Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Louis DeJoy rolls out plan to slow USPS, despite calls for his ouster

Americans should expect the U.S. Postal Service to become permanently slower and, for the 2021 holiday season at least, more expensive after a number of new changes championed by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, who is facing calls to resign over his alleged conflicts of interest.

DeJoy, a prominent Republican fundraiser, was appointed to his position by then-President Donald Trump in March 2020 despite the fact that he had no previous postal service experience. Earlier this summer news surfaced that the FBI was investigating DeJoy for campaign finance violations while he was CEO of a private logistics firm — allegedly pressuring employees to attend GOP fundraisers or donate to Republicans before they were paid back in bonuses. 

The most recent changes to the USPS come as a result of DeJoy’s 10-year strategic plan, first announced in March, which included plans for “longer first-class delivery windows” and “reduced post office hours and higher postage prices.” 

The plan was widely critiqued by Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said that the plan would undermine the mission of the USPS, “resulting in serious delays and the degradation of service for millions.” The American Postal Workers Union, in a message to members, said the plan was a “series of actions that will undermine the postal service and are an insult to every postal worker, every postal craft and every postal customer.”

USPS spokeswoman Kim Frum announced the changes this Friday,  saying the Postal Service will “implement new service standards for First Class Mail and Periodicals.”


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


This means that there will be increased time-in-transit for mail traveling long distances, particularly first-class mail, which could take up to 30% longer to reach its destination, according to the USPS. 

Frum also announced that as of Oct. 3, the Postal Service will temporarily increase prices on all commercial and retail domestic packages because of the holiday season

Despite its status as a public utility, the USPS has been criticized for years over its poor financial performance — last year alone, for example, the USPS lost more than $9 billion. DeJoy told lawmakers in February that  the entire system was “in a death spiral,” and that legislation is needed to help restore it to financial stability.

But hovering over these plans for the USPS are additional accusations of cronyism lingering over DeJoy’s tenure as Postmaster General. 

This summer, the USPS awarded a $120 million contract to XPO Logistics, a company DeJoy’s family maintains financial ties with. DeJoy also holds a significant amount of stock in Amazon, seen by some as a USPS competitor, while making governmental changes that may affect the company’s shareholder value. In August, a federal judge ruled that the “US Postal Service must give the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington documents about potential conflicts of interest by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.”

House Democrats have called on President Biden to oust DeJoy by appointing new members to the Postal Service Board of Governors, which appoints the Postmaster General. Currently, the majority of sitting governors were appointed by Trump. 

Rep. Jimmy Gomez, a California Democrat leading the charge for DeJoy’s ouster, called his tenure as postmaster general “a masterclass in cronyism and deception. 

“The amount of suspicion I had about him and his efforts to intentionally undermine delivery times at [USPS] could have filled the Grand Canyon,” he tweeted. “The Board of Governors should #FireDeJoy.”

DeJoy was also accused of attempting to “sabotage” the 2020 election as early as last August, and appeared before Congress to answer for his policy changes at USPS that slowed postal delivery times ahead of a record number of mail-in ballots last fall due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Correction: A previous version of this story stated all sitting USPS Board of Governors were appointed by former President Donald Trump. The majority of board members were Trump nominees, though three members were appointed by President Joe Biden.

Trump endorses Arizona conspiracy theorist who wants to “decertify” election after sham “audit”

Donald Trump on Tuesday endorsed election conspiracist Kari Lake in the heated Arizona Republican primary campaign to replace Gov. Doug Ducey as the ex-president continues his feud with Republican governors he feels did not support his election lies strongly enough.

Trump threw his support behind Lake, a former TV news anchor who first entered politics this year with rallies stoking false claims about the election and railing against masks, vaccine requirements and the media.

“Few can take on the Fake News Media like Kari,” Trump said in a statement, praising Lake for opposing COVID restrictions and “Cancel Culture” and vowing that she will “end ‘woke’ curriculum in our schools.”

The twice-impeached former president also took a shot at Ducey, who failed to try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 defeat in Arizona and famously hung up on a call from Trump while certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

Lake “will do a far better job than RINO [Republican in name only] Governor Doug Ducey — won’t even be a contest!” Trump said.

Trump’s endorsement came hours after Lake called for his image to be added to Mount Rushmore.

“Who thinks President Trump should be added to Mt. Rushmore?” Lake tweeted on Tuesday. “@govkristinoem can we make this happen?”


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


Lake has raised her profile in Arizona Republican circles by backing the so-called “audit” of the election results in Maricopa County, which in fact found that Biden won the county by slightly more votes than had previously been reported. The audit found no proof of widespread fraud or irregularities but still sought to raise doubts about election procedures. Despite the absence of any evidence of fraud, Lake issued a one-word statement in response to the audit, demanding that officials “decertify” the election, which is not legally possible.

Trump’s endorsement of the inexperienced newcomer could be risky. Lake still has to face state Treasurer Kimberly Yee, former Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., and Arizona Board of Regents member Karrin Taylor Robson, among others, in the crowded Republican primary to replace the term-limited Ducey. Some Republicans are concerned that nominating extremist candidates will cost Republicans in the general election in highly competitive states like Arizona and Georgia.

“I don’t think Lake has any idea what she’s doing,” longtime Republican strategist Chuck Coughlin told the Arizona Republic. “But that’s obviously not a requirement to win a primary in either party.”

Lake has billed herself as the most conservative candidate in the race, but she left the Republican Party in 2006 and registered as a Democrat in 2008 after Barack Obama’s victory in the Iowa caucuses. She donated to Obama’s campaign and had earlier given money to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. She changed her registration back to the GOP in 2012.

Salmon accused Lake of being a political opportunist after Trump’s endorsement.

“She will parrot whatever convenient political slogan is on the teleprompter in front of her to get ahead,” he said in a statement. “There is no doubt in my mind that Lake would betray President Trump and Republicans writ large the moment things get tough, just like she has done so many times in the past.”

Former Arizona Republican Party chairman Robert Graham, a longtime Trump supporter, expressed concern that the former president’s endorsement could invite new scrutiny of Lake.

“People haven’t had time to vet her. And just wait and watch what comes out,” he told the Arizona Mirror.

Democrats have spent much of the last year batting against election lies from Trump and his allies.

“Arizonans are sick and tired of our government being run by conspiracy theorists — like Kari Lake — who wasted our taxpayer dollars and breached voters’ trust in their effort to discredit the 2020 election,” Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, the leading Democratic gubernatorial contender, said in a statement.

Trump previously endorsed state Rep. Mark Finchem to replace Hobbs as secretary of state, which would put him in position to oversee the state’s elections. Finchem is a hardcore Trump zealot who has been linked to extremist groups and was outside the Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot.

Along with Ducey, Trump has also directed his ire at Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, another Republican the ex-president has blamed for his defeat, believing that Kemp didn’t do enough to reverse the outcome.

During a speech in Georgia last weekend, Trump called Kemp a “complete and total disaster on election integrity” and even  suggested that Democrat Stacey Abrams “might be better than having your existing governor.”

Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, a Republican who has pushed back against Trump’s election lies, warned in a CNN op-ed that the former president threatens to “hijack our great state for his own selfish agenda.”

“It might make for good theater, but it is setting back the conservative movement,” he wrote. “If we keep it up, we are looking at another four years of President Biden calling the shots.”

Trump to file a lawsuit against Biden White House to keep January 6 records sealed: report

Former President Donald Trump is filing a lawsuit against the White House in hopes of claiming executive privilege and blocking records from his presidential administration being sent to the House Select Committee, the group of lawmakers examining the January 6 riots.

Accoding to The Guardian, Trump recently released a statement outlining his intent to fight back as he pushes for executive privilege on the matter.

“We will fight the subpoenas on executive privilege and other grounds for the good of our country, while we wait to find out whether or not subpoenas will be sent out to Antifa and BLM for the death and destruction they have caused,” Trump said.

The embattled former president has also set high demands for his former top-ranking White House officials including “former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel,” the publication reports.

Despite the House Select Committee’s likely subpoenas and requests for testimony, Trump is expecting his former White House staff members to refrain from cooperating. The road Trump appears to be embarking on will likely lead to a longterm court battle over the

Per the publication:

“The plan to prevent House select committee investigators from receiving Trump White House records revolves around exploiting the procedure by which the National Archives allows both the Biden administration and Trump to review materials for executive privilege claims.”

“Executive privilege will be defended, not just on behalf of my administration and the patriots who worked beside me, but on behalf of the office of the president of the United States and the future of our nation,” Trump said in a statement.

Despite Trump’s demands, President Joe Biden will ultimately have the final authority as it will be his decision. After an additional 60 days of making no progress due to Trump’s pushback, the president “instruct the White House counsel, Dana Remus, to allow the release without the former president’s cooperation.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warns of impending “calamity” if Congress won’t raise debt limit

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned this week that the U.S. faces an imminent financial and economic crisis, telling House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday that Congress has until Oct. 18 to raise the debt ceiling.

“We now estimate that Treasury is likely to exhaust its extraordinary measures if Congress has not acted to raise or suspend the debt limit by October 18,” she wrote in a letter to Pelosi and other House leaders, as well as Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who so far has vowed not to support raising the limit. “At that point, we expect Treasury would be left with very limited resources that would be depleted quickly.”

Later Tuesday morning, Yellen and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testified at a Senate Banking Committee hearing on the CARES Act, which focuses on coronavirus aid, relief and economic security in the post-pandemic economic recovery.

In her address, Yellen warned lawmakers of “catastrophic” consequences that might follow if Congress fails to raise or suspend the debt limit within the next three weeks. 

“It is imperative that Congress swiftly addresses the debt limit. If it does not, America would default for the first time in history,” she said, stressing the importance of Congress’ action at a critical time in America’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. “The full faith and credit of the United States would be impaired, and our country would likely face a financial crisis and economic recession.”

Although there have been a number of government “shutdowns,” when federal employees were not paid and federal facilities were largely closed, the U.S. has never defaulted on its debt, which would mean being unable to make payments to bondholders. According to NBC News, economists have no true measures beyond abstract forecasts to estimate the possible economic fallout. 

Yellen wrote in her letter to Pelosi Tuesday that time was of the essence to prevent what she described as a potential “calamity.” The Treasury head said that “estimates regarding how long our remaining extraordinary measures and cash may last can unpredictably shift forward or backward. This uncertainty underscores the critical importance of not waiting to raise or suspend the debt limit.”

Not only would a government default be detrimental to those with a direct financial stake, Yellen warned, it would also affect everyday Americans, potentially leading to delayed Social Security payments and higher interest rates on mortgages, auto loans and credit cards, among other things. “It would be disastrous for the American economy, for global financial markets, and for millions of families and workers whose financial security would be jeopardized by delayed payments,” she said. 

Yellen and Powell also touched on the effects of the delta variant, which they said has slowed the nation’s economic recovery, although both said they still believed the economy was moving in the right direction.

How the “great replacement” theory went from Charlottesville to the GOP mainstream

A growing number of Republican pundits and politicians are entertaining or outright embracing the “great replacement” theory — a once-fringe white nationalist worldview that in recent years has crept into mainstream political discourse.

This theory, apparently first popularized in 2012 in a self-published book by the eccentric French novelist and diarist Renaud Camus, proposes that a cabal of liberals or global elites is attempting to “replace” the white European populace with nonwhite or non-European minorities. This idea had very little traction in America until recently, at least outside the fringes of the far right. But over the past few years, some prominent conservatives who are not overtly white supremacist have begun to embrace this notion publicly, claiming that their political opponents are enacting pro-immigration policies in order to diminish the electoral power of white voters.

In 2017, the term and the idea were abruptly thrust into the national spotlight when hundreds of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and far-right activists gathered in Charlottesville, Virginia, to protest their perceived disenfranchisement, chanting slogans like “Jews will not replace us.” That “Unite the Right” rally, which erupted into violence that led to the death of one leftist counter-protester as well as many injuries, made clear that racialized white grievance was now a feature of the political landscape.

In the years following, various Republicans have supported various versions of the “great replacement” theory, including Florida state Sen. Dennis Baxley, former U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa and Maine Republican vice chair Nick Isgro, all of whom suggested that supporters of legal abortion were deliberately causing a decline in the birth rate among white Americans. 

At least three mass shootings have apparently been inspired by the “great replacement” idea: The Tree of Life synagogue killings in Pittsburgh in 2018, the mosque shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand in March 2019, and the El Paso Walmart massacre in August 2019. 


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


After those atrocities, the theory appeared to receded from the national discourse — but not forever. Fox News primetime star Tucker Carlson brought it back with a vengeance, saying on the air this April that the Democratic Party was “trying to replace the current electorate” with “new people, more obedient voters from the Third World.” There have been calls ever since from progressive and antiracist groups for Carlson’s firing — but his fans and followers loved it.

Over the past few months, several prominent Republicans have begun to deploy “great replacement” rhetoric, invoking vague fears about whites being supplanted by ethnic minorities, or even by naming the theory openly. 

Last week, Rep. Matt Gaetz, the embattled Florida Republican who has reportedly been under federal investigation for months, tweeted that Carlson was “CORRECT about Replacement Theory as he explains what is happening to America,” even taking a moment to describe the Anti-Defamation League as “a racist organization.” Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, made nearly the same claims in a Newsmax interview, saying that Democrats “want to replace the American electorate with a Third World electorate that will be on welfare.”

Some Republicans have been at least a bit subtler, alluding to concerns around an influx of minorities changing the cultural fabric of the nation. 

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who recently replaced Rep. Liz Cheney as chair of the House Republican Conference, warned her voters in an ad blitz two weeks ago that Democrats were planning “a PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION” by expanding pathways to citizenship.

In early September, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reiterated these concerns to Fox News host Laura Ingraham, warning of a “silent revolution by the Democrat Party and Joe Biden to take over the country.”

Citing Biden’s alleged plan to loosen borders and admit more immigrants, Patrick said that if “every one of them has two or three children, you’re talking about millions and millions and millions of new voters.”

In April of this year, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., also echoed these sentiments. “For many Americans,” Perry said during a committee hearing, “what seems to be happening, or what they believe right now is happening, is, what appears to them is, we’re replacing national-born American — native-born Americans, to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation.”

It also seems possible, and perhaps likely, that belief in the possibility of a “great replacement” theory is widespread among Donald Trump’s supporters and the Republican base. According to a survey conducted by political scientist Robert Pape, a majority of those who participated in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, as the New York Times reports, were “awash in fears that the rights of minorities and immigrants were crowding out the rights of white people in American politics and culture.” 

Centrist Dems broke a promise on infrastructure. They should not get their “bipartisan” victory now

When the two-track plan to pass President Joe Biden’s ambitious jobs and infrastructure program first emerged, many progressives understandably thought it was a trap. To summarize an impossibly complex situation: Earlier this year, Biden proposed a giant bill that would contain huge chunks of the progressive agenda. Some of it was GOP-friendly, such as building roads and bridges. Some of it — childcare funding, policies to reduce climate change, and health care expansions — was not. But centrist Democrats refused to vote for the entire bill through budget reconciliation, which only requires a party-line vote, because they wanted to say they were “bipartisan.” So a scheme was concocted: Put the GOP-friendly items in one bill that could pass on a bipartisan basis, and put the rest in a bill to pass on a party-line vote. 

