newsletter Punchbowl News. 

The feud reached a head this week when Republican leaders kicked representatives for the U.S. Chamber off its conference calls.

Brett Horton, the chief of staff for House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., didn’t hold back when asked about Republicans shunning the pro-business group.

“People care what their local Chambers of Commerce and business owners have to say, not the U.S. Chamber,” Horton told The Hill. “If the U.S. Chamber sent me a meeting request right now, I wouldn’t even staff that meeting out to an intern, and I don’t see that changing.”

In response to being iced out of the Republican inner circle, Axios reported this week, the group abruptly reversed its support for the bill. The Chamber disputed the report by arguing that it still supports the bill “as a stand-alone bill unlinked to the proposed tax and spend reconciliation bill” that it has been linked to from its inception — which makes its support for the infrastructure package merely theoretical.

In addition to the Republicans’ beef with business groups over the pending infrastructure legislation, the two sides also clashed over their differing opinions on raising the U.S. debt ceiling this past week. Business groups saw the writing on the wall if Congress decided to default on the country’s sizeable debts, and feared catastrophic consequences if the limit was not raised.

But most Republican lawmakers, especially Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, instead concluded that their responsibilities to their constitutents lay in obstructing the Democratic agenda — no matter what. 

“Democrats have the full ability to raise the debt ceiling as a part of reconciliation,” Cruz told POLITICO on Thursday. “They want political cover.”

After a last-minute deal brokered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the debt ceiling was ultimately raised Thursday night — though only for a few months. McConnell said Saturday that he does not intend to make another deal come December, when the deal will likely expire — regardless of what business groups say.

McConnell’s justification for the obstruction appeared to be rooted in a statement Sen. Chuck Schumer made after the Thursday vote, blasting Republican efforts to stymie any change to the debt ceiling. 

“I am writing to make it clear that in light of Senator Schumer’s hysterics and my grave concerns about the ways that another vast, reckless, partisan spending bill would hurt Americans and help China, I will not be a party to any future effort to mitigate the consequences of Democratic mismanagement,” McConnell said in a statement. 

Solving the climate crisis requires the end of capitalism

The global conversation regarding climate change has, for the most part, ignored the elephant in the room. That’s strange, because this particular elephant is so large, obvious, and all-encompassing that politicians and executives must contort themselves to avoid naming it publicly. That elephant is called capitalism, and it is high time to face the fact that, as long as capitalism remains the dominant economic system of our globalized world, the climate crisis won’t be resolved.

As the crucial UN climate talks known as COP26 (short for “Conference of the Parties”) approach in early November, the public has grown increasingly aware that the stakes have never been higher. What were once ominous warnings of future climate shocks wrought by wildfires, floods, and droughts have now become a staple of the daily news. Yet governments are failing to meet their own emissions pledges from the Paris agreement six years ago, which were themselves acknowledged to be inadequate. Increasingly, respected Earth scientists are warning, not just about the devastating effects of climate breakdown on our daily lives, but about the potential collapse of civilization itself unless we drastically change direction.

The elephant in the room

And yet, even as humanity faces perhaps the greatest existential crisis in our species’ history, the public debate on climate barely mentions the underlying economic system that brought us to this point and which continues to drive us toward the precipice. Ever since its emergence in the seventeenth century, with the creation of the first limited liability shareholder-owned corporations, capitalism has been premised on viewing the planet as a resource to exploit — its overriding objective to maximize profits from that exploitation as rapidly and extensively as possible. Current mainstream strategies to resolve our twin crises of climate breakdown and ecological overshoot without changing the underlying system of growth-based global capitalism are structurally inadequate.

The idea of “green growth” is promulgated by many development consultants, and is even incorporated in the UN’s official plan for “sustainable development,” but has been shown to be an illusion. Ecomodernists, and others who stand to profit from growth in the short-term, frequently make the argument that, through technological innovation, aggregate global economic output can become “absolutely decoupled” from resource use and carbon emissions — permitting limitless growth on a finite planet. Careful rigorous analysis, though, shows that this hasn’t happened so far, and even the most wildly aggressive assumptions for greater efficiency would still lead to unsustainable consumption of global resources.

