Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

MTG’s chief of staff quits — only hours after her public meltdown on Capitol steps

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) lost her most senior staffer on Friday after she made a scene on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

NBC News reported Greene “instigated a shouting match with a group of House Democrats who were holding an event outside the U.S. Capitol on Friday.”

Greene screamed that Democrats support “murder” for supporting abortion rights.

Following the incident, Greene announced that her chief of staff had advised her that he would no longer be working in her office.

“I want to thank my Chief of Staff, Patrick Parsons, for helping me take the fight to the Socialist Democrats as I’ve transitioned into Congress. He’s advised me he will be moving back into the political arena to help elect America First conservatives who can fight alongside me,” she posted to Twitter.

How America became dependent on corn is a weird story of genetics and politics

Autumn, now officially upon us, is a season widely associated with corn in the United States. Farmers are preparing to harvest their crops, hoping for profitable yields. The savory cylindrical vegetable will be a culinary staple for holidays and football-watching parties, displayed as an ornament in cornucopias and other decorations; meanwhile, millions of Americans will traverse a corn maze, an entertaining staple of the fall season. 

Yet corn is not just a delicious and nutritious food. It is the fuel that drives one of the most lucrative and economically indispensable industries in America; a marvel that attests to humanity’s mastery of genetics; and, for those who perform the grueling labor of cultivating it, a lifestyle. As President Dwight Eisenhower famously put it, “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”

It was even more difficult — unimaginably so — to actually create modern corn. And the story of how it came to be — and how it came to be so dominant in American diets and imagination — is a weird, unlikely earful.

Genetic children of the corn

While the 1,500 miles of America’s corn belt might mislead you into thinking corn is a wild crop, it was actually created roughly 9,000 years ago through selective breeding of a Mexican grass called teosinte. Geneticists have determined that farmers who likely lived in what is now Mexico’s tropical Central Balsas River Valley must have seen food potential in the thin, extremely hard teosinte in their area, which would have only had a handful of kernels on their tiny cobs. Despite living in small societies and traveling with the seasons, the indigenous farmers managed over thousands of years to breed a variant that did not pack its kernels in hard cases, had cobs that stayed intact when you tried to pick off kernels and could be easily managed as a large-scale crop. This was the corn discovered, and introduced to the world, by Christopher Columbus in the late 15th century.

The final result is a crop that not only does not exist in the wild, but could not exist in the wild. As Indiana Public Media wrote in 2009, “the seeds are all crammed together on the cob and wrapped tightly inside the thick husks. Seems impossible for the seeds to disperse without a human to peel the husks and separate the kernels.”

Yet despite these reproductive disadvantages, there are six types of corn that are grown in the United States today: Dent corn, which is usually yellow, has dimpled kernels and is used in products like animal feed, bourbon, corn chips and corn tortillas; flint corn, which has kernels that comes in multiple colors and can be used for grits, popcorn or decorations; sweet corn, which comes in yellowish and whiteish shades and can be casually eaten; flour corn, which is used to make corn flour; popcorn, which can be a flint corn and is any species that puffs out when heated; and pod corn, which grows leaves around each kernel and is not grown commercially, although it is used in some Native American religious ceremonies.

Corn products are hardly limited to things we put in our body, incorporate into our religion or use as ornamentation. Corn be used to create ethanol, which fuels vehicles from cars to rocket ships; as dextrin it can be found in adhesives, soaps, insulation, drinking straws and ink; as corn syrup it is used for finishing textiles, shoe polish and theatrical make-up; and as corn starch it appears in rubber tires, insecticide powers and dry cell batteries. According to the Department of Agriculture, more than 90 million acres of American land are devoted to our corn harvests. Given the sheer multitude of uses that exist for the plant, this is hardly surprising.

The downsides of corn domination

Yet having such vast areas devoted entirely to a single crop have significant environmental costs. 

For one thing, as corn and soy have become the two dominant crops in America, crop species diversity has plummeted. This leaves America’s food supply more vulnerable to any external crises that might disrupt production, such as pests or extreme weather events.

Because the corn industry receives more government subsidies than any other crop (including $90 billion between 1995 and 2010), it is extremely expensive to taxpayers. It is also wasteful, in many ways, to grow corn at the quantities that we do; a more diverse use of the land, water, soil and fertilizer that goes into maintaining massive corn farms could yield more nutritional bang for our buck. Most of the corn we grow is either used for biofuels like ethanol or for animal feed, with the former not serving as a food (obviously) and the latter only doing so indirectly (and after losing a lot of calories and protein in the process of moving up the trophic ladder).

Finally, all of the fertilizers and pesticides used to maintain these massive corn crops inevitably run off into the water supply or otherwise become pollution.

It is also unhealthy for people to eat as much corn as currently exists in our diets. High-fructose corn syrup, for example, is a sweetener made from corn starch found in everything from candy and soda to fast food and condiments. This product is also linked to a higher risk of obesity, fatty liver disease, heart disease, diabetes and even cancer. The fructose itself particularly promotes the accumulation of visceral fat, or the fat directly around your organs that is particularly harmful to the body. Even worse, there is no nutritional value to high-fructose corn syrup. It removes all of the benefits to eating corn and includes a plethora of unnecessary dangers.

One might even characterize America’s dependence on corn as a national security risk. When President Donald Trump raised tariffs on Chinese products and they responded by increasing rates on certain American imports, the corn industry needed Washington bailouts to stay afloat. A significant chunk of America’s corn harvest is sent overseas, and this seeming flaw is a feature rather than a bug

Earl Butz, who served as Secretary of Agriculture under presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, is widely regarded as a pioneer in modern American corn policy because he emphasized selling overseas and producing at a high volume. This caused corn prices to drop and encouraged businesses to find innovative new ways to use this suddenly dirt-cheap vegetable. (Butz would later be interviewed for the 2007 documentary “King Corn,” which discussed his policies.)

In 1976, when singer Pat Boone asked him why the Republican Party does poorly among African American voters, Butz infamously replied with an unprintable racist remark. Butz later resigned in disgrace. 

Corn and climate

In general, people will have more trouble accessing food once supply chains break down due to extreme weather events, but the corn industry will be particularly vulnerable as droughts and heat waves make it harder to yield bountiful harvests. If an adverse climate change-related development manages to impact a certain species of corn, it could deal a body-blow to the industry because so many corn species are genetically similar. The ripple effect of any damage to the corn industry along these lines will mainly effect people with low incomes.