So Democrats concocted an intra-party deal: Progressives vote for the moderate-pleasing bill, and, in exchange, moderates vote for the progressive bill. 

“The moderates couldn’t pass a bipartisan bill without the more progressive wing of our caucus,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told Politico in August. “And the progressives couldn’t get a big, bold bill without the moderates.”

Some progressives, however, smelled a rat. They feared it was scheme concocted by Republicans and centrist Democrats to carve out the most important and most popular parts of Biden’s agenda and put it in a separate bill that would be easier to drown in a bathtub. But no, progressives were told, there was no intention of doing any of that! As assurance, progressives were promised that both bills would be passed at once, so no one would be tempted to renege on the deal. 


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


Turns out progressives were right to be paranoid. Centrist Democrats, led by — who else? — Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, are, to be blunt, reneging on their end of the bargain. They are demanding that the skinnier bipartisan bill be passed first. While they keep claiming they’ll vote for the more ambitious bill — after slicing and dicing it to be less ambitious, naturally — there is no reason to believe them. They are, after all, people who break promises. The wise thing to assume at this point is that they are trying to trick progressives into holding up their end of the bargain, at which point, centrists will drop any pretense of playing ball and abandon the most important parts of the Biden agenda. 

“During a private meeting with the president, Sinema made clear she’s still not on board with the party’s $3.5 trillion social spending plan and is hesitant to engage on some specifics until the bipartisan infrastructure package passes the House, according to a person who spoke with her,” Politico reported Wednesday morning, confirming not just that Sinema is a snake in the grass, but also not half as clever at hiding her schemes as she thinks she is. 

As a business lobbyist admitted to Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, “their optimal scenario is that the infrastructure bill passes and the reconciliation bill goes down to defeat entirely.”

Progressives shouldn’t let them get away with this. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has already delayed a vote on the skinny bill from Monday to Thursday, clearly in hopes that the centrists will stop reneging and the deal can be salvaged. But if centrists haven’t backed down from their unsubtle efforts to derail the Biden agena, then it’s time for progressives to make good on the “F around and find out” threat. Progressives should refuse to vote for the skinny bill, and stand by their demand that it’s both bills or none. 

There are many Democrats who are panicked at this proposition, fearing that the slim infrastructure bill is better than passing nothing. But while that is a legitimate concern, it pales next to the larger problem of rewarding saboteurs and letting the GOP continue to use a handful of centrists as puppets to control the Democratic agenda. It really comes down to the very basic principles of contracts: If bad faith actors are allowed to renege on deals, they will continue to use false promises to entrap the good faith actors time and again. 

The good news, as Joan Walsh of The Nation pointed out on MSNBC on Tuesday night, is the presence of “a couple dozen progressives who are saying they will not vote for this infrastructure bill if it’s not tied in some way to a future, larger, more generous, robust, necessary reconciliation bill.” 

The progressive caucus reiterated their intention publicly to vote down the bipartisan bill unless centrists hold up their end of the bargain. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont backed them up on Twitter, noting that “If the bipartisan infrastructure bill is passed on its own on Thursday, this will be in violation of an agreement,” and “it will end all leverage that we have to pass a major reconciliation bill.”

As Sanders noted, this isn’t just about keeping everyone in the Democratic caucus honest, but about substantive political concerns. The skinny bill makes “no serious effort to address the long-neglected crises facing the working families of our country, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor,” he argued, adding that it also doesn’t address “the existential threat to our country and planet with regard to climate change.”


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


From a moral point of view, the last point is by far the most important. As former Barack Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer noted in his most recent newsletter, the progressive bill “is our best, and perhaps last, chance to do something meaningful about climate change before it is too late.” As another former Obama aide, John Podesta, warned the Democratic caucus in a memo, “There is no time. There is no next time.” 

Plus, if they can force centrists to pony up the promised votes, progressives may be saving moderate Democrats from themselves. Rep. Katie Porter of California made this point eloquently in an interview with the Washington Post, noting that the items in the bigger bill “will immediately begin to improve the lives of Americans and will begin to immediately improve our economy.” Basically, all good stuff that Democrats can campaign on for the midterms. The smaller bill, on the other hand, is mostly focused on long-range infrastructure projects that will not be noticed by the voters that Democrats need to win in 2022. 

Voting down the bill risks, of course, getting nothing done at all. That would be a shame. But it is better than the alternative, which is rewarding these childish and lobbyist-driven antics by a handful of Democrats. Appealing to their higher angels — or to the fate of the planet — clearly isn’t moving people like Manchin and Sinema, who care more about being flattered by right wing fundraisers than they do the future of humanity. The moral of 2021, in many ways, is that some folks simply can’t do the right thing unless they face consequences for doing the wrong thing. Threats only work if you make good on them. Progressives have to show they’re serious, or this small minority of bad actors will never lose control of the Democratic agenda. 

The swirly, brain-freezing origins of the frozen margarita machine

From the outset, Mariano Martinez’s restaurant, the place that put frozen margaritas on the map, was an experience. Then called Mariano’s Mexican Cuisine, the original was located in Dallas’ Old Town shopping center, a 5-minute ride from Southern Methodist University. Inside, Mexican music piped through the dining room and blue lighting simulated moonlight. Sorority sisters wearing skirts and gaucho hats worked as greeters. The floor was covered with inexpensive shag carpeting, and at the end of service, employees used yard rakes to clean up fallen tortilla chips. The house specialty was the margarita.

It was 1971 — the same year that a coffeehouse called Starbucks opened its doors in Seattle and just a year after Texas passed a constitutional amendment making liquor by the drink legal. Prior to that, it was a “brown bag state,” meaning customers could bring a bottle of alcohol to a restaurant as long as they kept it in the bag, off the table. As Mariano explains on a recent phone call, people would order a “setup,” like Coke over ice with a lime, and pour their liquor of choice — usually whiskey or rum — into the mix.

Growing up in Dallas, Mariano’s parents owned a restaurant called El Charro. Occasionally, Anglo customers would show up with a bottle of tequila — a gift from a neighbor or a souvenir from a recent vacation — and no clue what to do with it. His father, who had spent time working at a “high-dollar” speakeasy in San Antonio, would suggest a margarita.

When Mariano opened his own restaurant, he repurposed his father’s recipe, with fresh lime, 100% agave tequila, Cointreau (rather than lower shelf triple sec), simple syrup, and a salted rim.

After a drink at the cantina, customers would take their seats at white-tablecloth tables in the dining room and were waited on by servers wearing jackets and bowties. Like a good cocktail, the formula was simple, but the result was greater than the sum of its parts. Mariano’s was an instant hit.

With time, the restaurant would become a Dallas institution — the invention of the frozen margarita machine only added to the legend.

* * *

On a sweltering Texas evening on the cusp of August, I visit Mariano’s restaurant. The Dallas location, now called Mariano’s Hacienda Ranch, has since moved to nearby Northeast Dallas and is one of five locations. Like the pick-up trucks and the ten-gallon hats, the sheer size reminds you you’re in Texas.

The interior looks like a cavernous hunting lodge with log walls, wagon wheel chandeliers, and a small ecosystem of taxidermied animals mounted in the dining room. It’s spaghetti Western elegant, or as Google describes it, “caballero-chic.” Front and center is the horseshoe bar and the prized frozen margarita machines. While we wait for our table, we order a round of margaritas and I notice the hat-tips to Martinez’s invention — a golden margarita statue, plaques sharing the mythology: “The World’s First Frozen Margarita . . .” Beaming customers stop to take pictures alongside.

My machine-poured margarita is served in a tall, slender cocktail glass. It’s icy cold, the perfect balance of tart and barely sweet, and the tequila is present but not aggressively so. “Potent but polite,” in Mariano’s words, and I have to agree. It disappears easily.

Mariano explains, “I’m the fourth generation in my family to be in the Mexican restaurant business, and back in my parents’ and grandparents’ and great-grandparents’ day, they had to serve spaghetti and meatballs and fried chicken and chicken fried steak to survive.”

Instead of catering to Anglo tastes, Mariano doubled down on his family’s recipes — like sopa de albóndigas, carne asada tampiqueña, and enchiladas suizas — but adding his own special twist. “I established a higher quality of everything. For example, the cheese — instead of just buying whatever cheese was the cheapest, I would buy Wisconsin cheddar in 40-pound blocks that had to be aged from 30 to 90 days. And I bought a certain kind of beef, 80% lean and 20% fat, with a special grind for chili.”

Mariano’s was serving top-notch Tex-Mex staples before the term “Tex-Mex” really existed. According to Texas food historian Robb Walsh’s The Tex Mex Cookbook, the term didn’t appear until the 1970s.

As Mariano tells it, many American restaurateurs wanted to distance themselves from the Mexican label altogether, projecting onto it a negative connotation. Instead, they marketed their food as “Spanish” or “Sonora-style.” But with his restaurant, Martinez embraced it. Some customers started to believe Mariano’s was more Mexican than actual Mexican food. He remembers, “They’d say, Mariano, we just got off of a jet airplane from Alcapulco and we’re coming to get some real Mexican food and some real margaritas.”

* * *

Here’s where the myth comes in: During a crushing service, the bartender couldn’t keep up with the frozen margarita orders. The blender was broken. The bartender’s hands were cramping from squeezing lime after lime. A customer complained about the inconsistent cocktails. Mariano was desperate to find a solution. Cut to a quick stop at the 7-Eleven (another homegrown Dallas invention, by the way), where Mariano spotted a kid pulling a frozen drink from the Slurpee machine — the moment of inspiration. What if he could use a Slurpee machine for his margaritas? “I feel like the idea came from God,” Mariano tells me.

He ended up buying a used soft-serve machine and tinkering around until it poured big batches of his father’s frozen cocktail recipe. Problem solved.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3ua5qQH56R/

The frozen margarita machine made Mariano famous, but the fact that he managed to get the restaurant off the ground was a small miracle in itself. He was turned down by 11 banks before finally convincing one to give him a loan. I ask him how he managed to muster so much confidence in his idea — at the tender age of 26, no less.

“I would think it was more persistence than confidence. And perseverance,” Mariano told me. “Go back to my school days. My family was doing just well enough to move into an all-white neighborhood, and I suffered a lot of racism and bigotry.”

Growing up feeling like an outsider stoked the flames of determination. “So yes, I believed in my ideas, but also, where else was I going to go? I wanted to be known for something. I wanted to be somebody.”

Mariano took his heritage, the Mexican restaurant business, and ran with it.

* * *

I ask Marc Ramirez, a Dallas-based writer who has covered cocktail culture for the Dallas Morning News, why Mariano’s creation was such a hit.

“The frozen margarita machine was one of those Texas innovations that found the right audience in the right climate. The flavors — bright, tart, sweet — are perfect for a hot day; add alcohol, put it on ice, and it’s even better. The margarita also has a storied, geographic connection to Texas that makes it beloved to people here; so does tequila,” Marc wrote in an email.

It was only a matter of time before the frozen concoction caught on. Mariano tells me, “I started getting all these write-ups in the newspapers and interviews on television, and then people started getting their own margarita machines.” His invention popped up in bars and restaurants all over the country, and pretty soon, the world. And, as often happens, the original formula was diluted.

Over the years, frozen margaritas have developed a bad rap, particularly within serious mixology circles. Marc explains, “Frozen drinks have a way of masking flavors, so they’re easier to ‘cheat’ on if a restaurant or bar is looking to cut corners. That said, a frozen margarita made with fresh, quality ingredients can be really good — and of course even more outstanding on a patio on a balmy afternoon.”

Mariano never patented his invention, but he doesn’t regret it.

“I think ideas should be shared,” he says. “Right now we’re in a pandemic, and I think if anybody comes up with an idea that could help us, they ought to share it with the world, and not try to get a patent and make a bunch of money on it.”

* * *

This year marked the 50th for Mariano’s restaurant and his invention. The original machine now sits on display in the Smithsonian, right next to Julia Child’s kitchen. Mariano has become somewhat of a local celebrity. He’s even appeared on Jimmy Kimmel alongside fellow Texas hero Tony Romo.

Tex-Mex has gone from marginalized to celebrated. Mariano has undeniably had a hand in that.

I travel to Texas regularly to visit my sister, who’s lived in Dallas for over a decade. Like venturing to a foreign country, I’ve grown to expect the chance to experience a whole new cuisine, including Tex-Mex. This most recent visit felt different because, for obvious reasons, I hadn’t seen my sister in two years. I wanted to squeeze as much quality time from each day, each meal as possible.

By 6 p.m., in the shade of the spacious patio, my barely-there makeup melty as nacho cheese, we were ordering a round of tequila shots for the table — a digestif for the slow-roasted brisket tacos, the enchiladas, and the queso with fresh serrano peppers. I was no longer thinking about the heaviness — of the heat or the fact that I didn’t know when I’d be back. We were catching up and grazing on the final broken tortilla chips and having a great time. And that, maybe, is the secret ingredient to Mariano’s success.

“Chips and salsa and margaritas — it’s like the instant forget-about-it. A woman once told me: ‘No matter how the day begins, as long as it ends with a Mariano’s margarita, it’s a good day.'”

Josh Hawley slammed by Missouri paper for his “big role in the Big Lie” shown in Woodward’s new book

Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s new book, “Peril” takes a disturbing look at former President Donald Trump’s final weeks in the White House. And according to the Kansas City Star’s editorial board, the book paints an especially damning picture of one of Trump’s worst enablers during that chaotic lame duck period: Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri. Hawley’s refusal to accept the democratic results of the 2020 presidential election and his role in the January 6 insurrection are the focus of a scathing Star editorial published on September 29.

“Vice President Mike Pence, alas, had to be convinced not to end our democratic experiment,” the Star’s editorial board writes, “but he did come through in the end…. But you know who never caved to reality, or ever tried to protect the republic instead of his Republican self? Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, that’s who. Yes, we knew that, but ‘Peril’ reminds any who might have forgotten that in putting his ambition ahead of all else, Hawley was a standout both before and during the attempted coup.”

In “Peril,” Woodward — who is famous for his reporting on Watergate with Washington Post colleague Carl Bernstein during the 1970s — and Costa write, “The risk became real when Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a Yale-law educated freshman and former Supreme Court law clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts, announced on December 30 that he would object to the Electoral College certification on January 6, becoming the first senator to do so.”

After the January 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol Building, Woodward and Costa note in their book, many senators “blamed” Hawley “for instigating the riot by announcing his opposition to the certification a week earlier.”

“Hawley played a big role in the Big Lie,” the Star’s editorial board writes. “And since so many Missourians love him for it, he may be the rare national Republican who hopes his constituents will read this book, and see how willing he was to distinguish himself.”

After the Milley incident, it’s time to limit presidential powers — or regret it forever

The highly anticipated testimony of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and the two highest ranking officers in the U.S. military before the Senate Armed Services Committee took place on Tuesday. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was questioned thoroughly about the episodes recounted in the new Bob Woodward and Robert Costa book, “Peril.” From what I can tell, he seems to have set people’s minds at ease regarding what at first looked like dubious departures from the constitutional requirement of civilian control over the military during the final days of the Trump administration.