The primary reason for this derives ultimately from the nature of capitalism itself. Under capitalism — which has now become the default global economic context for virtually all human enterprise — efficiency improvements intended to reduce resource usage inevitably become launchpads for further exploitation, leading paradoxically to an increase, rather than decrease, in consumption.

This dynamic, known as the Jevons paradox, was first recognized back in the nineteenth century by economist William Stanley Jevons, who demonstrated how James Watts’ steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of coal-powered engines, paradoxically caused a dramatic increase in coal consumption even while it decreased the amount of coal required for any particular application. The Jevons paradox has since been shown to be true in an endless variety of domains, from the invention in the nineteenth century of the cotton gin which led to an increase rather than decrease in the practice of slavery in the American South, to improved automobile fuel efficiency which encourages people to drive longer distances.

When the Jevons paradox is generalized to the global marketplace, we begin to see that it’s not really a paradox at all, but rather an inbuilt defining characteristic of capitalism. Shareholder-owned corporations, as the primary agents of global capitalism, are legally structured by the overarching imperative to maximize shareholder returns above all else. Although they are given the legal rights of “personhood” in many jurisdictions, if they were actually humans they would be diagnosed as psychopaths, ruthlessly pursuing their goal without regard to any collateral damage they might cause. Of the hundred largest economies today, sixty-nine are transnational corporations, which collectively represent a relentless force with one overriding objective: to turn humanity and the rest of life into fodder for endlessly increasing profit at the fastest possible rate.

Under global capitalism, this dynamic holds true even without the involvement of transnational corporations. Take bitcoin as an example. Originally designed after the global financial meltdown of 2008 to wrest monetary power from the domination of central banks, it relies on building trust through “mining,” a process that allows anyone to verify a transaction by solving increasingly complex mathematical equations and earn new bitcoins as compensation. A great idea — in theory. In practice, the unfettered marketplace for bitcoin mining has led to frenzied competition to solve ever more complex equations, with vast warehouses holding “rigs” of advanced computers consuming massive amounts of electricity, with the result that the carbon emissions from bitcoin processing are now equivalent to that of a mid-size country such as Sweden or Argentina.

An economy based on perpetual growth

The relentless pursuit of profit growth above all other considerations is reflected in the world’s stock markets, where corporations are valued not by their benefit to society, but by investors’ expectations of their growth in future earnings. Similarly, when aggregated to national accounts, the main proxy used to measure the performance of politicians is growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Although it is commonly assumed that GDP correlates with social welfare, this is not the case once basic material requirements have been met. GDP merely measures the rate at which society transforms nature and human activity into the monetary economy, regardless of the ensuing quality of life. Anything that causes economic activity of any kind, whether good or bad, adds to GDP. When researchers developed a benchmark called the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which incorporates qualitative components of well-being, they discovered a dramatic divergence between the two measures. GPI peaked in 1978 and has been steadily falling ever since, even while GDP continues to accelerate.

In spite of this, the possibility of shifting our economy away from perpetual growth is barely even considered in mainstream discourse. In preparation for COP26, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeled five scenarios exploring potential pathways that would lead to different global heating outcomes this century, ranging from an optimistic 1.5°C pathway to a likely catastrophic 4.5°C track. One of their most critical variables is the amount of carbon reduction accomplished through negative emissions, relying on massive implementation of unproven technologies. According to the IPCC, staying under 2°C of global heating — consistent with the minimum target set by the 2015 Paris agreement — involves a heroic assumption that we will suck 730 billion metric tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere this century. This stupendous amount is equivalent to roughly twenty times the total current annual emissions from all fossil fuel usage. Such an assumption is closer to science fiction than any rigorous analysis worthy of a model on which our civilization is basing its entire future. Yet, even as the IPCC appears willing to model humanity’s fate on a pipe dream, not one of their scenarios explores what is possible from a graduated annual reduction in global GDP. Such a scenario was considered by the IPCC community to be too implausible to consider.