“Climate change has a demonstrably negative effect on the planet’s natural ecosystem (pests, coral bleaching etc.) which is pivotal for agrarian production,” Shahram Azhar, an assistant professor of economics at Bucknell University, told Salon last month. “For working-class people, this basically means more food insecurity, malnourishment, and poverty through rising food prices on the one hand and instability in jobs and incomes on the other.”

How the myth of ‘border security’ empowers American fascists

The week began with photographs of white men on horseback swinging reins at Black Haitians at the southern border. The El Paso Times captured images of mounted Border Patrol agents trying to force migrants, carrying food and supplies, back over the Rio Grande into Mexico. This week ended with Joe Biden expressing outrage. “I promise you those people will pay,” the president told reporters this morning. “They will be investigated. There will be consequences.”

That’s good, but the larger problem is that the president keeps accepting the premise of “border security” — an ideologically conservative premise. The first step to reforming the government’s attitude and hence policy toward the border is to stop accepting the premise as if the GOP means it. They don’t. They don’t care about “border security.” What they care about is having a tool with which to bully Democratic presidents into doing what they want them to do.

That strategy has been wildly successful. The Democrats have been on their heels since at least the Clinton administration. According to the Editorial Board‘s Elizabeth F. Cohen, professor of political science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, so-called border security “is a familiar posture, whether or not immigration reform is on the table. Bill Clinton presided over the creation of a legal architecture leading to mass immigrant incarceration. Barack Obama pushed the limits of the deportation infrastructure that was built in the interim, deporting more people from this country than any president to this day.”

Biden has proven progressive in ways a lot of progressives have been delighted to discover. When it comes to immigration and border policy, though, he’s in the vein of his former boss. Barack Obama once believed mass deportations would inspire the Republicans to negotiate over comprehensive immgration reform. After many years and many families rent asunder, he came to understand they didn’t mean what they said. By the time he realized “border security” meant “don’t admit Black and brown people” — by the time he realized “illegal immigrants” meant “Black and brown people are illegal” — it was too late.


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


And yet the Democrats keep talking about “border security” as if the Republicans really believe it’s important. Worse, they keep funding it. Customs and Border Patrol is now the biggest federal law enforcement agency in the United States. Along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the CBP eats up “nearly $20 billion a year, a non-trivial portion of which goes to shadowy private companies like Geo Group and Core Civic for incarceration,” according to Elizabeth. With virtually unlimited resources comes incredible and virtually unchecked power. “They decide who gets arrested, who gets hearings, who is deported, and who will be jailed indefinitely. They are huge, awash in cash, poorly supervise and incentivized to be maximally cruel,” Elizabeth wrote.

You might think that’s an acceptable price to prevent drug and human trafficking, gun-running and other criminal activity. You might think that’s an acceptable price to keep Americans safe. Fact is, though, you’re getting more security from local police departments than you’re getting from America’s biggest cop shop. For all the billions spent, for all the advanced technology, and for all the miles of border wall built over 20 years, ICE and CBP “have not reduced crime rates, ended the illegal narcotics trade, prevented the flow and use of deadly weapons, or in any other way made people safer,” Elizabeth wrote in April.

What has been accomplished? A huge and lawless bureaucracy. ICE is subject to thousands of sexual assault and harrassment complaints every year. CPB is known for working with armed vigilantes who “patrol” the border. An inspector general report found that American citizens and American journalists were being tracked by CPB. Both agencies served as the former president’s “secret police” last year. Elizabeth: “There are many reasons that we find ourselves living with two sprawling immigration police forces that each year encroach further on the basic civil rights and safety of everyone in the US.” Me: The more we accept the premise that we need “border security,” the more we empower fascists inside the United States government.

Border Patrol’s most basic purpose is regulating flows of people in and out of the United States. It can’t do its job, though, because its job is impossible. The horsemen incident is a case in point. The pictures we saw showed mounted Border Patrol agents trying to force Haitian migrants back into Mexico. Thing is, they already crossed. They had gone back to Mexico to get food. Video of the horsemen show Haitians just walking around them. It was an exercise invoking images of slave catchers, yes. But it was also an exercise in futility. I mean, more than 10,000 people walked over in broad daylight. The CBP was impotent.

For those wondering if a wall would work, no, it wouldn’t. The southern border is nearly 2,000 miles long. Most of it is the Rio Grande. It’s subject to seasonal monsoons. That means flooding, major flooding. No sooner does the government put up walls and other barriers than Mother Nature comes along to knock it all down. And if the monsoons don’t knock them down, the smugglers will. America’s effect at “border security” has been as successful as its war on drugs.

While “border security” isn’t attainable (in the way Republicans define it), it might be desirable to try — if the Republicans meant what they said. They don’t, though. Every time Barack Obama tried meeting their demands, they created new ones, forcing the former president to keep chasing ever-receding horizons. I don’t know what Joe Biden has in mind by putting Haitians on airplanes and sending them back. But if we’re ever going to get a Democratic president to change his mind, we have to convince more people that “border security” is a canard.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article referred to “white men on horseback cracking whips at Black Haitians.” An original source for that claim subsequently issued a correction, noting, “Our reporting team witnessed at least one agent on horseback swing his reins like a whip. We have updated the story to clarify that fact since it was not an actual whip.” This article has been updated to reflect that correction.

GOP congressmen reap millions in federal loans for personal car dealerships

While President Biden’s CARES Act has in many ways proven a lifeline for thousands of businesses struggling to stay afloat amid the COVID-19 crisis, the PPP loan program, coordinated by the Small Business Administration (SBA), has also been the subject of great controversy, with many critics arguing that its provisions were abused by massive corporations that hardly needed the extra boost. 

Back in December, The New York Times reported that just 1% of the businesses that received federal COVID-19 relief raked in over a quarter of the total loan amounts disbursed. “The money,” the Times wrote, “was shared unevenly, with the biggest sums going to a sliver of the companies in need.” Roughly 600 large businesses received maximum loans amounts of $10 million. Even public companies with massive cash reserves – like Ruth’s Chris, Shake Shack, and AutoNation – took in PPP loans, casting doubt over the program’s ability to fairly distribute aid.

The program, however, faced it’s perhaps worst reputational blow even months before that report, when it was revealed that scores of lawmakers (and their families) received millions in loans for their own personal businesses, even when these same lawmakers may have had a hand in writing the program’s provisions. To boot, some of these lawmakers opposed legislation that would have added to the program’s transparency, potentially allowing them to benefit from undue federal aid behind the curtain. 