In particular, there had been serious concerns about Milley calling together senior officers and going over the protocols for a nuclear strike, saying that they should be followed to the letter but also that he had to be involved, which is not technically true. The president has sole authority and would give the order to the secretary of defense, who would convey it to the head of U.S. Strategic Command. (According to PolitiFact, this protocol was created in the early 1960s, “when the advance notice of an incoming nuclear attack had shrunk to just a few minutes.” According to experts, that chain of events would be highly unlikely today. )

Milley explained in his testimony that while he is not in the chain of command for such an order, his involvement, by presidential directive, is in the chain of communication as the president’s primary military advisor. So it appears that Milley did not go rogue, as some suggested, or “pull a Schlesinger,” referring to Nixon-era Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who was similarly concerned that the president was unstable and ordered military commanders to check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger before following a presidential order to launch a nuclear attack. So that’s somewhat reassuring.

Still, we should be very concerned about the fact that in the seven decades of the nuclear age, we’ve had two presidents with the authority to unilaterally launch nuclear weapons who have been so unstable that people around them felt the need to take steps to assure that they didn’t go off the deep end and try to end human civilization. It’s obviously too much power to put in the hands of one person, and reforms are badly needed.

As far as I know, no congressional action has been taken in this regard as yet, although I wouldn’t be surprised to see some in the next few months. There are a lot of reforms being proposed in the Congress which aren’t getting much attention, thanks to all the other legislative business at the moment, and many of which are long overdue. One of those is the bipartisan National Security Powers Act of 2021, meant to replace the ragged War Powers Resolution of 1973. After everything we’ve been through over the past two decades in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, this is a propitious moment to constrain presidential power to engage in unilateral military adventures. This act would put an end to the absurd notion that any appropriation for military spending amounts to presidential authority for use of force. Instead, presidents would need to secure congressional authorization within 20 days of any action taken, 10 days fewer than the current 30. Perhaps most important in a world of “over the horizon” warfare, this would apply to “remote” and ground deployments alike.

A bill like that should have been passed a long time ago, under either a Democratic or Republican administrations. Perhaps the end of the 20-year Afghanistan saga provides the necessary impetus to make it happen.

If the Trump administration showed us anything, it’s that our democratic system and Constitution are highly dependent on the good faith and decency of the people charge. It was illustrated in living color, day after day, just how easy it is for a corrupt president and his henchmen to abuse the power of the presidency. Last week, House Democrats introduced an updated version of last year’s sweeping reform bill called the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which, as the New York Times writes, “they hope will compare to the overhauls that followed the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War.”

This bill would would curtail the president’s power to use pardons for corrupt purposes; to spend federal money unlawfully, to profit from “emoluments,” including from commercial transactions; to retaliate against whistleblowers or inspectors general; or to evade congressional oversight, including subpoenas.

And that’s just for starters. It would also require presidents to reveal their tax returns, insulate the Justice Department from political interference, limit the use of “acting” officials to avoid Senate confirmation, put restrictions on government employees’ political activity, create barriers to foreign interference in elections and make it easier to prosecute former presidents for crimes committed while in office. In other words, it’s meant to stop any future president from copying the Trump playbook.

According to the Times, the bill is expected to pass the House easily but will face the usual filibuster roadblock in the Senate, where observers expect it will be broken up and added to other bills. You would think that 10 Republicans would actually see the utility of having these rules in place, just in case Donald Trump somehow wins the presidency again. Some restraints of this kind would likely save them a lot of trouble. But the GOP is most likely looking beyond Trump, to the day when a Republican with greater finesse can take advantage of all those newly revealed loopholes and broken norms in ways that benefit the whole team.

The devil is in the details, and this law will undoubtedly raise many questions regarding the separation of powers. No White House will want to see its power ruthlessly curtailed, but Joe Biden ran on a platform of reform and is reportedly “negotiating” with the House. Perhaps they can iron out any concerns before the bill comes to a vote. We can’t forget that this Supreme Court is probably the most pro-presidential power of any in history, so it’s entirely possible that many of these provisions will be shot down in court.

Still, if there’s ever been a time to tackle this, it’s while the abuses and corruption of the Trump administration are still fresh in everyone’s mind. If Congress doesn’t do it now, it’s almost certain that members will come to regret it in the future. Donald Trump’s ignorance and aggressive disdain for democracy left a roadmap for a future right-wing authoritarian to put to use more efficiently. There are already quite a few candidates lining up for the chance to do it. 

The “burn scars” of wildfires threaten the West’s drinking water

Colorado saw its worst fire season last year, with the three largest fires in state history and more than 600,000 acres burned. But some of the effects didn’t appear until this July, when heavy rain pushed sediment from damaged forests down mountainsides, causing mudslides that shut down sections of Interstate 70 for almost two weeks.

Immense quantities of sediment choked the rivers that supply most of the state’s water. In western Colorado’s Glenwood Springs, the water became so murky that the town twice had to shut off the valves that pump water from nearby rivers to avoid overwhelming its filtration system. City managers sent alerts to the town’s 10,000 residents, telling them to minimize water use until the sediment moved downstream.

Wildfires and their lasting effects are becoming a way of life in the West as climate change and management practices cause fires to increase in number, intensity and acreage burned, while extending the length of the fire season. In “burn scars,” where fires decimated forest systems that held soil in place, an increase in droughts followed by heavy rainfall poses a different kind of threat to the water supplies that are essential to the health of communities.

“You know about it; it’s in the back of your head,” said Glenwood Springs resident Paula Stepp. “But until you face it, you don’t know how it’s going to impact your town.”

Dirty, turbid water can contain viruses, parasites, bacteria and other contaminants that cause illness. But experts say turbid water from burn scars is unlikely to make it to people’s taps, because water utilities would catch it first.

Still, the cost to municipal utility systems — and the residents who pay for water — is immense. Rural small towns in particular face the choice between spending millions of dollars to try to filter turbid water or shutting off their intake and risking shortages in areas where water may already be scarce.

And as fires move closer to communities, burning synthetic materials from houses and other buildings can create toxic compounds that leach into water supplies, which is what happened in California after major fires in 2017 and 2018.

“When we put [fires] out, we become less aware of them,” said hydrologist Kevin Bladon, of Oregon State University. But from a water perspective, “that’s when all the problems start.”

Montana’s capital city, Helena, gets its drinking water supply from the Upper Tenmile Creek watershed in a forest thick with trees killed by beetle infestations. City leaders worry a fire would quickly chew through that dry fuel and leave the watershed exposed to sediment contamination. Despite a logging project that cleared many of those trees two years ago, the fire threat remains and city leaders worry the resulting sediment would overwhelm the water treatment plant and shut down the primary water source for 40,000 people.

“If we had a fire up there, depending on where it is and how big it is, it could put the Tenmile plant out for a season or two,” Helena Public Works Director Ryan Leland said.

To protect against that happening, the city is in the early phases of designing a basin that can trap sediment before the water reaches the plant, Leland said. The city also recently announced plans to drill three groundwater test wells, which would give them another drinking water supply option if something happens to the Upper Tenmile watershed. Treated water from the Missouri River is the city’s current backup supply.

The Rocky Mountains and about 200 miles separate Glenwood Springs from Greeley, in northeastern Colorado. But the 2020 fire season caused similar problems in both cities, creating burn scars that later flooded, contaminating water sources.

So far this year, Greeley has had to shut off its intake from the Cache la Poudre River for 39 days because the water was contaminated with sediment, ash and organic matter. “Normally we would never turn it off,” said Greeley water and sewer director Sean Chambers.

To cope, the city has been trading water with a nearby agricultural company that owns reservoirs used for irrigation. The swap gives the turbid water to farmers and redirects the reservoir water to Greeley. “If we didn’t have the trade in place, the cost [of buying water] would be astronomical,” Chambers said.

But Chambers admitted this system is a luxury that smaller towns may not enjoy. Greeley is 10 times the size of Glenwood Springs and has spent more than $40 million this year recovering from the Cameron Peak Fire — the largest fire in Colorado history, which burned for four months in 2020. Those costs may climb as rain continues, he said. Larger towns also tend to have better filtration systems that can handle more sediment, which clogs up filters and requires utilities to add chemicals to remove contaminants before the water is safe to drink.

While dry states like Colorado expect fires each year, recent blazes in wetter places like western Oregon have caught researchers off guard. Last September, fires scorched about 11% of the state’s Cascade mountain range, leaving burn scars above rivers and reservoirs that supply much of the state’s water.

“We have to be very proactive,” said Pete Robichaud, a research engineer with the U.S. Forest Service in Moscow, Idaho.

After a wildfire is extinguished, Robichaud’s agency and others send teams of specialists to evaluate the risks that erosion and ash pose to water supplies. Their data can help land managers decide whether to take actions like thinning forests above rivers, dredging contaminated reservoirs, covering the area with mulch or seeds to reduce erosion, or forming a plan for alternative water sources.

Even advance notice of a flood could help immensely, said Stepp, the Glenwood Springs resident. She is the executive director of the nonprofit Middle Colorado Watershed Council, which recently worked with the U.S. Geological Survey to install rain gauges along Glenwood Canyon. These monitor weather upstream and notify downstream water users that a sediment-laden flood could be coming.

She said it is crucial for small communities in particular to partner with state and federal agencies. “Basically, we work with everybody,” she said.

Although debris flows can bring soil bacteria into water supplies, city utilities can disinfect them with chemicals like chlorine, said Ben Livneh, a hydrologist at the University of Colorado-Boulder. But those disinfectants can themselves cause a problem: Organic matter from sediment can interact with these chemicals and create carcinogenic byproducts that are difficult and expensive to remove.

Another waterborne danger comes from chemical byproducts and heavy metals from burned structures. “Those would be potentially really problematic to treat,” Livneh said.

After the 2017 Tubbs and 2018 Camp fires that devastated the Northern California communities of Santa Rosa and Paradise, researchers examining the tap water of nearby homes found benzene and other carcinogens. Public health researcher Gina Solomon at the Public Health Institute in Oakland, California, said the contamination likely came from plastic pipes that melted and leached chemicals into the water.

Smoke and ash from burned structures may also add toxic chemicals to water supplies. “The smoke from the fires is a truly nasty brew,” Solomon said.

California has been relatively lucky when it comes to sediment flow. The years-long drought in most of the state means burn scars remain intact — though a heavy rain could wash down years of debris.

It’s unclear how long burn scars continue to pose a landslide risk, said Bladon, the Oregon hydrologist. But parts of Alberta in the Canadian Rockies, for instance, continued to see extremely turbid water for a decade after a 2003 fire.

“My fear is we may not have seen the worst of it yet,” Solomon said.

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

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

New Johnson & Johnson data shows second shot boosts antibodies and protection against COVID-19

On Sept 22, 2021, Johnson & Johnson released data that answers two questions many people have likely been wondering about its vaccine: How good is it against the delta variant, and do I need a booster? Maureen Ferran, a virologist at the Rochester Institute of Technology, has been keeping tabs on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. She breaks down the new data and explains what it all means.

1. How effective is one dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine?

Early clinical trial data released in January 2021 showed that four weeks after the first dose, the Johnson & Johnson single-shot vaccine was 66.3% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection. The initial studies also showed that it was 85% effective at preventing severe or critical disease.

But the original clinical trials and most subsequent studies were done before the delta variant became responsible for almost all of the COVID-19 cases in the U.S. Early studies suggest that although COVID-19 vaccines are still effective against this variant, in general their efficacy is lower compared to protection against the original strain.

On Sept. 21, 2021, Johnson and Johnson announced the results of a large, real-world Phase 3 clinical trail of its COVID-19 vaccine. This study collected data from March 1, 2020, through July 31, 2021, and found that the effectiveness of the vaccine did not diminish over the duration of the study, even after the delta variant became dominant in the U.S. The one-dose vaccine was 79% protective against COVID-19 infections and 81% protective for COVID-19-related hospitalizations. This indicates that a single Johnson & Johnson shot performs well, even in the presence of the delta and other variants.

2. Why might someone need a booster?

The amount of neutralizing antibodies in a person — antibodies that defend a cell from the coronavirus — is an accurate measure of protection within the first several months after vaccination. Studies show that individuals who received a Johnson & Johnson or an mRNA vaccine continue to produce some level of antibodies for at least six months after vaccination. However, neutralizing antibody levels generally start to wane over time and some evidence suggests that immunity provided by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine does the same.

This may sound bad, but it isn’t clear that lower antibody levels correlate with an increased risk of severe infection. The immune system’s long-term surveillance is done by “memory” immune cells that will prevent or reduce disease severity if a person is exposed to the coronavirus at a later time.

Therefore scientists have been collecting real-world data from vaccinated people to determine when they may become vulnerable to infection again with and without a booster shot.

3. How effective is a Johnson & Johnson booster shot?

In addition to the results of the single–shot study, on Sept 21, 2021, Johnson & Johnson also released data about booster shots. The trial gave people a second dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine either two or six months after the first dose. In both cases, it increased people’s defense against COVID–19.

When given two months after the first dose, protection against moderate to severe disease increased from 85% to 94% and the amount of neutralizing antibodies increased four-fold. If the booster was administered six months after the first shot, antibody levels increased 12-fold, when measured four weeks after the booster was given.

These findings suggest that although a single dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine provides strong, durable protection, people may still benefit from a booster because it improves the vaccine’s efficacy.

One important question is whether someone who received the Johnson & Johnson shot should get a second Johnson & Johnson dose or mix and match — get a second dose of a different vaccine. As of late September, the FDA seems more likely to approve a second dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine because there isn’t much data yet about a mix-and-match strategy.

4. What about the side effects?

The vast majority of vaccines — including the Johnson & Johnson and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines — produce common side effects, such as pain at the injection site, headache, fatigue, muscle and joint pain, chills and fever.

The recent study did not monitor side effects from the booster in detail, but according to Johnson & Johnson, the safety of the vaccine remained consistent and was generally well-tolerated when administered as a booster. Overall, researchers have repeatedly found that despite some rare complications, the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine far outweigh the risks.

A recent CDC study showed that unvaccinated people are almost five times more likely to be infected by the coronavirus and 29 times more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19 compared to fully vaccinated individuals. Therefore, all the evidence suggests that the millions of Americans who are able to get vaccinated but are choosing not to are putting themselves — and others — at serious risk.

5. When might a booster be authorized?

On Sept, 22, 2021, the FDA approved booster shots for people who received the Pfizer vaccine and are 65 years of age and older, at risk of severe COVID-19 illness or whose occupations put them at greater risk of exposure. Booster shots of the Johnson & Johnson or Moderna vaccines are not yet approved, but on Sept. 19, Dr. Anthony Fauci said that the FDA could review booster data for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines within a few weeks.

Portions of this article originally appeared in a previous article originally published on Aug. 27, 2021.

[Over 110,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Maureen Ferran, Associate Professor of Biology, Rochester Institute of Technology

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

Marjorie Taylor Greene defends shouting match over abortion: “I refuse to be quiet anymore”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., on Tuesday defended her recent shouting matching with Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., over the issue of abortion.

During an appearance on Real America’s Voice, Greene recalled that she had publicly yelled at Democrats on the steps of the U.S. House of Representatives because she became angry about a bill that would enshrine abortion rights into law.