This represents a serious lapse on the part of the IPCC. Climate scientists who have modeled planned reductions in GDP show that keeping global heating below 1.5°C this century is potentially within reach under this scenario, with greatly reduced reliance on speculative carbon reduction technologies. Prominent economists have shown that a carefully managed “post-growth” plan could lead to enhanced quality of life, reduced inequality, and a healthier environment. It would, however, undermine the foundational activity of capitalism — the pursuit of endless growth that has led to our current state of obscene inequality, impending ecological collapse, and climate breakdown.

The profit-based path to catastrophe

As long as this elephant in the room remains unspoken, our world will continue to careen toward catastrophe, even as politicians and technocrats shift from one savior narrative to another. Along with the myth of “green growth,” we are told that a solution lies in putting monetary valuations on “ecosystem services” and incorporating them into business decisions — even though this approach has been shown to be deeply flawed, frequently counterproductive, and ultimately self-defeating. A wetlands, for example, might have value in protecting a city from flooding. However, if it were drained and a swanky new resort built on the reclaimed land, this could be more lucrative. Case closed.

The new moniker arising from the corporate titans at the World Economic Forum is “stakeholder capitalism”: an inviting term that seems to imply that stakeholders other than investors will play a role in setting corporate priorities, but actually refers to a profoundly anti-democratic process whereby corporations assume increasingly large roles in global governance. This month, the UN Food Systems Summit was essentially taken over by the same giant corporations, including Nestlé and Bayer, that are largely responsible for the very problems the summit was intended to grapple with — which led to a widespread boycott by hundreds of civil society and Indigenous groups.

As net-zero targets decades away are formally announced at COP26, built implicitly on a combination of corporate procrastination and speculative technologies, we can only expect the climate crisis to continue to worsen. Ultimately, as negative emissions technologies fail to meet their grandiose expectations, the same voices that currently promote reliance on them will lend support to the techno-dystopian idea of geoengineering — vast, planet-altering engineering projects designed to temporarily manipulate the climate to defer a climate apocalypse. A leading geoengineering candidate, financed by Bill Gates, involves spraying particles into the stratosphere to cool the Earth by reflecting the Sun’s rays back into space. The risks are enormous, including the likelihood of causing extreme shifts in precipitation around the world. Additionally, once begun, it could never be stopped without immediate catastrophic rebound heating; it would not prevent the oceans from further acidifying; and may turn the blue sky into a perpetual dull haze. In spite of these concerns, geoengineering is beginning to get discussed at UN meetings, with publications such as The Economist predicting that, since it wouldn’t disrupt continued economic growth, it’s more likely to be implemented than the drastic, binding cuts in emissions that would head off climate disaster.

There is an alternative

Why is the elephant in the room so rarely mentioned in mainstream discourse? One reason is that, since the collapse of communism and the parallel rise of neoliberalism beginning in the 1980s, it is assumed that “there is no alternative,” as Margaret Thatcher famously declared. Even committed green advocates, such as the Business Green group, are quick to dismiss criticism of our growth-based economic system as “knee-jerk anti-capitalist agitprop.” But the conventional dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, to which such conversations inevitably devolve, is no longer helpful. Old-fashioned socialism was just as poised to consume the Earth as capitalism, differing primarily in how the pie should be carved up. 

There is, however, an alternative. A wide range of progressive thinkers are exploring the possibilities of replacing our destructive global economic system with one that offers potential for sustainability, greater fairness, and human flourishing. Proponents of degrowth show that it is possible to implement a planned reduction of energy and resource use while reducing inequality and improving human well-being. Economic models, such as Kate Raworth’s “doughnut economics” offer coherent substitutes for the classical outdated framework that ignores fundamental principles of human nature and humanity’s role within the Earth system. Meanwhile, large-scale cooperatives, such as Mondragon in Spain, demonstrate that it’s possible for companies to provide effectively for human needs without utilizing a shareholder-based profit model.