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


According to a Sludge report, at least 28 members of Congress (or their spouses) benefited from some $27 million in small business loans. Some of these members include Reps. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., Kevin Hern, R-Okla., Greg Pence, R-Ind., and Carol Miller, R-W.Va.

One of these lawmakers, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., received federal loans ranging between $150,000 and $350,000 for his various car dealerships, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. Kelly, who voted “no” on the TRUTH Act – which would have required the SBA to disclose all of the PPP’s recipients in addition to their loan amounts – is tied to four businesses that benefited from the program, including Mike Kelly Automotive Group Inc., Mike Kelly Automotive LP, Mike Kelly Hyundai Inc., and Kelly Chevrolet Cadillac. 

A spokesperson for his office told the Inquirer that Kelly is “not involved in the day-to-day operations of his auto dealerships and was not part of the discussions between the business and the PPP lender.” However, The Post Gazette found last July that he was still named as the president of Mike Kelly Hyundai, Mike Kelly Automotive, and Kelly Chevrolet Cadillac on one of his recent House financial disclosures, with his wife reporting a salary from Kelly Chevrolet Cadillac. 

Kelly is the 39th wealthiest member of Congress, according to a 2018 analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, with a net worth of $12.4 million. 

Other lawmakers who benefited from the PPP program include Reps. Roger Williams, R-Tex., and Vern Buchanan, R-Fla.

According to Sludge, Williams, who boasts a net worth of $27.7 million, took in over $1.4 million for his JRW Corporation, valued $50 million back in 2019. The conservative legislator also reaped federal aid for his Roger Williams Chrysler Dodge Jeep dealership in North Texas. 

“I didn’t personally benefit from [the loan],” he told Fox Business Network last year. “I’ve got hundreds of employees – they benefited from it.”

Earlier that year, in March of 2020, Williams painted a very different picture of government subsidies, telling The Epoch Times that “a socialist wants you to get a check from the government…a capitalist wants you to get a check from the place that you work.”

Williams, who voted against the TRUTH Act, also came under scrutiny from the House Ethics Committee back in 2016, when he tucked an ostensibly self-serving provision into President Obama’s Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. The line item, which he himself authored, effectively ensured that his own dealerships would be able to skirt a federal prohibition on renting out cars under safety recalls. 

Rep. Buchanan, the third wealthiest member of Congress as of 2018, engaged in similar conduct with his various car dealerships. The Bradenton Herald reported that the Florida lawmaker, worth roughly $74 million, accepted loans totaling anywhere from $2.7 million to $7 million for three of his personal businesses. The largest went to Sarasota Ford, his Sarasota-based car dealership in which he reportedly owns a $50 million stake. 

Like Kelly, Buchanan downplayed the significance of the federal aid, arguing that he himself does not manage the dealerships. But many government accountability advocates have speculated that Buchanan’s move was an abuse of power. 

“While small businesses in Sarasota and Bradenton struggled to get federal aid, Buchanan cut in line and got a loan in the earliest days of the program – after the Trump administration exempted members of Congress from going through a normally mandatory ethics review before getting a loan,” Sarah Guggenheimer, DCCC Regional Press Secretary, wrote

Buchanan did not vote on the TRUTH Act. His past campaign finance practices have been marred with accusations of corruption, as well as subsequent investigations by the Department of Justice, the FBI, the FEC, and the House Ethics Committee. 

During the program’s administration, which ended back in May, there was no rule barring federal lawmakers (or their families) from applying for a PPP loan, and no one has explicitly argued that such legislators broke any laws. 

However, “it certainly looks bad and smells bad,” Aaron Scherb, a spokesperson for Common Cause, told Fortune, suggesting that their participation in the program poses a significant conflict of interest. According to a Politico report from last year, Congress mandated no specific disclosure rules around PPP loans for its own members.

“There likely are several other cases of family and friends of public officials receiving bailout funds,” echoed Craig Holman, Public Citizen’s Capitol Hill lobbyist, to Roll Call. “However, the general lack of disclosure of most recipients of PPP funds prevents the public from knowing all the lawmakers who benefited from their legislative actions.”

Empire of chickenhawks: Why America’s chaotic departure from Afghanistan was actually perfect

The biggest fallacy about our exit from Afghanistan is that there was a “good” way for us to get out. There is no good way to lose a war. With defeat comes humiliation. We were humiliated in the way we pulled out of Kabul — and we should have been, because we believed the lies we had been told right up to the last moment.

The lies we heard at the end of our war in Afghanistan wereas the same ones we were told, and were only too happy to believe, for 20 long years: that everything was going swimmingly. Remember earlier in the summer when the headlines were about how the Taliban controlled a large percentage of the territory in Afghanistan, but the Afghan government and its supposed army still controlled the provincial capitals and Kabul, and that was where the power was.

What a total crock of shit. Everyone was shocked — shocked — when the headlines started to come. Aug. 9, from the AP: “Taliban press on, take two more provincial capitals.” That story was a doozie. “On Monday they [the Taliban] controlled five of the country’s 34 provincial capitals.” It didn’t really matter which two capitals the Taliban had taken. You had to read way down in the story to discover they were Aybak, capital of Samangan province, and Sar-e-Pul, capital of Sar-e-Pul province. Where the hell were they? Who had even heard of them? 

That was Monday. By Wednesday, Aug. 11, here was the headline in Al Jazeera: “Timeline: Afghanistan provincial capitals captured by the Taliban.” How many, you might ask? In two days, the count had ballooned from five capitals to 18. Eighteen. Later that day, both Al Jazeera and Reuters were reporting that U.S. intelligence sources were saying that Kabul could “fall to Taliban within 90 days.”

Surprise! Three days later, the evacuation of Kabul began. On Sept. 1, two weeks later, CBS News headlined: “This is the last American soldier to leave Afghanistan” with an eerie night-vision video capture of Maj. Gen. Chris Donahue, commander of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, XVIII Airborne Corps, headed up the ramp of a C-17 cargo jet wearing full combat gear including bulletproof vest and helmet with night-vision goggles attached, carrying his M-4 automatic rifle.

How did Afghanistan collapse so quickly to Taliban control? Because “we” — the U.S. military and its NATO allies — never controlled it to begin with. Nor did our puppets in the so-called Afghan government. The idea that we ever did, that we ever “controlled” or even had our finger on the pulse of the “graveyard of empires” was a lie. 