“I said, ‘Are you happy you passed a bill that babies can be slaughtered up until the day of birth?'” Greene recalled. “There were so many Democrats and they have their signs: ‘Build Back Better Women.’ How on earth is it making women better by creating a law where they can kill a baby in their womb even though the baby is about to be born? How are we building back better women when we’re turning men into women?”

“And so I just started speaking out,” Greene explained. “Most of them weren’t saying anything to me but it was Debbie Dingell — like a dingleberry — she started fussing at me, telling me I needed to be civil to my colleagues and act the way I would act going to church.”

The congresswoman went on to claim that the Democrats’ bill is “producing genocide in the Black population.”

“They believe that life is so important that they are willing to shut down our economy, force children to stay home from school so no one dies from COVID,” she said. “All of them voted for this bill that is actually producing genocide in the Black population because they put Planned Parenthood mostly in these Black-dominated neighborhoods, and you know, they’re just pushing abortion and birth control.”

“When we’re passing bills like that, no one in here believes in God,” she continued. “We’re fighting against this, and I refuse to be quiet anymore. It’s not go-along and get-along.”

Before ending the interview, Greene opined on the joys of motherhood.

“Whether a pregnancy is planned, whether the baby is born perfectly healthy or not, being a mother is life-changing, life-altering and makes women better people,” she insisted. “And these abortions, these are actually things that can scar your body, they hurt you internally. And not only that — they scar your soul, and women have to live with this.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube

Democrats have the GOP playbook: They know how to fight back, but just won’t do it

The Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement it represents are boldly, shamelessly and relentlessly attacking American democracy. The campaign is nationwide and multi-spectrum: Almost every aspect of American society is being targeted. This includes basic understandings of reality and the truth, science and expertise, democratic institutions, education, public health, the environment, the economy, the free press and the First Amendment, civil and human rights, pluralism and secularism, and the social contract and the Common Good more generally.

These attacks also involve political violence in its many forms, including the insurrection of Jan. 6 and the slow-rolling coup attempt associated with it, a long history of stochastic terrorism, inspiring and unleashing right-wing street thugs and various other acts of violent intimidation and threats.

Journalist and author Jeff Sharlet recently offered an ominous observation on Twitter:

At this point, it’s unremarkable. Most of us just roll our eyes, & even as we loathe this, accept it as inevitable. We’ve normalized Chekov’s gun — the one in the 1st act — & we continue as if the next act isn’t coming….

Many reassure themselves that the rightwing cosplayers with assault rifles aren’t “real” soldiers. Neither was Kyle Rittenhouse, who killed two. And, unfortunately, a fair number do have military training. The threat isn’t apocalyptic, but it’s real.

The Republican-fascist movement’s end goal is to reduce American society to rubble in order to rebuild it in their own image. They will not stop until they win — or are comprehensively defeated and vanquished from public life.

There can and will be no compromise: The Republican-fascist movement sees its war against multiracial democracy as an existential struggle to protect “Western civilization” against “white genocide” or “replacement.” 

That no such thing is happening — white people maintain control and dominance over every aspect of American society is irrelevant. Fascism is not based on the truth or reality; it is a self-contained lifeworld.

The Republican-fascist movement is so confident in its ultimate success that it announces its plans and intentions to the world. Why not? There is very little sustained opposition — at least to this point. Joe Biden is president and the Democrats technically hold (exceedingly narrow) majorities in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. But the Democrats’ tenuous hold on power weakens under the looming shadow of the Age of Trump. When the Republicans in all likelihood regain control of the House next year, that looming shadow may become a lead blanket.

It is a sad thing to see how the Democrats have the Republican-fascist movement’s playbook in their possession but are unwilling or incapable of using it themselves.

For at least five years, Donald Trump and his spokespeople repeatedly announced that he would not respect the results of any election if he did not win. 

The fake “audit” in Arizona (coming soon to Texas and other states) is part of a much larger strategy of delegitimizing democracy and replacing it with a Republican-fascist autocracy.

For more than five years a chorus of public voices, including mental health professionals, repeatedly warned America and the world that Trump was suffering from mental pathologies, and might be a sociopath or psychopath. They also observed that he feels contempt for democracy, is an instinctive white supremacist, is capable of destroying American society and the world in service to his own narcissism and rage, and that his presidency would lead to national or global disaster. All of that was true.

Democrats and the “resistance” also have access to the many books, articles, policy briefings, videos and other information that detail how for decades the Republican Party, “movement conservatives” and their allies have been planning to overthrow America’s multiracial democracy. Too many mainstream liberals and progressives convinced themselves that those plans were idle fantasy. The horrors are real.

Salon executive editor Andrew O’Hehir recently described the perilous position of the Democratic Party as it faces the Republican-fascist movement, first observing the Democrats’ repeated pattern of winning electoral majorities and then failing to govern effectively: 

More important than any of that, although absolutely related, is how Democrats have responded to the obvious Republican assault on democracy over the last couple of years, in the manner of a truckload of Brookings Institution scholars stuck in cold molasses, determined to consider all sides of the question fairly and not to let anyone accuse them of acting hastily. I’m not suggesting that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer haven’t expressed genuine alarm or said more or less the right things, because they have. But as you have perhaps observed, they haven’t leveraged those words into action: They haven’t ditched the filibuster or expanded the Supreme Court or passed any of the bills in front of them that are meant to fortify the right to vote, for the love of Jesus Christ.

This isn’t a nice thing to say about a bunch of mostly sane and approximately reasonable people, but here’s the truth: If you set out to design a left-center political party that was fated to surrender, little by little, to authoritarianism — because of circumstances beyond its control, because of internal indecision and ideological fuzziness, because it faced an entrenched and deranged opposition party, because of whatever — you could hardly do better than the current version of the Democratic Party….

If Democrats lose conclusively to those people, then they deserve it. That’s a dark path, perhaps darker than any of us wants to contemplate. But I think there’s no avoiding this date with destiny, for the Democrats or the Trumpers or our entire so-called democratic experiment. If you see another one, light the way.

As O’Hehir describes, the Democratic Party is hunkered down in its own version of the Maginot Line while the Republican-fascist movement has outmaneuvered and encircled them. What can the Democrats do at this point to fight back and defend American democracy? First, they need to reorganize and rally their forces.

They must counter the Republican-fascist movement at every point across the political battle space. Corporeal politics are essential here: Democrats and other pro-democracy forces actually outnumber the fascist-Republican forces, but the latter are better organized, better financed, more clearly focused and possess a clearer understanding of optics and propaganda. As a result, they are able to amplify their power far in excess of their actual level of public support.

At Trump’s rallies, when his right-wing street thugs and other followers march and otherwise assert themselves; at public hearings and other political gatherings; and across society more generally, Americans who support democracy must make their presence felt in large numbers.

Corporeal politics in this moment of crisis will also necessitate a nationwide campaign of direct action, including sit-ins, protests, mass marches, a potential nationwide strike and boycotts targeting the companies and individuals who finance the Republican Party, the right-wing propaganda machine and the neofascist movement.

Ultimately, because Joe Biden and the senior leaders of the Democratic Party appear unable, unwilling or unprepared to take the bold actions necessary to save American democracy — for starters, ending the filibuster, expanding the Supreme Court and enacting laws that protect and guarantee the right to vote — the American people must force them to act.

I am not prepared to succumb to defeatism yet. But at this point, we must confront the possibility and perhaps even probability that today’s Democratic Party is fundamentally incapable of doing what is necessary to protect American democracy against the Republican-fascist movement.

In boxing and other combat sports there is the truism that “styles make fights.” Today’s Democratic Party and its leaders may simply not possess the style that is required to defeat the resurgent and highly organized forces of the right. Another lesson may be drawn from boxing as well. Sometimes a once great fighter, perhaps on a subconscious level, wishes that the fight would just end. He is being pummeled by his adversary and convinces himself that being knocked to the canvas and left staring up at the lights will offer a form of dignified relief.

I don’t think that the Democratic Party has quite reached that point. But based on its leaders’ unwillingness to fight back effectively against the Republican-fascist movement, I worry that sooner or later — and probably sooner — the decision to surrender and negotiate a form of “peace in our time” will be made.

Activists who helped elect Kyrsten Sinema launch CrowdPAC to fund a primary challenger

Arizona activists have launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for a potential 2024 Democratic primary challenger to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema if she does not vote to end the filibuster or continues to obstruct President Joe Biden’s agenda.

A committee of Arizona organizers who have helped turn the state blue since 2018, when Sinema narrowly won her seat, launched the conditional fundraiser to pressure the senator to stop undermining her party’s agenda. Sinema opposes the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion spending bill, balking at both the price tag and key measures like drug pricing reform and tax hikes on the wealthy and corporations. She has also vehemently defended the filibuster, which has prevented any progress on the Democrats’ voting rights legislation as well as a minimum wage increase, immigration reform, gun violence measures, police reform, LGBTQ protections, protections for workers’ right to unionize and other bills that have already passed the Democratic-led House.

“It’s time to send a message that she can’t ignore,” the group’s CrowdPAC page says. “Either Sen. Sinema votes to end or reform the Jim Crow filibuster this year or we fund a primary challenge to replace her with someone who will.”

State Sen. Martin Quezada, a Democrat who is backing the effort, told Salon that for sitting lawmakers, “the only thing that really gets you motivated to start seriously considering changing your views on things is if you are facing a threat to your seat.”

Quezada stressed that he hopes “we wouldn’t ever have to actually fulfill a primary threat and that she will ultimately take the steps that are needed to protect our state from the many threats we’re facing right now.”

Belén Sisa, one of the organizers behind the campaign and the former national Latino press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, said she hopes the primary threat will serve as a “wakeup call.” Sisa, who in 2018 worked for NextGen America, the largest youth vote mobilization organization in the country, said she expected Sinema to “be more of an ally” but instead the senator is acting more like a Republican.

What the CrowdPAC is meant to do, said Kai Newkirk, a lead organizer in building the Arizona Coalition to End the Filibuster, is to “paint the picture of the threat to [Sinema’s] political future if she stays on this course” and show clearly “that Democrats and left-leaning independents in Arizona and across the country will provide the resources necessary for a competitive and successful primary challenger.” 

Supporters can now pledge donations to back the effort. The campaign is not endorsing a specific potential challenger for a primary that is still almost three years away. But if Sinema does not vote to end or reform the filibuster or continues to obstruct Biden’s agenda, pledges will be converted to donations and the money split between a “credible Democratic primary challenger” who opposes the filibuster and “has a strong record of accountability to all of the communities that make up Arizona” and organizations in the state that “will provide the independent grassroots organizing to power a successful primary challenge and a general election victory.”

The entire progressive agenda is being held “hostage” and Sinema has the opportunity to advance it, said Karina Ruiz, one of the CrowdPAC organizers and an immigrant rights leader. “We can’t continue to support a candidate that is not going to deliver for the people.”

The crowdfunding effort comes amid widespread scrutiny of Sinema’s corporate ties. The senator reportedly told colleagues that she would not support a Democratic plan to lower prescription drug costs, even though she campaigned in 2018 on doing just that. Sinema has received more than $750,000 from pharmaceutical and medical firms. She has also balked at the Democratic proposal for tax increases on big corporations and wealthy individuals after taking more than $900,000 from industry groups and companies who are leading a massive lobbying blitz to defeat the bill. On Tuesday, Sinema held a pricey fundraiser with five business lobbying groups that largely back Republicans and have opposed the tax increases.

Ruiz, who helped register thousands of voters ahead of Sinema’s 2018 election, said it was “disappointing” and “saddening” to see a candidate who campaigned on helping the middle class and people who are economically unstable reverse positions “because they’re getting money from corporations.”

Sisa said that if “fundraising and campaign fundraisers are what [Sinema] cares about, then that is what we will use to hold her accountable.

“If you don’t do what the people are asking you to do, then we are going to hit you where it hurts,” she said. “And that is bankrolling your opponent.”

Progressive activists have tried for months to pressure Sinema to support elimination or reform of the filibuster in hopes of advancing legislation that Republicans are blocking from receiving a floor vote. But Sinema’s opposition to Biden’s spending agenda, which includes an expansion of health care benefits, child care, family care and measures to combat climate change, has led to widespread frustration with the senator among mainstream Democrats.

“The general public is starting to see that we’re not making progress on a number of issues and those issues are getting so broad that there’s an issue for everybody to be upset about,” Quezada said. “There’s no excuse for not making progress if Democrats have the House, Senate, and the White House. So that frustration is going to continue to build the more that we see progress failing to be made on all these important issues.”

Newkirk argued that the issue has been “misrepresented” as a break between progressives and Sinema when it’s “actually about essentially the entire Democratic Party” feeling alienated from Arizona’s senior senator.

“Biden was elected as a moderate, he’s pushing a moderate compromise agenda that’s been shaped by progressives and all parts of the party and it’s very popular. Sinema is standing in the way of that,” he said. “It doesn’t represent any part of the voters who elected her, it doesn’t represent any part of what the Democratic Party has been fighting for. If anything, it appears to represent the interests of corporate donors that are backing her.”

Last Saturday, the Arizona Democratic Party overwhelmingly voted to back a resolution threatening a vote of no confidence against Sinema if she does not reverse her support for the filibuster or “continues to delay, disrupt, or votes to gut” the Democrats’ spending plan. More than 90% of the Arizona Democratic Party State Committee previously voted in the spring to back ending the filibuster.

“This is an official public expression that the positions she’s taking are not in line with the party that she represents in the state of Arizona and the people who are a part of that party,” said Quezada, one of the members who introduced the resolution.

The party vote and the CrowdPAC are part of a “multi-pronged effort,” he said. “We’re not just putting all our eggs in one basket. We want to continue to pressure her. We want to continue the public displays of pressure. We want to continue the financial displays of pressure.”

Sinema did not respond to a request for comment from Salon. Her spokesman has said that she is committed to “working directly in good faith with her colleagues and President Biden on the proposed budget reconciliation package.”

Sinema defended her filibuster stance in a July Washington Post op-ed, arguing that Democrats have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster.

“I’m not impressed by that argument,” Quezada said. “I think it’s an argument that we’ve seen often from politicians who are comfortable with the status quo.” 

Sinema argued in the Post op-ed that if Democrats eliminate the filibuster, Republicans could later use a simple majority to pass voting restrictions, attack women’s health and gut popular aid programs.

“She seems to be blind to the fact that all those things that aren’t happening at the federal level are happening at the state level,” Quezada said after Republican legislators rolled out an extreme agenda including new voting restrictions and an illegitimate election audit. “They are not hesitating for one second to pass radically extreme legislation that hurts us on each and every one of these issues,” he said.

The CrowdPAC is modeled in part after a similar effort led by activist Ady Barkan to fund a 2020 challenge against Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, over her vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. That campaign ultimately raised $4 million that helped fund Collins challenger Sara Gideon, a Democrat and the former speaker of the Maine House of Representatives. Collins ultimately defeated Gideon by nearly 10 points but organizers say their campaign is different and built on the lessons learned from the 2020 effort.

“We’re raising money for a potential primary challenge, not a general election one,” said Newkirk. “It’s over the question of whether someone will vote with their party rather than against it.”