Another reason people give for ignoring the elephant in the room, even when they know it’s there, is that we don’t have time for structural change. The climate emergency is already upon us, and we need to focus on actions that can occur right now. This is true, and nothing in this article should be taken as a reason to avoid the drastic and immediate changes required in business and consumer practices. Indeed, they are necessary — but insufficient. Ultimately, our global civilization must begin a transformation to one that is based not on building wealth through extraction, but on foundational principles that could create the conditions for long-term flourishing on a regenerated Earth — an ecological civilization.

Even in the short term, there are innumerable steps that can be taken to steer our civilization toward a life-affirming trajectory. Around the world Indigenous people on the frontline of the climate emergency desperately need support in defending the biodiverse ecosystems in which they are embedded against assaults from extractive corporations. A growing campaign is under way to make the wholesale destruction of natural living systems a criminal act by establishing a law of ecocide—prosecutable like genocide under the International Criminal Court. The powers of transnational corporations themselves need to be addressed, ultimately by requiring their charters to be converted to a triple bottom line of people, planet, and profits, and subject to rigorous enforcement powers.

The transformation we need may take decades, but the process must begin now with the clear and explicit recognition that capitalism itself needs to be supplanted by a system based on life-affirming values. Don’t expect to see any discussion of these issues in the formal proceedings of COP26. But, turn your attention outside the hallowed halls and you’ll hear the voices of those who are standing up for life’s continued flourishing on Earth. It’s only when their ideas are discussed seriously in the main chambers of a future COP that we can begin to hold authentic hope that our civilization may finally be turning away from the precipice toward which it is currently accelerating.

The best heavy cream substitutes for cooking and baking

If you asked me what I dream about at night, the answer would be heavy cream in all its silky, creamy glory. Heavy cream is responsible for chart-topping recipes like Our Best Vanilla Ice CreamStovetop Mac and Cheese with Garlic Powder and White PepperScalloped Potatoes with Caramelized Onions, and Warm Eggnog. If creamy comfort food is my dream, then running out of heavy cream is my nightmare. Few things hurt my soul more than pouring a generous amount of heavy cream into freshly mashed spuds only to find that there’s a drop or two left of the cream. What’s a girl to do? Cry. Panic. Call my mom. Or maybe do three minutes of breathwork and then open my refrigerator or pantry again to search for a substitute for heavy cream.

Alternatives for heavy cream may be another kind of dairy product or they may be vegan. There are thousands of recipes on our site that call for heavy cream, like penne alla vodka and creamed greens and frozen honey mousse. But do you actually need the cream? Can you replace it with milk? Or coconut milk? Or something else entirely? Today, we’re going to answer those questions and more. Ahead, find the best heavy cream substitutes that work every time . . . no tears necessary (but I’m still going to call my mom).

But first, an ask-me-anything heavy cream lightning round! Let’s go:

What is heavy cream?

Cream comes by way of milk. As food science authority Harold McGee explains it, “Cream is a special portion of milk that is greatly enriched with fat.” So, if you find yourself with a bucket of straight-from-the-cow milk, and you let it hang out for a while, the fat will rise to the top, yielding a layer of cream.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), heavy cream should not contain less than 36% milkfat. It is either pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized, and may be homogenized. So what about heavy cream vs. heavy whipping cream — where does the latter fit into all of this? Heavy whipping cream is actually the exact same product as heavy cream (meaning that it also must contain at least 36% milkfat), but brands may call it different names. You might also see it under the name “whipping cream” and yep, that’s the same thing, too.

Can I substitute light cream for heavy cream? 

Depends on the recipe. Light cream generally has a fat content of 20%, while heavy cream is at least 36%. If you need the cream to whip, light cream won’t cut it (there isn’t enough fat to form a foam — try to say that five times fast). But if the recipe is more forgiving (like a pureed soup or mashed potatoes), swapping in light cream shouldn’t cause any major issues.