You know who told us that lie? Every government from George W. Bush on, and every general ever put in charge of that doomed mission. Every single one of them reported that all was well, that the Afghan army was 300,000 strong, that the Taliban was on the run, that the Afghan air force was taking over from the missions flown by American warplanes, that the Afghans had their own helicopters now. And that the Afghan president, whether it was Ashraf Ghani or Hamid Karzai, was firmly in charge back in Kabul.

And you know who went along with that fiction? The United States Congress, which voted for 20 years to spend the $2 trillion we pissed away over there, and each of the presidents — yes, including Barack Obama and Donald Trump — who approved every increase of troops, every troop withdrawal, every “surge” that was advertised as the solution to end all solutions, the thing that would finally put the Taliban on the run. Remember all the Taliban commanders we were told were killed? A drone strike took out this one! Another drone strike took out that one! Wow! We had to be winning if the Taliban was losing so many important leaders!

And then there were the keyboard commandos back in Washington and New York, and the neocons from the Council on Foreign Relations, and the growing chorus of retired generals — among them all of the commanders of our Afghanistan mission — who were all over the op-ed pages and cable news assuring us that All Was Well, as they racked up the megabucks sitting on the boards of defense contractors selling all the military shit that was winning the war for us. “The eight generals who commanded American forces in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2018 have gone on to serve on more than 20 corporate boards,” the Washington Post reported on Sept. 4, three days after we exited from Kabul with our tail between our legs. 

There was Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who oversaw the big “surge” of 2009 that was the answer-to-end-all-answers to every problem we were having over there. He has been “a board member or adviser for at least 10 companies since 2010, according to corporate filings and news releases,” the Post reported. There was Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., who commanded allied forces in 2013 and 2014, who went on to serve on the board of Lockheed Martin, the gigantic defense contractor. There was Gen. John R. Allen, commander in Afghanistan before Dunford, who is the president of the Brookings Institution, which has received $1.5 million over three years from Northrop Grumman, according to the Post. And Gen. David Petraeus, who preceded Allen and now sits on the board of KKR, a private equity firm in New York with many investments in the defense industry.

All of these gentlemen — and let’s take a moment to note they are all men, not a female commander among them — reported back to us from their command posts in Afghanistan how well things were going over there, how we were all over the Taliban, how the Afghan government was successfully “standing up” its well-equipped, well-trained army to defend the country from the Taliban. And then they went on cable TV and continued their lies when they got back to the U.S. and retired from the Army, because that’s what generals today do. They sit on corporate boards, they give incredibly well-paid speeches, they go on TV and they rake in the Big Bucks because they were so successful in Afghanistan … and in Iraq, too. Remember Petraeus and his “surge” in 2007? Boy, were we ever surging, huh? I remember Newsweek published a cover image of Petraeus in 2004 wearing in his combat fatigues, standing on a tarmac with a Blackhawk helicopter behind him, with the headline: “Can this man save Iraq?” The story, believe it or not, was about how Petraeus was taking over the training of the Iraqi army, and that was what was going to “save Iraq.” Don’t you think we should have concluded, when the “surge” became necessary in 2007, that Petraeus had utterly failed in his mission to train the Iraqi army and “save Iraq” back in 2004?

The words “crock of shit” again come to mind, but they are far, far from adequate. These presidents, and these members of Congress, and these generals, and these war-happy pundits, ran a great big gigantic con on the citizens of this country who were paying the taxes which — someday, perhaps — will pay for the $2 trillion we pissed away over in Afghanistan, and the trillions we pissed away in Iraq, too. They lied over and over and over again that with just another troop surge, or another troop withdrawal (because suddenly everything was hunky-dory) and of course just another infusion of billions and billions of dollars and the lost of a couple thousand more American lives we could “win” in Afghanistan and “win” in Iraq. 

Over there, they laughed at us. The Afghans and the Iraqis who took the money, took all the equipment we gave them, took 20 years of our politics and our “prestige” as a nation, and the whole time they were laughing their heads off, because they knew what we didn’t know. None of it was working. None of it would ever work. And one day we would be headed out of both countries with our tails between our legs, because that’s what you do when you lose. 

That’s why our frantic, chaotic exit from Kabul was perfect, because it perfectly capped off 20 years of lies about what was really going on over there, 20 years of frantic, chaotic thrashing around and throwing money and the bodies of young American men and women at a problem that could never be solved. It was an enormous delusion that we, the United States of America, could march into those countries thousands of miles away from our shores and — if we spent enough money and invented and fielded enough “mine resistant vehicles” and fired enough missiles from enough drones at enough “Taliban commanders” — could somehow emerge from those quagmires victorious. 

We couldn’t, and we didn’t, and when that American major general, all kitted-out in the combat gear we spent 20 years dressing our soldiers in, scampered up the ramp of that cargo jet to steal away from the Kabul airport in the middle of the night, it was the absolute perfect ending to the perfect disaster the war in Afghanistan had always been. We were humiliated in front of the entire world, as we should have been. The way we left Afghanistan “did damage to our credibility and to our reputation,” the famous Gen. Petraeus told CBS when it was all over. 

Yeah, it did, Dave, and it should have. Maybe now the geniuses who got us into those godforsaken disastrous wars and kept us there will think twice before they do it again. 

Except, wait. That was supposed to have been the great “lesson of Vietnam.” Never mind.

Short on evidence, dubious therapies turn to the tongue

When Kimberly Sheldon was 47, she says made the biggest mistake of her life. That was in 2018, when she says that a dentist explained to her that cutting the tissue under her tongue would help her jaw pain, gum recession, and occasional headaches. Her issues, he said, could be due to the fact that the back of her tongue couldn’t reach the roof of her mouth. With a quick laser slice, a $600 charge, and some instruction on tongue exercises, he seemed confident that she would feel better soon after.

But, according to her account, the dentist didn’t explain the possible risks, which include nerve damage and scarring that can restrict the tongue. Sheldon only found out about the issues after she experienced them. Since then, she says, the effects have torn her life apart.

The idea that tongue position can contribute to health problems is not well-supported by research, but it’s edging towards the mainstream. Millions of people are watching YouTube videos about how the tongue allegedly influences the face and jaw, and books, videos, websites, and social media posts say that improper tongue position can contribute to a host of health issues — dental problems, sleep apnea, headaches, neck and back pain, and more. These ideas are especially becoming popular in dentistry — echoed by Colgate and a dental hygienists’ magazine. Some even claim that changing the tongue position can make people more attractive.