Organizers say they hope that they won’t have to back a Democratic challenger to Sinema, but point to polling data showing that about two-thirds of likely Democratic primary voters in Arizona would support a challenge if Sinema continues to preserve the filibuster. A July poll from Data for Progress showed that Sinema has a net approval rating of +23 among Democrats, compared to +89 for Biden and +76 for Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.

Kelly “has been a lot smarter in his calculations in how he’s dealt with all of these issues,” said Quezada. “He’s setting the example for how perhaps Sinema could be playing this if she were a little smarter about it.”

Kelly, a former astronaut and the husband of former Democratic congresswoman Gabby Giffords, has supported the party’s agenda, which explains why he is “more popular than Sinema among Democrats and is in a much better position in his upcoming reelection campaign,” Newkirk said. But the biggest issue in 2022 and 2024 will be what the Democrats have done for the American people under Biden, he argued. “And right now, Sinema is a threat to Kelly’s re-election if she doesn’t change course.”

Arizona is undeniably a purple state, however, and it’s unclear how a more progressive Democrat would fare in a general election. Sinema is “playing the long game” since she’s not up for re-election until 2024 and is betting that a progressive candidate would have a tougher time winning her seat, Kim Fridkin, a political science professor at Arizona State University, told Salon.

“In my opinion, Sinema’s position on the filibuster is strategic,” Fridkin said. “However, I am not sure whether the strategic decision is a wise move electorally.  What I do know is that Sinema was not always the moderate that she is displaying right now.  Her earlier record in the legislature was much more progressive than moderate. Her movement to the middle, I believe, is more strategic than authentic. I think it’s the same with her position on the filibuster.”

Quezada said there was some validity to Sinema’s political strategy but “she’s way, way overplaying that calculation.”

“Arizona is trending bluer and I think the reality is that it’s going to be hard for her to hold on to that seat no matter what,” he said. “So why not do some good things while you have that opportunity? And she’s not acting with urgency to hold on to it.”

Sisa argued that the CrowdPAC is “ultimately an opportunity to get a better candidate, which will give us better chances ultimately in the general election.”

“The demographics in our state are consistently changing, and throughout the past 10 years we’ve seen a consistent progression towards Arizonans wanting more progressive candidates,” she said. “We’re going to continue to see that: The voting bloc is younger,  more brown and Black, and more diverse. Right now, I don’t see Sinema really catering to those people or listening to their concerns, which is a huge mistake.”

Alhough Sinema has tried to appeal to independents and conservatives, the July poll showed that her favorable rating was just 38% among independents and 34% among Republicans. Organizers say that while an unprecedented surge of activism helped power Sinema to a narrow victory over then-Rep. Martha McSally in 2018, that same coalition will not be eager to knock on doors again if she stays the course.

“Turning Arizona blue didn’t happen out of nowhere,” Ruiz said. “That progress happened because there’s organizations on the ground that are walking the streets, under 100-plus degrees, to talk to voters, to make sure that new voters have all the information they need to participate in the process. And I think Sen. Sinema is underestimating this power.

“Our goal may sound ambitious,” she added. “We believe that the power of the people is going to beat the power of corporations, because there’s more of us.”

Former Fox News editor warns GOP is launching a “direct assault on the legitimacy of our elections”

A former Fox News editor is sharing his reaction to the outcome of the Arizona audit after being fired from the network for calling the state for President Joe Biden during the 2020 election.

Speaking to CNN’s Jim Acosta, Chris Stirewalt, a former digital politics editor for FOX News, was asked whether or not he felt vindicated after hearing the outcome of the audit. The Republican-led audit determined that former President Donald Trump actually lost by a larger margin than initially thought as 231 votes were subtracted from his number of votes. President Joe Biden, on the other hand, received an additional 99 votes.

Stirewalt said he still did not feel vindicated as he shared his concern about the real reason for the controversial audit.

“The very doing of it is the bad thing,” Stirewalt said on Sunday.

“The point of these is to undermine confidence,” he continued. “It’s not what the finding is. So I take no satisfaction or pleasure from seeing this outcome that roughly corresponds with the real results. They’re doing their damage anyway.”

When Stirewalt made the call for Biden as the election results were being reported, Trump’s White House was reportedly left in a state of shock as a Democratic presidential candidate had not turned the state blue in decades. According to Business Insider, Trump was so alarmed by the call that he had his son-in-law and White House senior adviser, Jared Kushner, appeal to the conservative network to retract the call — but to no avail.

For months now, Trump and his Republican allies have been laser-focused on this audit in hopes that it would uncover widespread fraud. However, that did not occur.

But Stirewalt did express “sincere sympathy for people who were duped” as a result of the endless conspiracy theories and circulation of misinformation regarding the election. Stirewalt noted that he only has “disdain for the people who continue to promulgate” those types of falsehoods.

“The point is to undermine voter confidence in the process,” Stirewalt said. “Unfortunately, members of both parties make a habit of doing that these days. But we have a direct assault on the legitimacy of our elections. It is a problem, and you cannot placate your way out of this, Republican Party.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

When will America break free from the clutches of political grifters?

Donald Trump just unleashed an unhinged, barely coherent rant about the possibility that President Biden might reveal what was going on in the White House on Jan. 6, the day Trump tried to finally end, once and for all, any possibility of governmental oversight of his ongoing criminal career. He believed he could follow in the footsteps of grifters before him who’ve taken control of and then drained dry countries from Hungary to Russia, Brazil to Turkey to the Philippines.

Thus it surprises nobody to discover that when Donald Trump and the people around him learned, in mid-November of 2020, that there was absolutely no meaningful voter fraud in that month’s election, they chose, instead of acknowledging the truth, to go ahead with a plan to raise over $200 million (and counting). That even today “President Trump” is sending out one or two fundraising emails a day, each one with the tiny “make this a recurring donation” box pre-checked.

Republican appointees on the U.S. Supreme Court cracked open the door for professional grifters in 1976 when, for the first time in American history, the court redefined politicians taking money from billionaires away from being “political corruption” and “bribery” — what such behavior had been called since the beginning of the republic — to instead say it was a mere “exercise of free speech” on the part of the morbidly rich. 

Two years after the Buckley decision, in 1978, Justice Lewis Powell (author of the infamous 1971 “Powell Memo”) pushed the door even farther open when he wrote for the Republican majority a decision granting giant corporations the same “free speech right” to own politicians in Boston v, Bellotti.

And in 2010, with Citizens United, Republican appointees on the court didn’t just blow the doors open; they tore down the entire building of “good government” in America, reaffirming that any billionaire or corporation that wanted to own their very own pet politician — or, if rich enough, own an entire political party — was totally legal and not at all corrupt.

Which is why Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974, was one of the last Republican politicians who actually believed that politics in America had something to do with governing the nation (even if he did it poorly). Ever since then, the GOP has been composed almost exclusively of professional grifters, a somewhat different type of cat from an ordinary criminal like Nixon, who just took bribes, blackmailed people and lied about it all.

Grifters occupy a unique niche in the world of criminals: They avoid direct violence, but live and act only to enrich themselves, whether it’s with money, sex, power or all three. They’re typically high-functioning sociopaths who sneer at the rules of civilized society the rest of us take seriously. They combine the not-uncommon skill set of being charming and great salesmen and storytellers, but have no conscience or respect for the truth.

Grifters believe they’re the only “real” people in the world and all the rest of us are here for their entertainment, satisfaction or to pluck clean of whatever we have that they want. They view us as cardboard cutouts; their pains and loves and desires are real while ours are merely background noise.

And the entire Republican Party has become one giant in-crowd of professional grifters, most all of them getting rich, getting famous and/or getting laid in the process.

Ronald Reagan grew up during the Great Depression, became a Democrat who loved FDR, and once believed in government and that hard work and talent would get him ahead. Then Nancy Davis introduced him to her wealthy father, who let Ronnie in on the grift. Shill for General Electric and the GOP and he could marry Nancy, get rich and might even have a bright political future. He was the first professional grifter president of the modern era.

Newt Gingrich was primed for the grift, screaming about Bill Clinton having an affair with Monica while porking Calista down the hall and fending off calls from his then-second wife. He got into the grift in a big way when he rolled out his “Contract With America” that was almost entirely tax cuts for giant corporations and the morbidly rich. Hell, he’s still in on it; I’m getting an email almost every week from Trump with Gingrich’s picture and signature asking for money.

Paul Ryan pimped tax cuts for the obscenely rich his entire career, knowing when he left office there’d be massive paychecks waiting for him the rest of his life. 

Dick Cheney knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein not only had nothing to do with 9/11 but actively hated and hunted down bin Laden’s al-Qaida operatives so he could imprison or kill them. But Cheney had run Halliburton into trouble, betting that if he picked up Dresser Industries on the cheap that the Clinton administration would cover their asbestos liability. When he lost that bet and Halliburton was in trouble, a nice war with billions in no-bid contracts for the oil-company-turned-defense-contractor was just the grift he needed to both bail him out and make him fabulously rich.

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia both knew that if any other federal judge were to go quail hunting with a defendant before the court three weeks before trial or allow his spouse to take hundreds of thousands a year from a think tank with business before the court, there would be hell to pay. But they were in on the grift and simply exempted themselves from the Federal Code of Judicial Conduct. Hell, they helped write the grift with Citizens United.

Since Citizens United, the Republican grift has fully gone party-wide — and even picked up a few Democrats along the way.  

Some members of Congress get rich with money from Big Pharma, others choose to make their money with Big Oil or Big Coal, others are deeply in the pockets of airlines, telecom companies, the tobacco industry, banks, insurance companies or the food and hospitality monopolies. 

Some Republicans even ran day-trading operations on insider information out of their offices until then-Democratic Congressman Brian Baird tipped off the world on my show and Air America’s “Majority Report” 14 years ago.

They all believe, as Bob Dylan famously sang, “You’ve gotta serve somebody.” And the “somebody” they all choose to serve are always the ones who pay the most.

Which is why it only makes sense that the Republican Party would put up a lifelong grifter as its nominee for president in 2016. And that he’d surround himself with grifters like Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who Forbes magazine said would, by any measure, “rank among the biggest grifters in American history,” having scammed business partners out of at least $120 million.

Everybody in the GOP is either stuffing their “Leadership PACs” with money they can dip into after they leave office, living high on the hog, using their position to become famous or get into the pants of underage girls, or preparing for their well-feathered-nest after leaving politics.

I’ve been running a contest on my radio show since it started in 2003 offering a prize to anybody who can identify even one single piece of legislation that was originally sponsored by a Republican, passed Congress with a Republican majority and was signed into law by a Republican president that primarily helped average working people or poor people instead of the rich or giant corporations. 

Nobody has ever won the prize, and I’m betting nobody ever will. 

This is not to say the Democratic Party doesn’t have its share of grifters (two publicity-hungry senators come to mind). After all, when the Supreme Court legalized political grifting they didn’t limit it to one party or the other. 

But the single largest caucus in the Democratic Party is the Congressional Progressive Caucus (co-founded by Bernie Sanders) and its members generally refuse corporate PAC money and don’t usually hang out with lobbyists. Former co-chair of the caucus, Rep. Mark Pocan, has joked on my show that “they say there are three Big Pharma lobbyists for every member of Congress, but I have no idea who mine are.”

While Democrats are trying to legislate around the corrupting landmines laid by conservatives on the Supreme Court, Republicans are expanding on Donald Trump’s “voter fraud” and “antifa” grifts to raise money and consolidate their own power in the face of an American electorate that’s starting to figure out their game.

Trump and a handful of his grifter buddies who were up for full-out treason thought they could pull off the ultimate grift and seize the trillions in assets of the entire country. They only failed, we’re learning, by a whisker

Next time we may not be so lucky. Congress must grift-proof our politics by getting billionaire and corporate money out of politics, as Democrats tried to do when the House of Representatives passed the For the People Act that Democratic grifters Manchin and Sinema are blocking in the Senate. 

Perhaps the 2022 election will bring Democrats a large enough progressive majority that they can work around their own grifters. Or maybe it’ll signal the death knell of the republic. 

To an extent largely unprecedented in American history, that decision will be in the hands of activists and voters like you and me. We have a big job ahead of us.

Paul Krugman: Moderate Democrats need to “wake up” and realize “we’re not in 1999 anymore”

Liberal economist Paul Krugman is not shy about offering scathing criticism of the Republican Party, but this week in his New York Times column, Krugman offers some brutal assessments of Democrats — specifically, centrist Democrats in Congress who have been trying to water down President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda.

Biden himself is a centrist. During his decades in the U.S. Senate, Biden sometimes voted with Republicans and sometimes voted with fellow Democrats — and he took pride in his ability to work out bipartisan deals with GOP allies like the late Sen. John McCain. But Biden believes that the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted so much harm on the U.S. economically that progressive legislation is needed at this time.

However, other centrist Democrats, including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have argued that some of Biden’s Build Back Better proposals have too high a price tag. Krugman vehemently disagrees.

“Political reporting often portrays progressives as impractical and intransigent, unwilling to make the compromises needed to get things done, while centrists are realistic pragmatists,” Krugman explains. “What’s happening in Congress right now, however, is just the opposite. The Democratic Party’s left-wing is advancing sensible, popular policies like negotiating on drug prices and cracking down on wealthy tax cheats, and has shown itself willing to make major compromises to advance President Joe Biden’s agenda.”

Krugman adds, “In particular, the $3.5 trillion in spending Biden is asking for over the next decade is much less than progressives originally wanted. The party’s conservative wing, however, seems willing to risk blowing up its own president’s prospects rather than give an inch.”

One of the reasons why some centrist Democrats in Congress have been fighting “Biden’s economic agenda,” according to Krugman, is a dogmatic devotion to Clintonism.

“I was struck by something Eric Levitz of New York Magazine said in a recent article on this subject, which helped clarify a point I’ve been groping toward,” Krugman writes. “Namely, some Democrats seem to have formed their perceptions about both economics and politics during the Clinton years and haven’t updated their views since. That is, it makes a lot of sense to see Biden’s problems getting his plans across the finish line as being caused by the Rip Van Winkle caucus — Democrats who checked out intellectually a couple of decades ago and haven’t caught up with America as it now is.”

Krugman’s argument makes perfect sense. Having lost all three presidential elections during the 1980s, Democratic strategists were elated when Bill Clinton won 1992’s presidential election and was reelected in 1996. As many Gen-X Democrats of the 1990s saw it, Clintonism revitalized their party. But Krugman, like Levitz, believes that being stuck in the 1990s serves no useful purpose for Democrats in 2021.

“Some Democrats still seem to believe that they can succeed economically and politically by being Republicans lite,” Krugman observes. “It’s doubtful whether that was ever true, but it’s definitely not true now.”

Biden himself was a Clintonian during the 1990s. But in Krugman’s view, the 78-year-old president has changed with the times economically — unlike the centrists who are fighting his Build Back Better proposals.

“If there was ever a time when individual Democratic members of Congress could hope to swim against the tide by positioning themselves to the right of their party, that time ended long ago,” Krugman emphasizes. “It doesn’t matter how much they force Biden to scale back his ambitions; it doesn’t matter how many pious statements they make about fiscal responsibility — Republicans will still portray them as socialists who want to defund the police, and the voters they’re trying to pander to will believe it. So, my plea to Democratic ‘moderates’ is: Please wake up. We’re not in 1999 anymore.”