Can I make whipped cream with half-and-half? 

Sorry, no. Half-and-half’s fat content hovers around 12%, which is great for pouring into coffee and over fresh fruit, but isn’t fatty enough for whipping.

Can I substitute whipping cream for heavy cream? 

Ah-ha! Trick question. As previously mentioned, they’re pretty much the same. Pretty much because whipping cream has a fat content of at least 35%, while heavy cream (which also goes by heavy whipping cream) has a fat content of at least 36%. Which is to say, both are good for the same things, like whipping, reducing in cheesy gratins, and posset-ing.

Can I substitute evaporated milk for heavy cream? 

Again, depends on the recipe. Evaporated milk is pressure-cooked until it loses roughly half of its water content; the beige-hued result has a high concentration of lactose and protein. If you’re making whipped cream or a baked good (say, cream scones or apple butter pie), stick to what’s called for. But, if you’re working with a soup or saucy-something, you can do a 1:1 substitution of evaporated milk in place of heavy cream.

***

Heavy cream substitutes

These are some of the most common cream replacements. We’ll get to know each ingredient, then learn how to put them toward specific recipes in the section below.

Half-And-Half

Half cream, half milk, this dairy hovers between 10–12% fat. It can’t be whipped and shouldn’t be swapped into baking recipes, but is great for enriching soups and mashed or creamed vegetables.

Light Cream

Heavier than half-and-half, but lighter than heavy cream, with an 18–30% fat content. Still too lean to whip, but good for enriching soups and mashed vegetables, and can be used for sauces.

Whole Milk

With about 3.5% fat, this is the creamiest milk around, but still significantly leaner than heavy cream. Use for mashed vegetables or other forgiving cooking preparations. Trying to reduce milk like cream would cause curdling (though sometimes this is on purpose).

Evaporated Milk

This canned product has had 60% of its water content removed. To use as a heavy cream substitute, look for the whole-milk variety, which contains at least 7.9% fat. It works very well in sauces, but has a slightly cooked, caramelized flavor.

Coconut Milk Or Cream

Rich in fat, both of these products are a great vegan substitute for heavy cream. Try in sauces and soups; the cream can be whipped. However, it doesn’t quite have the body that heavy cream (or heavy whipping cream) has, so it won’t ever form stiff peaks like whipped cream does. Avoid light varieties and don’t confuse with cream of coconut, which is sweetened.

Cashew Cream

Another great vegan substitute, with a much milder flavor than coconut. You can make your own cashew cream by soaking nuts, then blending them until smooth. If you’re buying store-bought, make sure to avoid sweetened varieties.

Onion “Cream”

Yep. This sorta-substitute, made by roasting and puréeing onions, is so out there, it’s Genius. Don’t even think about using it for sweets, but “you can swap it in for cream in your risotto, add to pasta with fresh herbs for a healthier, brighter, but still decadent-tasting dish, whip it into your mashed potatoes, or use it in a quiche to lighten up the base,” according to its creator chef Grant Lee Crilly.

***

How to substitute heavy cream in recipes 

Now, onto some specific recipes. Below are six heavy cream–loving dishes. We’ll break down whether or not you can substitute, and which substitutes are your best bet.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in mashed potatoes? 

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Whole milk, evaporated milk, coconut milk, onion cream
Caveats: Dairy is a free-for-all in mashed potato recipes. If you read enough of them, you’ll come across heavy cream, milk, cream cheese, goat cheese, sour cream, butter, and often the freedom to pick your favorite (like when a recipe says “1/2 cup whole milk or half-and-half”). So, there’s a lot of flexibility here. Just keep in mind that if you opt for a vegan option, like coconut milk, you’ll notice its flavor.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in soup? 

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Evaporated milk, whole milk, coconut milk, cashew cream, onion cream
Caveats: A lot of non-dairy milks are sneakily sweetened. Double-check the ingredient list to make sure you aren’t about to turn your chowder into dessert.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in alfredo sauce? 