Two proposed solutions to help with an allegedly poor tongue posture are becoming more popular, which may be done together or separately (in Sheldon’s case, her dentist recommended both). The first is myofunctional therapy, a series of exercises to strengthen the tongue so that it can rest on the roof of the mouth. Celebrities, including Kourtney Kardashian, are promoting this therapy. The second is surgery on what some practitioners call a tongue-tie — a condition in which the tissue under the tongue, called the frenulum, is supposedly restricted.

Some tongue-ties are undisputed diagnoses — generally in very young children. In infancy, a type of tongue-tie where the frenulum attaches all the way to the front of the tongue and severely restricts its movement has been treated for hundreds of years. More controversial are hidden, or posterior, tongue-ties, which, as Undark previously reported, are increasingly diagnosed and cut in children. Adult tongue-tie diagnoses also lack rigorous evidence.

Despite the limited evidence, myofunctional therapy and tongue-tie surgeries are increasingly promoted as a treatment for the many ailments attributed to poor tongue posture in adults. Especially concerning, some experts say, is the claim that the therapy is an alternative treatment for sleep apnea, despite a lack of evidence and with possible risks to patients.

Many doctors, however, caution against the idea that changing tongue posture is a panacea. “I think people want to believe that myofunctional therapy is helpful,” Eric Kezirian, a professor and physician of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery at the University of Southern California, wrote in an email. “The problem is that the history of health care is littered with thousands upon thousands of treatments that were not helpful, or were in many cases harmful, in spite of people’s best intentions.” (An otolaryngologist is also called an ear, nose, and throat doctor, or ENT.)

To be sure, some patients say that tongue surgery and therapy has been life changing. In an invite-only Facebook group for tongue-tied adults, which has more than 15,000 members, some advocates report improvements in everything from facial composition to migraines, neck tension, anxiety, and even bowel movements. But not everyone has a positive experience. After the numbing wore off from Sheldon’s procedure, she says the pain was horrific; her tongue was pulled backwards and pinned down, gagging her. Her dentist recommended more tongue exercises, she says. It didn’t help. After months without improvement, Sheldon said a member of the Facebook group referred her to an oral surgeon four hours away, who also set her up with a myofunctional therapist.

The new surgeon said her problems were obvious: The first dentist missed a bit of tissue or ligament, and he would fix it with a second procedure. But after that second laser cut, Sheldon had a persistent painful burning sensation at the base of her tongue, and the tip and the underside became permanently numb — some of the nerves were damaged, she recalls being told. She couldn’t swallow solid foods, she says, and her weight dropped from 140 pounds to 106. Eventually, she was hospitalized due to difficulty swallowing, and got occupational therapy to help. Now, she sees a doctor every three months for related chronic pain.

* * *

When the frenulum is cut, it could damage nerves, salivary glands, and ducts that lead to salivary glands, says Soroush Zaghi, an otolaryngologist and sleep surgeon, as well as the medical director of The Breathe Institute in California, where Kardashian is a patient. There’s also a risk of scarring, which Zaghi says is the most common adverse outcome. Scar tissue can cause the tongue to contract and reduce tongue mobility.

Nonetheless, Zaghi advocates for a surgery that cuts through the frenulum and sometimes into the muscle. He calls the procedure a frenuloplasty, during which he cuts until the patient is able to lift their tongue so the tip is just behind the front teeth when their mouth is fully open, and the back of their tongue can reach the roof of the mouth. (Sheldon’s laser surgery was a different approach, and there is no consensus or evidence to indicate if one technique is better.)

A tongue-tie, Zaghi asserts, can contribute to improper facial development in children, plus mouth breathing, sleep apnea, and more. However, Cristina Baldassari, an otolaryngologist and sleep medicine specialist at Children’s Hospital of The King’s Daughters in Norfolk, Virginia, wrote in an email that there are no high quality research studies that demonstrate that tongue-tie causes any of these issues. The few studies that do exist have include small numbers of patients, or lack a control group.

Zaghi and others also promote myofunctional therapy, sometimes in conjunction with frenuloplasty, as a treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. But Baldassari says there isn’t sufficient evidence to support myofunctional therapy as a sleep apnea treatment, either. The few small studies that have been done did not show that the therapy alone could decrease moderate to severe sleep apnea. Baldassari says she worries that real harm could come to sleep apnea patients with a severe disorder if they eschew conventional medical treatment for tongue therapy, because there are risks for medical complications like stroke and heart attack if the disease goes untreated.

Cutting the frenulum could even make sleep worse, Baldassari says. Slicing through the tether could cause the tongue to fall back into the throat, obstructing the airway during sleep. This concern was echoed by Karthik Balakrishnan, a professor and physician of otolaryngology – head and neck surgery at Stanford University, though he pointed out there’s no research on the subject to know for sure. And even Zaghi says some people are better off with an intact frenulum, including those who don’t have enough space to accommodate their tongue high in their mouth, and those with low tongue muscle tone (though Zaghi cannot point to a method for providers to objectively assess these things, he says he’s working on it).

Baldassari points out that researchers know the tongue is involved in sleep apnea — devices that send electrical signals to the tongue, which cause it to move outward during inhalation during sleep, are effective at enlarging the airway. But, she says, if this tongue stimulation is strengthening the tongue, like myofunctional therapy proposes to do, it doesn’t have a lasting effect; if doctors turn the device off after a year, patients still have sleep apnea.

Yet Baldassari doesn’t mind if someone with mild sleep apnea or other conditions like neck tension, anxiety, bad posture, allergies, or teeth grinding, want to try myofunctional therapy, despite the lack of research, because she says there’s little risk. Still, she added in an email, “it likely will be a waste of time and money.”

* * *

In addition to the lack of strong evidence, both the tongue therapies and surgeries don’t have strong professional standards. Neither has a standardized protocol, so the process varies from one practitioner to another. And while tongue-tie surgeries are performed by licensed doctors or dentists, myofunctional therapists have no system of licensure. Sarah Hornsby, a myofunctional therapist a sizable YouTube following and therapy co-director at The Breathe Institute, who offers a training program through the institute, acknowledges that this lack of standardization is one reason the medical community is skeptical of the therapy and says it is something therapists are working towards.

Though Zaghi has published a method for assessing tongue-ties, he argues that at least some standards for myofunctional therapy are unnecessary. For instance, he says that myofunctional therapy shouldn’t all be based on one person’s protocols — he compared it to an exercise regimen, pointing out that there are benefits whether someone does yoga, pilates, weightlifting, or running.