From spying to denying Britney sneakers, what two new films reveal about Spears’ conservatorship

This summer, revelations about Britney Spears’ nearly 13-year-old conservatorship overseen by her father shocked the nation, mobilizing many to rally to #FreeBritney. Spears’ devastating testimony before a Los Angeles judge came just months after the New York Times’ bombshell documentary “Framing Britney Spears” forced many to reflect on how young, female pop stars and celebrities have been treated through the years. 

And it turns out, that film only scratched the surface.

With the recent release of the follow-up “Controlling Britney Spears” and Netflix’s “Britney vs. Spears,” even more light is now being shined on Spears’ harrowing story of alleged exploitation and abuse. Both documentaries ultimately peel back the layers of what we’ve already heard about the alarming power over Spears.

FX on Hulu’s “Controlling Britney Spears” examines the people and companies that allegedly enabled Spears’ conservatorship and her father’s control of her life through interviews with assistants who held close relationships with Spears and a whistleblower from her security detail.

In contrast, “Britney vs. Spears” offers extensive, at times almost voyeuristic glimpses into Spears’ past, with uncomfortable footage of her public struggles with mental health in 2007 and 2008. If you’re able to stomach these images and the invasive inclusion of private text messages allegedly sent by Spears, the documentary also includes interviews with ex-romantic partners, and more insight into her private, years-long fight to be free of the conservatorship. 

UPDATE: On Wednesday, September 29, a Los Angeles judge suspended Jamie Spears as conservator of Britney’s estate. Jon Zabel, a CPA, has been appointed temporary conservator until the next hearing on Nov. 12, when the judge plans on ending Britney’s conservatorship, as NPR reports.

Below, check out the new, shocking revelations from each documentary: 

Jamie Spears’ collaborators

According to “Controlling Britney Spears,” Jamie Spears‘ ability to control his daughter relied on significant support from a security company called Black Box Security and Tri Star Sports and Entertainment, the company that handles her accounting and finances. 

In “Britney vs. Spears,” Felicia Culotta, a family friend and Spears’ longtime assistant, is visibly afraid to speak about Tri Star founder and CEO Lou Taylor and Taylor’s partnership with Jamie to manage Spears’ money and conservatorship. Culotta says of Taylor, “I will not touch that one. Sorry. She will chew me up and spit me out.”

No one seemed to know what Taylor or Tri Star director Robin Greenhill’s roles on Spears’ team were — only that these women were in constant communication with Spears’ father, and were highly controlling of Spears’ every interaction and relationships.

But the main antagonist of “Controlling Britney Spears” is by and large Black Box Security, which was hired by and worked closely with Jamie to monitor and police Britney’s every move, according to Alex Vlasov, a whistleblower and former executive assistant at Black Box. 

Black Box Security’s “prison”-like surveillance

“It really reminded me of somebody that was in prison,” Vlasov said of Black Box’s surveillance of Spears, allegedly at her father’s orders, in “Controlling Britney Spears.” He continued, “Security was put in a position to be the prison guards, essentially.”

Among Vlasov’s most damning allegations are that Spears’ father coordinated with Black Box to install recording devices in the singer’s bedroom, recording hours of private conversations between Spears and her children, and anyone in her bedroom. Vlasov claims to have at one point been asked to delete the contents of a USB, presumably containing recordings of these conversations.

Additionally, he testified that Spears’ desire for an iPhone caused significant backlash from her conservatorship, as they scrambled to find ways to surveil the device. According to Vlasov, Spears’ father and Greenhill wound up entering Spears’ iCloud login information on an iPad to retain access to all of her text messages, searches, notes and call logs. 

Black Box has since denied all allegations put forward in “Controlling Britney Spears,” but Spears’ legal team has taken the claims very seriously. Spears’ lawyer, Mathew Rosengart, on Monday filed a third request to immediately remove her father as her conservator citing the allegations and issued a statement to Vulture that reads: 

Unauthorized recording or monitoring of Britney’s private communications — especially attorney-client communications, which are a sacrosanct part of the legal system — represent an unconscionable and disgraceful violation of her privacy rights and a striking example of the deprivation of her civil liberties. Placing a listening device in Britney’s bedroom would be particularly horrifying, and corroborates so much of her compelling, poignant testimony.

A fractured support system

Both “Controlling Britney Spears” and “Britney vs. Spears” depict the seemingly countless ways Spears’ father and his associates allegedly maintained total control over her social relationships and support systems. Spears’ father allegedly had to approve every man Spears met, interacted with or dated, and forced them to sign NDAs. Reiterating what Spears herself alleged in her testimony before a judge earlier this year, Vlasov and Spears’ assistants claimed she wasn’t even permitted to drive or be alone in a car with a man.

But in addition to policing and surveilling Spears’ romantic and non-romantic relationships with men, Culotta alleged in “Controlling Britney” that on Spears’ “Circus” tour in Europe, Greenhill had lied to her that Spears didn’t want her present and didn’t want to see her. Culotta claims that she soon encountered Spears while on the tour, and the popstar was overjoyed to see her. This prompted Culotta to realize that Greenhill and Spears’ father were actively working to isolate Spears from her close relationships, and ensure only people who supported the conservatorship had access to her.


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


Allegations about Spears’ conservatorship have been widely compared to abusive relationships, with many highlighting the obvious — that she doesn’t consent to the conservatorship, or Spears’ allegation that her family planning and reproductive decisions have been controlled by her father. Additionally, isolating someone from their support system is another devastating and common component of domestic abuse.

An inside look at the men in Spears’ life

An early focus in “Britney vs. Spears” is Sam Lutfi, who says he served as Spears’ manager shortly before the conservatorship began. Spears and Lutfi became fast friends after meeting at a bar, some time amid her 2007 divorce from Kevin Federline. But according to Lorilee Craker, a biographer of Spears’ mom Lynn, there was a key reason Spears’ conservatorship moved forward with such urgency, with Spears not even given the traditional five-day notice. Her family was concerned with Lutfi, who had allegedly bragged about crushing drugs and putting them in Spears’ food. 

“The only reason given for depriving Britney of five days’ notice is that Sam Lutfi is dangerous and needs to be kept away,” Craker recounted. 

Lutfi categorically denied these claims and called himself “the perfect scapegoat” for her family.

“Britney vs. Spears” also includes interviews with a paparazzo named ​​Adnan Ghalib, who had dated Spears and recounted how fans judged their relationship because “You want the Prince Charming to be as equally as attractive and as equally as charming,” and “There was this multi-millionaire and me, there was this famous girl and then there was me.”

Ghalib defended Spears against claims that she was “crazy,” and recalled staying by her side when she stayed awake for three days on prescription drugs in 2008. Ghalib said he was with Spears on the evening her conservatorship took effect, and her father called demanding that Ghalib bring her home immediately. When they got to her house, Jamie was outside with security and police officers. The relationship deteriorated shortly after.

As for Spears’ 2007 divorce from Kevin Federline the following year, Spears responded to Federline’s “tell-all” People magazine cover story in 2008 by writing a private letter that she gave to a friend, cinematographer Andrew Gallery, asking him to read it on TV. In the letter, which Gallery had never shared before, Spears describes being essentially forced by her lawyers to end her marriage to Federline, and her inability to speak up or do almost anything with her conservatorship in place, out of fear her conservators would take away her children.

A years-long, private battle

Despite how mainstream attention and support for the #FreeBritney movement is relatively new, Spears wanted out for years — not just from her conservatorship, but from the lifestyle it had entrapped her in, “Controlling Britney” reports. 

When court investigators interviewed Spears about her conservatorship in 2016, she expressed her frustration, fears and discomfort under her conservatorship, as well as her desire to change her lifestyle entirely. She was considering retiring, getting married, and having more children, which her conservatorship barred her from doing. 

Instead, as Spears described at length in her June testimony, her conservatorship continuously forced her to work grueling tour lineups and residencies against her will, taking her money and punishing her for seeking rest, her assistants recall. For years despite these private frustrations, Spears mostly kept silent about the conservatorship and her struggles with her father.

Who was footing the bills?

Speaking of taking Spears’ money, Tish Yates, the head of Spears’ wardrobe for a significant amount of time between 2008 and 2018, offers alarming anecdotes about how the conservatorship totally controlled Spears’ purchases, allowing her only a small allowance. 

Ahead of one of Spears’ Vegas shows, Yates claims that the star wanted and was denied a pair of Sketchers because Yates was told they were “too expensive” for Spears’ allowance. In other cases, when Spears wanted to order dinner, she would also be told the meals she wanted were too expensive, Yates recalled.

Of course, this was all while the conservatorship’s many legal and media appearance fees were all charged to Spears herself. According to “Controlling Britney,” her father’s lawyers and other costs associated with upholding and positively representing the conservatorship were paid out of Spears’ bank account, while she was barely allowed the luxury of enjoying her own earnings.

Spears’ conservatorship has its eye on #FreeBritney

One of the most jarring revelations of “Controlling Britney,” which contains ample footage of #FreeBritney supporters protesting in the streets and outside courthouses, is that Spears’ conservatorship has been concerned about the movement for years. Vlasov alleges that Black Box Security agents have attended #FreeBritney events undercover, meeting and identifying protesters, and keeping information about them.

Both “Controlling Britney” and “Britney vs. Spears” come days before a Wednesday hearing this week, regarding Spears’ request to remove her father from her conservatorship. It’s to be seen whether her legal team will cite any of the findings and allegations reported in these recent documentaries to further build their case against Jamie Spears.

“Controlling Britney Spears” is now streaming on Hulu. “Britney vs. Spears” is now streaming on Netflix.

Wanderlust: Zuza Zak invites food lovers on a mouthwatering culinary journey through the Baltics

For Polish cookbook author and Baltic culinary expert Zuza Zak, food is rooted in memory. Born in Poland during the country’s communist regime, Zak remembers her grandmother’s stories about Lithuania — her country of origin. Zak also remembers her grandmother’s mahogany cupboard, where she kept silk scarves, leather gloves and amber necklaces. She had something else in her cupboard, too.

“Underneath that, she had the plum butters all stacked up,” Zak says. “And there it was — those memories that spurred me on to explore the Baltics.”

In “Amber & Rye: A Baltic Food Journey,” Zak takes readers on a mouthwatering culinary journey (plum butter included) through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Breaking down the invisible barriers that often stifle mass knowledge about Baltic cuisine, Zak invites readers into her world — one filled with familial history, ancestral discoveries and enticing recipes.

“Really, my whole mission is to make Eastern European food — whether it’s from Poland or the Baltic states — just a part of the conversation of something that people cook on a daily basis,” she says.

RELATED: How animators brought a classic Italian pasta dish to life on screen in Disney and Pixar’s “Luca”

Zak’s other grandmother — who was of Polish descent and also a cook — was constantly in the kitchen. Zak was, too. As she cooked alongside her grandmother, Zak not only learned about her identity but also a region filled with centuries-old culinary traditions.

A region steeped in history, Zak is no stranger to the complex meaning of Baltic identity. While the food in Lithuania and Poland is similar, according to Zak, the food in Latvia and Estonia is a bit different. However, the region is still typified by various ingredients, such as barley, buckwheat, curd cheese, fermented foods, and of course, rye.

Zak, who has spent much of her career diving into the region’s culinary history and secrets, is committed to bringing Baltic cuisine outside of Eastern European borders.

“I was researching the Baltics, and I was discovering that there was this sort of food Renaissance going on there, which got me very excited,” Zak says. “That’s exactly what makes me excited about Polish food at the moment — this kind of new, fresh energy that’s making the local traditions come alive.”

RELATED: Gordon Ramsay’s salty-sweet seared, hand-dived sea scallops were inspired by his journey to Norway

Writing the book was a truly personal process for Zak. In addition to discovering more about her heritage, she traveled throughout the region with her daughter and partner, who is responsible for the book’s photography. “Amber & Rye” brings this Baltic journey to life for readers, who are taken on edible and visual trips across some of Eastern Europe’s most storied capitals, cultures and cuisines.

Recipes like drop scones with prunes and sour cream, home-cured ham, old-style chestnut patties and a half-and-half apple cheesecake invite readers to engage with a cuisine that’s diverse in spices, flavor and culinary history. Breaking beyond the limiting narrative that often ascribes Baltic food as simply meat and potatoes, Zak reminds us that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the dynamic nature of Eastern European food. Even she found herself surprised during some of her research.

“A big surprise for me was that in Estonia, they have a tradition of opening houses up as house cafés, which was so wonderful for me because there’s the restaurant world and then there’s the home cooking world,” Zak says. “And in Eastern Europe, there can be a big gap between them.”


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


“Going across Estonia, and in various places, being able to go inside people’s homes or farms, whichever local produce, and to just sample their favorite dishes and their home cooking, it was the biggest surprise — and something I would hope that other people get to experience if they ever visit Estonia,” she adds.

For Zak, the cookbook writing process was a learning process, but also an opportunity to amplify an underrepresented cuisine and culture that she loves and forever is a part of her.

“I’d really like people to take away from [“Amber & Rye“] that these countries are worth visiting, and the food is worth trying and the region should be given a chance to shine,” Zak says.

***

“Fruit soups are a real kind of Eastern European thing,” Zak says. “In Poland, it’s more strawberry soup, whereas, in Estonia, blueberry soup is very popular. It’s so simple and easy to make. It’s a sweet soup with vanilla, and you eat it, often cold. It’s very refreshing with some cream on top.”

Recipe: Summer Blueberry Soup

Serves 4

Ingredients:

  • 2 1/3 cups (400g) blueberries
  • 1 vanilla bean, split lengthways
  • 4 tablespoons sugar
  • Generous 1 tablespoon cornstarch
  • Whipped cream, torn mint leaves, and edible flowers, such as cornflowers, to serve

Directions:

Reserve a few of the berries to serve on top of the finished soup, then put the rest into a large pot with vanilla bean, sugar, and 4 1/4 cups (1 liter) of water. Bring to a boil, then turn down to a simmer and cook for 15 minutes or until the berries are soft.

In a small bowl, mix the cornstarch with a scant 1/2 cup (100 ml) of water until smooth. Add this to the pot and stir constantly until the soup thickens. Remove from the heat and allow the soup to cool to room temperature, then chill in the fridge for at least 30 minutes or up to 24 hours.

Ladle the soup into bowls and top with whipped cream, the reserved berries and a whimsical scattering of mint leaves and edible flowers.

Read more “Tastes of Comfort”: 

Ancient dogecoin: 2,000 years ago, humans used dogs as currency, study suggests

Dogs may be man’s best friend, but many humans also view them as commodities to be bought and sold. The rise of dog breeding in the 19th century, spurred by a Victorian belief in eugenics, led to a pet culture in which dogs are bought and sold, bred for their “pedigrees, and even inbred to the point that their health is compromised

Yet while the commodification of dogs might seem a modern trend, genetic studies suggest that dogs were used as financial instruments thousand of years ago. A new study sheds further light on just how dogs may have been traded by ancient humans — in part by looking at their genes.