Short answer: Technically, Alfredo sauce isn’t supposed to have heavy cream in it — in traditional versions, the creaminess actually comes from the starchy pasta water, butter, and cheese — but, yes, a lot of contemporary Alfredo recipes do contain cream, and yes, you can substitute it. 
Recommended substitutes: Evaporated milk. Or, pureed cauliflower! 
Caveats: Because of the way it’s boiled down, evaporated milk has an almost sweet, caramelly flavor. To make sure this isn’t too noticeable, don’t skimp on the Parm.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in quiche? 

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Half-and-half or whole milk. 
Caveats: Some quiche recipes call for all cream, some call for a mixture of cream and whole milk (with a popular ratio of 1:1), and some call for all milk. You can swap out the cream for half-and-half or milk, but it will result in a less flavorful, less silky custard. Don’t use lowfat or nonfat milk, which would give the custard a blander flavor and spongier texture, with a higher risk of curdling.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in whipped cream? 

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Coconut cream. 
Caveats: While you can’t swap out heavy cream for a lower-fat dairy, like half-and-half or milk (it won’t whip up), you can turn to a dairy alternative: coconut cream. You can either buy this straight or refrigerate a can of coconut milk for at least 12 hours, then scoop up the cream layer on the top.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in ice cream?

Short answer: Sort of. 
Recommended substitutes: Half-and-half. Or, go vegan. 
Caveats: Many ice cream recipes call for a 2:1 ratio of cream to milk. You can replace the cream portion with half-and-half, or you can replace both the cream and milk with half-and-half. Just remember that the less butterfat your ice cream has, the icier and harder it will turn out (aka not creamy). To compensate for this, you can swap out some of the granulated sugar for a liquid sweetener, like corn syrup or honey, which will encourage a creamier result. On the opposite side of the spectrum, you can skip the dairy altogether and make a vegan ice cream with coconut milk or cashew cream instead (here is our full guide on how to make dairy-free ice cream).

***

These cream-filled recipe are the, ahem, cream of the crop 

(But you can still use a swap!)

Cream Biscuits

These biscuits call on heavy cream instead of the classic buttermilk for a simpler mixing process, and a rich and tender final product. If you don’t have heavy cream on hand, feel free to use half-and-half or milk, or better yet, just go back to basics and use buttermilk for a tangier biscuit.

Pre-Seasoned Mashed Potatoes

By heavily seasoning the cooking water for the potatoes with salt, garlic, peppercorns, and aromatics, you can skip the step of seasoning after they’re mashed. These potatoes emerge from the water brimming with flavor and perfectly cooked, meaning you can mix them less, which lowers the risk of over-working your mashed potatoes into a gluey, starchy mess. Just add a little butter, cream, and plate up your potato-y perfection.

Rigatoni with Vodka Sauce

We love this recipe from editor Rebecca Firkser for many reasons. As Firkser writes, this vodka sauce gets the bulk of its creaminess from “a mixture of grated Parm and pasta water, both of which are more salty and nuanced than cream.” Music to any lactose-intolerant ears! It does still call for some cream, which can be subbed for a little half-and-half or whole milk, without compromising the whole dish (as is typical of cream-less attempts at vodka sauce).

Creamy Mushroom Soup

This mushroom soup delivers on the promise of creamy, with an ultra-comforting, bisque-like consistency. A little cream goes a long way here, as does a touch of cognac. For a more sophisticated depth of flavor, use a mix of mushrooms: cremini, shitake, button, hen of the woods, oyster, and chanterelle will all do nicely here.

Triple Layer Mousse

Leave it to Resident Baking BFF Erin Jeanne McDowell (of Bake it Up a Notch) to come up with a dessert this fun to look at — and eat! Vanilla-, strawberry-, and chocolate-flavored mousse get layered for a whimsical Neapolitan effect, but you can easily just make one (or two!) flavors of mousse to tailor to your desired effort-level and ingredient-availability.