Other experts disagree. If an exercise is used as a medical treatment, it needs to be researched that shows it’s effective, says Kezirian. “Myofunctional therapy has nothing like this,” he wrote in an email. (Kezirian holds a patent for a device to correct obstructive sleep apnea, as well as for head and neck exercises done with an apparatus to improve sleep disordered breathing, though he is not currently selling either product.) Not only do variations in practices make it difficult for researchers to evaluate whether it works, Baldassari wrote that “if there is a lack of standardization, there is no way to ensure that patients are getting adequate therapy.”

Myofunctional therapy lacks standardized training programs, too. A myofunctional therapist is often a dental hygienist, as Hornsby was; other times, the therapist may be a dentist or speech language pathologist who has completed a short online training program. Most of these programs, which are not accredited by a professional organization, cost thousands of dollars. (Several organizations, including the International Association of Orofacial Myology, do offer certifications to those who complete their training.) Even tongue-tie revision surgery training for dentists can be done online, or through a two-day course with two hours of hands-on instruction, and Zaghi teaches his frenuloplasty method online since the pandemic began.

Despite the lack of training and standards, myofunctional therapists stand to earn more than they did as dental hygienists, with fees ranging from $80 to $250 per session; those who are also dentists or speech therapists can charge more. And dentists who revise adult tongue-ties can charge up to about $1,500 for the procedure. “I do not want to suggest ulterior motives,” Kezirian wrote in an email, “but of course treatment is offered to patients that pay for services, often on their own because these treatments are not covered by medical insurance.”

Sheldon has also noticed these financial incentives. She avoids the adult tongue-tie Facebook group these days because she says practitioners are also members, and stand to profit from the groups’ messages. And when someone has an issue after a tongue-tie surgery, members tend to doubt whether that person did enough myofunctional therapy or found the right provider, instead of questioning the procedure itself.

Sheldon says she has struggled to forgive herself for agreeing to do something that brought her chronic pain and health problems. But one thing brings her peace: Because of her experience, she sought a second opinion when an orthodontist suggested that her son needed tongue-tie surgery in order for his teeth to be straightened. What happened to her, she says, saved her son from the possibility of a similar fate. Now, she adds, “I don’t believe that we’re supposed to be cutting people’s frenulums.”

* * *

Christina Szalinski is a freelance science writer with a Ph.D. in cell biology based near Philadelphia.

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

Ex-Illinois official illegally deleted records from Trump Tower investigation: report

The former director of an Illinois state agency who was tasked with reviewing former President Donald Trump tax records illegally deleted files from his official account amid an inspector general investigation, according to a new report.

The Chicago Tribune found that Mauro Glorioso, the former executive director of Illinois’ Property Tax Appeal Board, was at the center of an investigation being conducted by the Office of Executive Inspector General when he was removed from his position by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D).

The publication reports that an unnamed employee sounded the alarm on Glorioso violating the agency’s policies by illegally deleting records.

According to the report:

“An unnamed employee reported to the board’s chairman and the inspector general’s office on Oct. 14 that he had discovered a large number of files, including documents related to the still pending investigation, had been deleted from Glorioso’s folder on the agency’s computer network earlier that month.”

The inspector general investigation also led to the discovery of 200 appeal-related emails that had been deleted on October 2, 2020. The mass deletion occurred just three days after Glorioso had been interviewed in reference to the complaint. On October 5, dozens more of the emails were also deleted.

However, many of the files were able to be recovered through the state Department of Innovation and Technology’s backup database. Despite the investigative findings, Glorioso has denied any wrongdoing. In his affidavit, Glorioso insisted that he “only deleted the files because he knew backups existed and were in the state’s possession,” the publication reports.

“No one from the (Property Tax Appeal Board) IT department, or any other individual, had ever suggested to me that such a practice was not allowed,” Glorioso said in the affidavit. “To the best of my knowledge, backups of any emails or files that I deleted on my work computer are available today at the (Department of Innovation and Technology) should anyone wish to view them.”

However, the report noted that employees had been instructed to preserve all their relevant records.

The agency’s new executive director, Michael O’Malley, also released a statement noting that he could not speak on the investigative findings “other than to say that this board will continue to hold its staff and fellow board members to the highest standards of ethics and professionalism.”

O’Malley said, “Additionally, in an email to staff, I instructed PTAB staff to read the published OEIG report and use it as an example of what not to do during the course of an OEIG investigation.”

“Moms for Liberty” group demands schools ban books with “sexy” pictures of seahorses

On Friday, The Daily Beast reported that a far-right group in Williamson County, Tennessee, is demanding schools censor a number of books and subjects — including an unusual demand regarding pictures of marine life.

“Registering its website in late 2020, the group ‘Moms For Liberty’ is one of a series of conservative education groups to spring up in the wake of 2020’s racial justice protests,” reported Kelly Weill. “The group is currently involved in battles against in-school mask mandates, as well as a particularly heated fight over school books in Tennessee’s Williamson County.”

Among their demands are that lessons about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ruby Bridges be cut for being divisive, lessons about civil rights crackdowns be cut for “negative views of firemen and police,” and lessons about Galileo be revised for being too anti-church. The story of Johnny Appleseed was also condemned as “sad and dark,” Greek and Roman mythology for depicting the goddess Venus naked, and textbooks explaining the effects of hurricanes as too violent for first graders.

But one of the oddest crusades of the group is against a children’s picture book on seahorses, which they believe, according to Weill, “is too sexy.”


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


“MFL’s Williamson County chapter also takes issue with a picture book about seahorses, in part because it depicted ‘mating seahorses with pictures of postions [sic] and discussion of the male carrying the eggs,'” said the report. “The Daily Beast reviewed the text in question via a children’s story time YouTube channel. Readers looking for a Kama Sutra of seahorse sex will be disappointed. Sea Horse: The Shyest Fish In The Sea contains nothing more risqué than watercolor illustrations of two seahorses holding tails or touching bellies (never — heavens — at the same time).”

This comes as right-wing activists all around the country seek to stamp out the teaching of “critical race theory” in public schools — an advanced theory of systemic racism that is rarely if ever taught in public schools to begin with. Often, activists are instead turning on people who even teach about racism in any form, or even simply Black educators.

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

Chris Cuomo is a man who doesn’t think grabbing a woman’s butt unsolicited is sexual harassment, so why should he offer a sincere apology for it?

In an explosive new op ed in the New York Times, a veteran TV news executive has accused the CNN anchor of sexual harassment in 2005. Shelley Ross, who was Cuomo’s boss at the time, recounts how Cuomo groped her at a work party, then later sent an email apologizing for the incident — first to Ross’ husband, and then to her.