An international team of researchers led by scholars from the University of Copenhagen studied the genomes of Siberian and Eurasian Steppe dogs, both ancient and historical, to understand their lineage. Although these dogs were genetically homogenous between 7,000 and 9,500 years ago, at least 2,000 years ago they began to show signs of genetic influence from dogs who originated further west. Because archaeological sites that correspond to where these dogs lived also included nonlocal materials like metal items and glass beads, it is logical to assume that dogs were traded as part of a much larger trade network. Indeed, the introduction of these foreign dogs into the Siberian community’s canine gene pool also coincided with important developments like the introduction of metallurgy and the use of reindeer for farming and transportation.

“Altogether, this suggests that these profound transformations in Northwest Siberia were linked with the importation of material culture (including dogs) from neighboring regions through the establishment of large-scale trade networks,” the authors conclude.


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


“It looks like the human populations were more or less genetically isolated and did not mix with outside populations,” lead author Tatiana Feuerborn told Heritage Daily. “We do not see that with dogs, which indicates that dogs were traded rather than moving with people. So there definitely were interactions between populations in these areas of Siberia.”

Another researcher who worked on the study noted that dog fur was found in clothing artifacts found in those communities, suggesting that dogs’ bodies were transformed into commodities after their lives had ended, too.

In recent years scientists have used genetic technology to unlock secrets about how humans long ago traded and bred dogs. Last year another study involving researchers at the University of Copenhagen shed light on when sled dogs like Siberian Huskies, Alaskan Malamutes and Greenland sledge dogs first adapted to the Arctic. Specifically, they analyzed DNA from a 9,500-year-old Siberian dog named Zhokhov and realized that it shared a major part of its genome with the aforementioned sled dogs; this revealed that modern Arctic dogs are much older than previously believed.

The sleep-deprived guide to homemade baby food

Welcome to Kids & the Kitchen, our new landing pad for parents who love to cook. Head this way for kid-friendly recipes, helpful tips, and heartwarming stories galore — all from real-life parents and their little ones.

* * *

Is it wildly unrealistic to make your own baby food? After all, you’ve just stumbled through the wilderness of the newborn days. Now is hardly the time to embark upon an ambitious DIY project like making your own purées when you could just pick up some pouches from the store, right?

The idea of following nutritious, delicious, super-easy baby food recipes might sound like a mission that no sleep-deprived, overextended parent should ever attempt, but the truth is, it’s the easiest cooking you’ll ever do.

Even if you’re the kind of person who would never, ever prep and freeze a month’s worth of dinners at a time, this approach is brilliant for baby food, and it will help preserve your sanity. Simple purées are easy to make in bulk, pop into adorable ice cube trays, and freeze until you’re ready to nudge them into your little one’s mouth.

Ready to get started? First, make sure that baby is, too (usually when she is between four and six months old, but — as is true of all these suggestions — check with your pediatrician). Then identify a free hour or two to devote to the project. The reward? A rainbow of neatly labeled homemade purées that will make you feel like a superhero.

Choose your ingredients

First, start by selecting eight to 10 ingredients to transform into individual purées. (If that seems like overkill, scale back to what works for you.) Sweet, non-acidic fruits such as apples, pears, strawberries, avocados, bananas, cherries, and mangoes are ideal. As for veggies, you can choose a mix of mild-tasting ones such as butternut squash, corn, carrot, sweet potato, and zucchini, along with more robust options like spinach and broccoli. In general, 1/2 pound of a fruit or vegetable will yield 1 1/2 to 2 cups of purée. Younger babies will generally eat just 1 to 2 tablespoons per serving, since they will still be getting most of their nutrition from breast milk or formula.

One at a time!

Keep each purée focused on just one main ingredient so you can introduce each food to the baby one by one — and mix and match them later (see below). Keep your prep and cooking areas and tools scrupulously clean to avoid any risk of cross-contamination: Most pediatricians recommendoffering just one new type of food for several days to rule out intolerances and allergies before proceeding with the next. After a few weeks, many parents choose to speed up the process by waiting just a day or two. (Again, discuss this with your child’s doctor.)

No-cook purées

Time-saver alert! Bananas and avocados are so soft and yielding that they don’t need to be cooked. Simply peel, pit, and mash them in a bowl to the desired consistency, thinning with breast milk, formula, or filtered water as desired. New eaters may appreciate a thinner texture, while babies and toddlers with more eating experience might be able to wrap their little heads around thicker, rustic-textured purées. (To freeze, stir a bit of lemon juice into the purée to prevent browning.)

Fruit purées

Aim for 1/2 pound to 2/3 pound of fruit per batch. (Alternatively, you can use a 10-ounce bag of frozen fruit.) If using fresh produce, wash, peel, and prep as needed, then cut into 1-inch chunks. Bring 1/2 cup of filtered water to a simmer in a medium saucepan, add the fruit, and simmer until fork-tender, 5 to 10 minutes. Let cool in the pan, then transfer the fruit and liquid to a blender or food processor and purée until smooth, adding more water (or breast milk or formula) as needed to adjust the consistency. You can add a pinch of ground cinnamon for flavor, too.

Vegetable purées

For most vegetables, the easiest all-purpose method to ensure vibrant purées is steaming. Aim for 1/2 pound to 2/3 pound of vegetables per batch. (Or use a 10-ounce bag of frozen vegetables). If using fresh produce, peel, stem, and prep as needed, then cut into 1-inch chunks or pieces. Steam over an inch of water until soft when poked with a fork. (Cook times will vary with the ingredient. Since frozen foods are usually just par-cooked, they definitely need some cooking time, too.)

To save chopping time when making sweet potatoes or butternut squash, you can roast them instead of steaming. Sweet potatoes can be wrapped in foil and baked, whereas butternut squash (and other winter squash) can be halved, seeded, and baked cut side down. When tender, simply scoop out the flesh and purée.

To purée, transfer your cooked fruit or vegetable to a blender or food processor, and add ⅓ to ½ cup of filtered water, breast milk, or formula. Purée to the desired consistency, adding more liquid to thin as needed. And don’t be afraid to taste the purée; it should taste good to you, too!

How to freeze and thaw baby food

To freeze your homemade baby food, simply spoon or pour the purée into a clean ice cube tray or dedicated baby food tray (we particularly like the Weesprout Baby Food Freezer Tray), and freeze until solid. Transfer cubes to a freezer bag, label and date them — purées will stay good in the freezer for up to 3 months — and stash in the freezer. Thaw purées overnight in the refrigerator or in the microwave (this set of microwave-safe bowls is particularly handy for thawing — and for saving leftovers!).

Mix and match purées to make these delicious combos

Once your baby is happily eating all of the single-variety purées you’ve made, and you’ve watched out for potential allergens like the good parent you are, you can get to the fun part: mixing and matching for fantastic combinations. To combine, simply thaw one cube of each variety, then stir together before gently reheating. Some favorite combinations include:

Butternut, Apple and Spinach Baby Food

Cauliflower, Pear and Cherry Baby Food

Banana, Avocado and Peach Baby Food

And congratulate yourself on your hard — but not so hard? — work. This is your baby’s first step on the road to being a curious, happy eater.

This post contains products independently chosen (and loved) by Food52 editors and writers. As an Amazon Associate and Skimlinks affiliate, Food52 earns an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases of the products we link to.

17 vegan pie recipes that are practically perfect

Plant-based desserts are just as important in our repertoire as their buttery, eggy counterparts. Take these Genius chocolate chip cookies, this fudgy banana brownie cake, this richer-than-rich mousse, these scotcheroos that are apt to stick to the roof of your mouth . . . in a good way! They rank among our favorite desserts of all time.

Vegan pies deserve to be in that pantheon, too — after all, how could we resist a flaky-crispy tart filled to the brim with fruit, custard, chocolate, or all of the above? So, for our own edification and yours, we’ve rounded up our 18 best plant-based pies. All they’ll need is a scoop of (non-dairy) ice cream.

* * *

Our best vegan pie recipes

1. Perfect Vegan Pie Crust

Before we dive into fruit fillings and creamy puddings, we need to talk about the perfect vegan pie crust. Ours is made with coconut oil (rather than butter or lard or shortening), which makes the crust super flaky and just a wee bit sweet.

2. Vegan Apple Pie

This classic apple number is (perhaps shockingly?) minimalist — the filling’s just apples, sugar, pumpkin pie spicecornstarch, and a little pinch of salt. That means it’s big on apple flavor, and you’ll want to use the sweetest-tartest fruit from the season.

3. Ginger-Apple Crumble Pie (Gluten and Dairy-Free)

If you love the idea of apple pie but have been hunting high and low for a grain-free rendition, your search can stop now. A tender, sorghum-based crust and an oaty, brown sugar-laden crumble house a spicy ginger-apple filling in between.

4. Raw Mini Key Lime Pies

A grain-free, no-bake take on Key lime pie that’s perfect for the summer months. The secret to the creamy, dreamy filling? A ripe avocado.

5. Vegan Tarte Aux Clémentines

Fluffy coconut whipped cream, juicy clementines, and bittersweet orange jam come together for a sophisticated dessert that’s actually a cinch to put together. If you’d prefer one larger tart rather than several small ones (though who can resist those little cuties?!), you’ll need to adjust the bake time accordingly. Summer fruit, like peaches or plums, would also work well here in place of clementines.

6. Rawsome Treats’ Summer Fruit Tart

Cashews work double-time in this recipe, creating a nutty crust and creamy filling, ready to be topped with your very favorite summer fruit.

7. Vegan Coconut Lime Ice Cream Pie

Velvety coconut milk ice cream, macerated strawberries, and a hint of fresh lime sit atop a thick, sweet graham cracker crust. As a shortcut (or if you don’t have an ice cream machine — yet!), you could use your favorite non-dairy ice cream instead of churning your own.

8. Frozen Vegan Coconut Chocolate Almond Bars

Coconut, chocolate, almond, and . . . tofu? Yep, you’ll find all four components in these frozen pie bars, piled high on a sweet-salty graham cracker crust. This dessert tastes like your favorite blue-wrapped, mounded candy bar . . . catch my drift?

9. Raw, Vegan Pecan Pie

Pecan pie like you’ve never had it before — you won’t even need to turn on the oven (which is a real blessing around Thanksgiving time!). Medjool dates and coconut oil create a gooey, caramel-like filling that gets studded with whole pecans.

10. Vegan Chocolate Pie

Graham crackers and silken tofu come to the rescue again, this time to form a gloriously rich, pudding-like chocolate pie.

11. Vegan Chocolate Peanut Butter Cup Tart

If you were as big a fan of (sadly non-vegan) Reese’s peanut butter cups growing up as I was, this recipe is for you. It’s got a creamy, mousse-like filling and a glossy chocolate ganache on top, bolstered by a crumbly, cocoa-rich crust.

12. No-Bake Pumpkin Pie Bars

Another Thanksgiving-ready recipe that won’t take up precious oven space. Dates and nuts are, once again, our very best friends.

13. You Won’t Believe It’s Vegan Pumpkin Pie

Here’s a vegan pumpkin pie you probably won’t even realize is vegan. A tender-flaky crust gets topped with a thick cashew-based filling that blends wonderfully with pumpkin purée and warming spices.

14. Coconut Rum Cream Pie

Be whisked away to Margaritaville with this luscious coconut pie that just so happens to be vegan. The Biscoff cookie crust is the work of baking royalty and a few generous tablespoons of dark rum in both the filling and whipped cream topping will instantly transport you to the Caribbean island of your choosing.

15. Vegan Pot Pie with Herby Biscuits

You thought we were just talking about dessert pies, didn’t you? No, no, we’ve got savory vegan pies for dinner, too, like this herby pot pie filled with a mixture of frozen mixed veggies (don’t judge! You’ll thank us later when you can easily make this recipe in the dead of winter).

16. Raspberry and White Chocolate Tart with Cocoa Crust

Instead of using gelatin, recipe developer Amy Chaplin had the super smart idea to utilize agar agar flakes for the fruity filling in this vegan tart recipe. The flakes give the berry and chocolate mixture plenty of body, while still making it an accessible dessert for all.

17. Vegan Apricot and Cherry Galette

OK it’s not a pie, but it’s not not a pie. It’s like every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square . . . right? Ignore math lessons and focus on this vegan pie recipe. Or galette. Whatever you want to call it, there’s certainly no ignoring the stunning spread of sliced apricot wedges and pitted cherries arranged atop a gluten-free crust.

What would today’s fairy tale look like if you could “un-Disney-fy people’s brains”?

As a child born in the ’80s, I never saw myself in a book. It was actually very easy for me to believe that African Americans, and other POC had little to no place in literature. I never argued or put up a real fuss –– but I did end up doing something more dangerous. I stopped going to the library, paying attention in English class and kind of did away with books. A few years later, I discovered a couple breakout titles like Nathan McCall’s “Makes Me Wanna Holler” and Sista Souljah’s “The Coldest Winter Ever” that spoke to my generation and my American experience. Even still, those titles were few and far between. 

It is now 2021, and we are finally seeing the change that we all deserve in books for kids, with a tremendous influx of writers who represent every color, gender and ethnic group. They are claiming their stake in the literary world, taking up space, diversifying stories, and finally giving voice to kids like me who never got a chance to see themselves in books. This is a revolutionary moment in literature, happening in real time.

Soman Chainani, author of “The School For Good And Evil” young adult fantasy series that is soon to be a Netflix film, has emerged as one of the most important figures in this movement. He is continuing to push the conversation forward with his newest book, “Beasts and Beauty: Dangerous Tales.” 

I spoke to Chainani, who has sold over 3 million books that have been translated into 30 languages across six continents, about how he spent the pandemic writing “Beasts and Beauty,” where he remixes some of the most popular stories from the Brothers Grimm, which are familiar to many because of their Disney adaptations. Chainani turned Snow White into a Black woman, made Sleeping Beauty a man and completely twisted some of the world’s most classic stories in a way that not only is extremely creative, but will allow so many young people that represent so many different groups to simply feel seen.

On “Salon Talks,” Chainani and I discussed what representation looks like and how an author can achieve that for lots of different audiences. “For me personally, I have so many different facets to my identity because I’m Indian, but I’m American, but I’m also gay, but I grew up an athlete,” he said. “I don’t seek out to do sort of gratuitous representation for any sort of moralizing or sake or anything like that. I just seek out to represent different traits in myself, which tends to be universal because they fit other people’s identities as well.”

You can watch the episode with Soman Chainani here, or read a Q&A of our conversation below to hear about how he changed up the classic fairy tales and what we can expect when his wildly successful “School for Good and Evil” is turned into a Netflix movie starring Academy Award winner Charlize Theron and Kerry Washington and directed by Paul Feig.

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

How has being in the pandemic affected you creatively? Were you able to write like business as usual, or did you kind of take a step back?
It’s such a good question because I think every writer has handled it differently. I had a very specific set of circumstances, which was, I finished the last of “The School for Good and Evil” books on March 11 of last year. I turned in the final draft that was going off to the press. It was the sixth in the series. It was a 10-year journey. And that was supposed to sort of end the phase of my life. I had planned to take the rest of the year off and I was going to go to a tennis academy in France and basically just go on an Australia walkabout and find new energy and inspiration for something new. Then lockdown happened 48 hours later.

I went from just almost retiring as a writer and thinking that I was going to have a year where I wasn’t going to write to suddenly being trapped in a small space. I think in those days it’ll be very hard for us to go back and actually remember what that headspace was like when the pandemic started, of how sort of doomsday and apocalyptic everything felt. And I remember thinking that now, if any time was the best time to write and I had to find a way to put my feelings into something. It almost felt like the world had gone wrong like we had made a wrong turn and somehow inflicted this upon ourselves.

I thought, look, I write fairy tales. That’s what I do. So why don’t I go back to the originals, the original Grimm’s stories and just redo them and teach the right lessons this time as if we could do the whole world over again from 1600 or 1700 from when they were written. And it was such a big challenge, but it filled my time very dependent kind of, all right, I’m going to redo them as if I was the Brothers Grimm and that really gave me the energy and the inspiration to get through lockdown.

Congratulations on “Beasts and Beauty: Dangerous Tales.” It’s one of the wildest books I’ve ever read. I thought it was funny, dark and brilliant. It left me wondering, what was your relationship to some of these tales anyway? Did you come up on the Brothers Grimm tales?
It’s a good question because I think my relationship was similar to what most Americans’ relationship with these stories, which is I learned them from Disney. You grow up with the Disney versions of the fairy tales, and the Disney versions are completely wrong. The Disney versions are contorted so that the good guy always wins. And so you grow up with this very kind of skewed sense of good and evil and moral or immoral.

I think it’s so bad for us and kind of toxic in the way that we learn our fairy tales, that it ultimately extends all the way to our politics, right? There’s the good guys and the bad guys and either you’re with the good or with the evil and there’s no shades of in-between, there’s no nuance. There’s no understanding of balance that sometimes you have to let the other side win in order for your side to have meaning and things like that. And the Grimm’s stories that’s what all of those were about; they were the survival guides to life back then.

When I went to college, I ended up in a fairy tale seminar where I learned the original stories and I was like, “Oh my God, my entire life was based on this ridiculous lie of these Disney stories.” So I think that gap, the fact that I felt I was lied to as a child is what caused my obsession with fairy tales and this desire to un-Disney-fy people’s brains, whether they’re kids or adults. Just get the Disney fairy tales out of their heads.

One of the things that made me laugh is when I found out that you made Snow White Black.

It’s funny, with Snow White I didn’t know what I wanted to do. I wrote this fairy tale collection in order. All the stories I wrote precisely in the order that I wrote them except for Snow White. Snow White I think I did four and I remember thinking like, what am I going to do with Snow White? Who wants to read about Snow White? No one. And then I thought, well, that’s the joke. The joke is that you have an all-white kingdom where, the only Black woman in the kingdom is who the prince marries because the prince is so sort of in love with himself, that he wants to bring the one Black woman into his fold and then of course kind of treats her poorly. 

When she has a daughter, she named her Snow White almost as an ironic kind of jab at this kingdom where Black beauty is not recognized or acknowledged or understood. It’s funny, it’s a personal story in all the ways because I grew up on an island where I was the only brown kid, right? I was only the kid who looked like me and I remember that feeling very well. And so I wanted a fairy tale to be about that, to be about difference.

While reading your book, I was thinking about when I read the Three Little Bears to my daughter. I was laughing because I was like, this white lady is out of control. She went inside of somebody’s house. She tried the porridge. She lounged on a couch. She slept in the bed. She probably took a dump. She did all of these things. And then these bears are coming home like, “I literally just made the bed, it’s wrinkled. I literally just put this soup out and somebody . . . ” Goldilocks is out here eating other people’s food in a pandemic like how could you be so gross.

One hundred percent. Goldilocks really represents – there’s a lot of depth to that story and I think I referenced it in Snow White because when I have Snow White come to the dwarfs’ house, she basically does the same thing. She pours herself a glass of wine, makes a salad, all these things and ultimately the dwarfs are like, “Now you have to do something for us in return.” And what they want more than anything else in the whole world, because the dwarfs are Black too, is they want stories that have characters that look like them. It’s the one thing that’s missing, right? 

I think the Goldilocks story is interesting because it really is a story of a girl who kind of takes whatever she wants and runs, and in this case I wanted to do a story where the bears in a way have their revenge, at least the bears gets their say.

Are there people who push back on the classics being remixed?

I think what ends up happening is every fairy tale has to speak to something universal. It has to feel like it taps into something that you’ve seen or you know because the whole purpose of these to begin with is they were meant to teach you a lesson about life that you would take forward. I think the key about how to write these stories is to always look for something that would feel universal to everybody, even though Snow White is the only Black girl in the kingdom, it doesn’t mean that only Black people reading that story are going to understand it.

It means that anybody who has felt that sort of bitterness of not being acknowledged and understood because there is a different stereotype or a different model of what beauty is and what intelligence is or whatever it is, is going to recognize themselves in that story. I think the key is to be able to push past that resistance and find the universality.


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


One of the things that I really appreciated about your book was just this whole idea of how the Brothers Grimm just got it wrong. In so many of these things that we subscribed to. So many books and so many lessons and things that are just forced on us as young people are not right. I think it’s difficult for a lot of people to latch on to that at times, but I think you do a great job at pushing the conversation forward.

Well, I think sometimes what you have to do in the story is actually identifying where people have been brainwashed or gone wrong. The Little Mermaid is a key example. In the Disney version of a Little Mermaid, she gets her happy ending at the end. She goes off with her prince and gets all these things. But that story makes no sense because Ariel is clearly the villain of that story. She’s the one who disobeys her family. She’s the one who falls in love with the prince, even though she knows nothing about him. She’s the one who goes to her father’s worst enemy, the sea witch, and makes this deal. She’s the one who signed the contract and then somehow has a problem with that later. She’s the one who consistently is the villain, right?

When I wrote my version of The Little Mermaid, I just wanted it to be a conversation between the Ursula character and the Ariel character where Ursula is like, “I am not the problem. You are the problem. Let’s be very clear, you are the villain in this story.” You have them actually argue that out of who’s good, who’s evil in this story.

I think sometimes it just takes having someone point out that the story doesn’t make sense. I even think of The Lion King. Lion King makes no sense because Scar is set up from the beginning of that story as a character who doesn’t fight, right? He’s skinny, he’s afraid of fighting. He will never fight you, right? He’s so unwilling to fight Mufasa that he waits until Mufasa has a child. For years Simba grows up so that Scar can use Simba to kill his own dad, right?

At the end of the movie, Disney has a problem because they need Simba to beat Scar and win the movie, but Simba is not good at anything. Simba is not very smart. He is not clever. He is not funny. He doesn’t have any good qualities, right? So what did they do? They have them fight. They have Scar fight Simba, which makes no sense because the entire movie is about how Scar doesn’t fight and gets other people to fight for him.

Two non-fighters fighting.

It made me crazy because I’m like, “You’re just cheating.” My job as a writer is to point these things out and find a way to kind of undo it.

Maybe they could have cut in a scene where Simba got like a gym membership and hit the heavy bag or something like that.

Yeah, or something with Scar . . . I don’t know. I just think the whole point of Scar is that he doesn’t fight, and it was disappointing.

Representation plays a major part in your work and is something that you should be championed for because we need it. Was the lack of diversity that exists in children’s literature something that got you into the way you write?

One hundred percent. I think it’s funny because with “The School for Good and Evil” 10 years ago, if you were an author of color, you had to write about white characters. I mean, that was your only way into the industry if you were going to write a sort of big fantasy. I kept thinking what I wanted to do was take those Disney characters and stuff we thought we knew — the blonde prince, this sort of dark-featured witch, the blonde princess — and sort of completely dismantled them, right? And then as the years went on I was able to pump those stories with so much diversity — characters from all different backgrounds, different sexualities, different ways of thinking and modes of being and all those kinds of things. I was able to do that as sort of like a reparative to the Disney upbringing. And also even Harry Potter because Harry Potter is so straight and so white. And with “Beasts and Beauty” I was able to really from the ground up, be like, “Okay, this is going to reflect the world, right?”

Every story takes on some element of, not necessarily diversity in the world, but a virtue of representation in the world that we haven’t really seen in a fairy tale. Sleeping Beauty is about a prince, not a princess. Beauty and the Beast is about an Asian family that immigrates to France and they’re trying to make a business, even though there’s quite a bit of racism against them there. Every story sort of finds an angle. We do a familiar tale in a different way.

You are a person of color who has had success in the publishing industry, which is historically very white. Do you feel like things that are finally changing for the better?

I think so. I think what’s happening is, luckily publishing is filled with smart people, you know what I mean? That’s where you’re going to find the smartest souls in the world in a lot of ways. I think they caught onto it quite early, that if you didn’t have books that reflected a larger experience, then you were sort of shortchanging the world and you were also losing money because you weren’t serving a large part of the audience. And because of that, I think you’ve seen a lot more books published that represent a wider range of experience. 

At the same time, that’s what feeds movies and TV because movies and TV these days are often based on books, so you’re expanding your repertoire of, what stories we’re going to be able to see. For me personally, I have so many different facets to my identity. Because I’m Indian, but I’m American, but I’m also gay, but I grew up an athlete. There’s just so many different pieces to play with and so I think in a lot of ways, I don’t seek out to do sort of gratuitous representation for any sort of moralizing or sake or anything like that. I just seek out to represent different traits in myself, which tends to be universal because they fit other people’s identities as well.

That would be like a wow one-liner for a quick bio: “I am an Indian, American, gay, athletic writer.”

Yeah, it’s almost too many things sometimes where there’s a lot of different pieces that I just have to remind myself that it’s not just me, it’s everybody, right? You go to everybody and you try to get them to sort of boil down their identity and they realize that there’s so many contradicting pieces and people are complicated. We forget that, especially when I write characters, I feel like I need that sort of level of complexity because that’s who we all are. We don’t always make sense.

We’re blessed to have you writing because we need that. We need someone who can draw from those many different experiences just so we can learn too. That’s kind of what it’s about. Congratulations on “The School for Good and Evil” being made into a Netflix movie.

It’s definitely going to come out about sometime next year. I can definitely talk about it. I was on set for a while earlier this spring. It was shooting in Belfast. It’s being directed by Paul Feig, who’s one of my favorite directors and he’s just the best. He’s made “Bridesmaids” and “Ghostbusters” and “A Simple Favor” and he was the creator of “Freaks and Geeks” and “Spy.” 

It stars a whole laundry list of big names on the adult side and some fantastic young actors. On the young actor side, you have Sofia Wylie, who’s a big star and Sophia Ann Caruso. And then on the adult side you have Charlize Theron, Kerry Washington, Laurence Fishburne, Michelle Yeoh, amongst others. It’s just an absolutely fabulous cast that Paul has put together.

The movie looks absolutely insanely incredible. It’s one of the biggest movies in Netflix really has ever made, so I’m just excited for the world to see it and get to see the book on screen. It’s not Harry Potter, let’s put it that way, but it’s ultimately kind of fantasy school. Very representative of the world, every shade of the rainbow, every shade of color. It’s just so much more diverse than what you thought from Potter.

When we write these books, you get to work on it and it becomes a conversation between you and your editor that goes out into the world. Film is so collaborative, though. When you make these books into films, you have to include so many people and you have to watch your work be picked at and picked at. Did that bother you any?

No, because I think I was lucky in that I came from the film world. I went to film school after college. That’s where I started as a screenwriter and as a director. It was what my training was and so in a lot of ways, when I went to write the novel, I almost wrote it with a filmic adaptation or a filmic mind because that was my training. I think it made it easier to write the screenplay because it was already based in a three-act structure.

I was involved so much all along because it had a long sort of complicated development process. And if anything, I think the running joke is that I always pushed for more changes than everybody else. Anytime I had my hands on it, I was moving things around and messing things up because that’s what I love to do – these sort of like break structure and things like that. Then they would always put it back to the way it was in the book. I feel like the final result is very faithful to the books and yet has its own kind of cinematic, unity and wholeness to it. So I just think we were lucky to have someone of Paul’s caliber do this because it elevates it from just sort of a run-of-the-mill fantasy would be into an event for all audiences.

Should we be looking forward to “Beasts and Beauty” coming to the silver screen as well?

I think Beasts and Beauty will make a killer TV series, almost like a “Black Mirror” where every episode is it’s one fairy tale. So that’s my dream for it. We’re early in the process, but that’s the hope that it would be a sort of beautiful, awesome TV series.

I feel like you’re going to make it happen. Please tell everyone where they can get the book.
It’s available at every retail store you can imagine, but if you go to evernever.com, which is my big umbrella fantasy website, you can get links to signed editions that are available from multiple bookstores. And you can find me on Instagram @somanc or Twitter @SomanChainani, but evernever.com is sort of my big home for the fantasy universe.

The giant cyclone in Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is speeding up

Unlike our ephemeral weather features on Earth, Jupiter’s storms last years, even centuries. The gas giant’s Great Red Spot, a swirling eddy around 10,000 miles wide, has existed for as long as humans have been observing Jupiter through telescopes — since 1665, meaning this storm has lasted at least 356 years. This ongoing storm in Jupiter’s southern hemisphere consists of crimson-colored clouds spinning nearly 400 miles per hour in a counterclockwise loop. The storm has changed in shape and size since it was first observed in detail in the 1800s — and with recent technological advancements, scientists have been able to make more detailed observations about this strange storm’s savage winds.

Now, a recent analysis of data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Hubble Space Telescope revealed something peculiar about the Great Red Spot. Specifically, the average wind speed within the outer boundaries of the storm (known as a high-speed ring) have increased about 8 percent over the last 11 years.

For context, a typical tropical cyclone on Earth can be as wide as 1,240 miles; the storm that comprises the Great Red Spot is nearly 9,941 miles in width. Hurricane speeds on Earth max out at about 190 miles per hour, compared to 400 miles per hour on Jupiter. Unlike Earth hurricanes, the Great Red Spot appears like a wedding cake from the side thanks to its tiered higher clouds.

“When I initially saw the results, I asked ‘Does this make sense?’ No one has ever seen this before,” said Michael Wong of the University of California, Berkeley, who led the analysis published in Geophysical Research Letters. “But this is something only Hubble can do. Hubble’s longevity and ongoing observations make this revelation possible.”

According to the analysis, the change in wind speeds measured amounts an increase of around 1.6 miles per hour per Earth year. The data will help scientists puzzle together a clearer understanding of what’s happening on Jupiter.

“We’re talking about such a small change that if you didn’t have eleven years of Hubble data, we wouldn’t know it happened,” explained Amy Simon of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who contributed to the research. “With Hubble we have the precision we need to spot a trend.”

In order to observe the small, yet significant change in wind speed, Wong took a new approach to better analyze the data from Hubble. Each time Hubble observed data, he used a specific software to track tens to thousands of wind vectors, meaning the direction and speeds of the winds.

“It gave me a much more consistent set of velocity measurements,” Wong explained. “I also ran a battery of statistical tests to confirm if it was justified to call this an increase in wind speed. It is.”

But what does the increase in speed mean?

“That’s hard to diagnose, since Hubble can’t see the bottom of the storm very well. Anything below the cloud tops is invisible in the data,” Wong said. “But it’s an interesting piece of data that can help us understand what’s fueling the Great Red Spot and how it’s maintaining energy.”


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