Ross writes that the alleged incident took place when “[Cuomo] walked toward me and greeted me with a strong bear hug while lowering one hand to firmly grab and squeeze the cheek of my buttock.” According to Ross, Cuomo said to her, “‘I can do this now that you’re no longer my boss,’ with a kind of cocky arrogance.” Ross recalls “pushing him off me at the chest while stepping back, revealing my husband, who had seen the entire episode at close range. We quickly left.”

Soon after the incident, she received an email from Cuomo about being “ashamed.” However, the apology left Ross with questions:

My question today is the same as it was then: Was he ashamed of what he did, or was he embarrassed because my husband saw it? (He apologized first in his email to my “very good and noble husband” and then to me for “even putting you in such a position.”) Mr. Cuomo may say this is a sincere apology. I’ve always seen it as an attempt to provide himself with legal and moral coverage to evade accountability.

Cuomo has since responded to Ross’ op ed in a statement shared by the Washington Post: “As Shelley acknowledges, our interaction was not sexual in nature. It happened 16 years ago in a public setting when she was a top executive at ABC. I apologized to her then, and I meant it.” 

The apology from the CNN anchor has grim similarities with his brother, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s lacking “apologies,” also for workplace sexual harassment allegations. Both deny any “sexual nature” in their actions, suggesting that if these women had perceived a “sexual nature,” it was their imagination. The brothers could perhaps benefit from looking up the dictionary definition of gaslighting. 

Speaking of Andrew Cuomo, Chris Cuomo has been no stranger to controversy lately, even prior to Ross’ op ed. The “Cuomo Prime Time” host faced an avalanche of criticism earlier this year for his role in advising Andrew as the governor’s sexual harassment scandal unfolded — all while continuing to host his show.

The op ed from Ross, who has previously alleged sexual harassment from the late Fox News executive Roger Ailes, has since sparked outrage on social media, most notably for Cuomo’s initial apology to Ross’ husband, before saying sorry to Ross herself. Others have questioned whether Cuomo would have apologized at all, were it not for her husband seeing the inappropriate hug. 

For many women, the email apology reflects a familiar pattern of men often respecting women more as the objects or possessions of other men, than as actual people — not unlike street harassers or aggressive men at bars backing down when a woman is accompanied by a man.

Ultimately, Ross concludes her op ed not by calling for Cuomo to be fired from CNN or to give up his prime time show. Instead, she expressed that she wants to see him “journalistically repent: agree on air to study the impact of sexism, harassment and gender bias in the workplace, including his own, and then report on it.” She called for a series of town hall meetings titled “The Continuing Education of Chris Cuomo.”

One study found 60% of women say they experience “unwanted sexual attention, sexual coercion, sexually crude conduct, or sexist comments” in the workplace. A whopping 90% of employees who experience sexual misconduct don’t report this experience, according to the same study.

Many audiences and obviously Cuomo himself would certainly benefit from CNN shining a light on this issue. But Cuomo’s own response to Ross’ op ed shows little interest in investing this sort of effort, or really even discussing the incident further.

“Dear White People” visits the “Big Brother” Cookout via a pointed parody of reality show racism

Dear White People” could not have asked for a better concluding coincidence than the parallel between this season’s show-within-a-show “Big House” and the current cycle of “Big Brother,” the CBS reality show it parodies.

The 23rd round of “Big Brother” is set to be the first in the show’s existence in which a Black player will win. This is all thanks to The Cookout, an alliance of Black players who secretly agreed to stick together near the top of the season expressly to achieve that purpose.

Reactions to The Cookout have fallen along predictable lines, with an offending slice of the “Big Brother” viewership boo-hooing about this alliance’s supposedly racist underpinnings. This intentionally ignores all the prior seasons’ history of treating racism as a sideshow attraction and white players excluding people of color with a regularity you can set your watch to.

Before The Cookout only one Black person made it to any Fiinal Six over the past 11 seasons, as Reality Blurred’s Andy Dehnart reports in his concise breakdown of the team’s extraordinary run. Now that “Big Brother” is down to its final three candidates the gender breakdown becomes a fascinating factor, since the choices are between two men, Derek Frazier and Xavier Prather, and a woman, Azah Awasum.

Obviously “Dear White People” creator Justin Simien and showrunner Yvette Lee Bowser did not think such a turn was possible, although the show’s parody, “Big House,” ends up crowning a Black champion who wins by force, and whose victory is itself a part of the farce.


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


Representing the Netflix show’s fictional Ivy League school Winchester University in “Big House” are Colandrea “Coco” Conners (Antoinette Robertson), the Black student community’s embodiment of assimilationist striving, and her best white friend Muffy Tuttle (Caitlin Carver).

Muffy is the walking representation of clueless white girl privilege, the type of girl who means well but can never entirely understand why her Black friends are so upset over the state of the world. She and Coco have their ups and downs but always find a way back to each other. Nevertheless, taking part in “Big House” snaps their bond as the gameplay breaks down, predictably, along racial lines manipulated into the storyline by the show’s producers. One of the first casualties of the season is the other Black woman, who the white kids and producers goad Coco into betraying.

What goes down inside “Big House” isn’t central to the fourth and final season of “Dear White People,” but it fulfills the same purpose as previous seasons’ show parodies by becoming a metaphorical mirror to the main theme. In this last season the Armstrong-Parker students are in their senior year and finding themselves with a surfeit of choices, many of them forcing each characters to weigh their integrity against guarantees of career success, fame and for some, huge paydays. It’s also a 1990s-style musical building toward a theatrical production that is, yes, a 1990s-style musical.

The storyline leaps between the future and the core ensemble’s senior year, when the honor of producing Winchester’s traditional Varsity Show falls to Armstrong-Parker House for the first time. An opening scene from the future (where, sorry to say, the pandemic is no longer a societal bug but a feature) hints that creating the show leads to a falling out between Sam (Logan Browning) and Lionel (DeRon Horton). Others, including Troy (Brandon P. Bell) merely fall out of touch.

The exception to this is Sam’s friendship with Joelle (Ashley Blaine Featherson), still going strong after graduation. This is worth noting in the context of Coco’s future, where she holds political office but doesn’t appear to have many friends.

Structuring the entire season around pop interludes has proven to be a polarizing, at least among critics. Such the case with musicals: people either love them wholeheartedly or tolerate them in doses.

But if you follow the original urging by Giancarlo Esposito’s narrator, and watch closely from another angle, the melodic approach makes sense.

“Dear White People” draws its season-long arc from contemporary conversations about racism and race relations in America. That’s been the case since Simien’s 2014 independent film of the same name, from which the first season recycles and expands core characters, story and structure.

Subsequent seasons build upon Simien’s original critique of mainstream culture’s devotion to the convenient myth of a post-racial America, with Season 2 questioning our devotion to legacy and the third presenting cautionary tales about hero worship. But the show’s focus on how white audiences perceive Black people and how that view contributes to the way they’re treated by their peers, by law enforcement and political and social systems, remains constant.

It’s the reason “Dear White People” treats the fourth wall as permeable, with characters frequently cutting their eyes in the direction of the camera as a silent inquiry, acknowledging they know we’re watching and hoping, perhaps, that we’re seeing situations as they do.

The description for this technique is Brechtian, named for playwright Bertolt Brecht, and a term Future Lionel drops and defines both for the audience’s edification and Sam’s. (He also shades Sam for getting so far in her filmmaking career without knowing this technique’s proper definition.) Lionel applies the term to a project they’re mapping, but it also explains the finale season’s creative direction.

Brechtian technique and epic theater are intellectual concepts one would most likely learn about at a place like Winchester, so of course it guides “Dear White People” from Esposito’s narration to the musical numbers that define this cohort’s senior year.

Even if the series never mentioned the term, the show parodies bring attention to its principle of calling attention to the viewer and questioning our objectivity. Mainly, though they’re simple, edgy satires designed to give the students a reason to be in community.

In Season 1 the show’s “Scandal” parody “Defamation” is must-see TV for Armstrong-Parker House residents, transforming the dormitory common room into a neutral, welcoming space.

This changes in the second season when a fire forces the historically Black hall to integrate. During gatherings to watch the drama’s “Love & Hip Hop” equivalent “Traphouse Tricks,” the “Empire” spoof “Prince O’ Palities,” or “Dereca: Set Me Straight,” white students treat the Black characters in these shows as comic stereotypes, making their Black peers uncomfortable.

Calling attention to our love affair with problematic entertainment is precisely what these joke shows are supposed to do, hand in hand with entertaining us. In case that point isn’t apparent, the third season’s in your face clones of “The Handmaid Tale,” “Queer Eye” and Simien’s exaggerated minstrel figure Mista Griggins set it off in neon.

“Big House,” then, is a fitting last act to the in-story metatextual lineup. Instead of existing in tandem with the lives of Winchester students it absorbs one of them, Coco, into its terrarium. Nobody can look away from what happens.

The fact that Coco’s character is on a reality show that takes place inside a season where everyone else spontaneously bursts into song is uniquely absurd. At the same time, it all makes sense.

Antoinette Robertson and Caitlin Carver compete on “Big House” in “Dear White People” (Lara Solank/Netflix)

Out of everyone at Armstrong-Parker, Coco is the one who is most concerned with how she looks, how she’s perceived and how many people are watching her at any given moment. She goes to ridiculous lengths to insert herself in white spaces early in the series, but as she’s matured her experiences with white students at Winchester and her own people make her more ruthless and obsessed with setting herself up for long term success. That give her the edge in “Big House.”

At first she assumes a nice girl persona to avoid being painted as another aggressive, unapproachable Black woman. But another Black girl who could be her twin enters the house, and that woman has a British accent, which in Coco’s mind places her one step closer to whiteness.

Out of self-preservation Coco throws in with Muffy, assuming her white college friend will save her come election time. (Hmm, why does that sound familiar?) She doesn’t . . . but a production-inserted twist does, because the self-serving persona Coco creates is too good to let go.

Discussing his parodies with Vanity Fair in 2018, Simien pointed out how they fit the show’s overall exploration of “the dichotomy between the roles that we play and who we really are. And the thing that conditions us is our culture and the things that we watch on TV.”

With that in mind, let’s return The Cookout and examine why the team’s success on “Big Brother” feels like a true victory, whereas the win scripted for Coco is, by intent, hollow. Start with the reason this Black contestant bloc came to be on “Big Brother” in the first place, which was the result of CBS’ 2020 diversity pledge that its reality show casts would henceforth include at least 50% Black, Indigenous and people of color representation.

That merely got folks in the door. Without making the choice to act with an eye toward achieving a goal history indicates none could fulfill on their own, we wouldn’t be looking at an all-Black final three heading into the season-ending episodes. It goes back to what Cookout compatriot Tiffany Mitchell said when the alliance initially formed in July: “Everything is not about the game.”

Derek agreed with her, saying “It’s not! We’re here to also change the culture. Think about the year we just had.”

Some of this conversation is self-serving strategy, since winning on “Big Brother” and similar competition shows that employ social elements requires people to display loyalty to other players until that loyalty has outlived its purpose.

Still, it’s telling that Derek, the man who spoke about playing for a purpose greater than himself, also prevented the final three from being a complete sausage fest. Azah went into Thursday’s eviction episode outnumbered three to one by her male housemates, but Derek voted to save her – a move Xavier claimed as a product of his manipulations.

The how and why of it matters less than the knowing the outcome places a Black woman within reach of $750,000 for the first time “Big Brother” history.

Coco also secures the “Big House” crown, which comes with a portion of fame she parlays into a political career. But at the friends’ future reunion she forlornly admits she wishes she had the luxury of, as others describe it, doing one project for “them” – i.e., to pay the rent – and one for personal fulfillment.

“‘Big House’ was the last time I let them be generically powerful white people,” Future Coco says very sadly, “But it was for them.”

The last players standing at The Cookout have no such reason to hang their heads, which makes me wonder whether Coco’s meta debut would have turned out differently if they had showed up on CBS even a year or two earlier. But while this may not be the last time “Big Brother” has a non-white winner, The Cookout is likely a one-time phenomenon.

Whereas “Dear White People” and its in-show satires gaze at issues that existed before the series and will be with us years from now, asking through punchlines and meaningful stares at the audience whether the questions asked through the title will ever be answered to everyone’s satisfaction.

“Dear White People” is currently streaming on Netflix. “Big Brother” airs Sundays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at 8 p.m. on CBS, and also streams on Paramount+.

Who is Kash Patel, the Trump associate subpoenaed by Jan. 6 committee?

The Democratic-led select committee charged with investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection has issued its first batch of subpoenas, targeting a spate of Donald Trump associates to uncover more details behind how the insurrection unfolded. 

CNN reports that subpoenas were delivered to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, former adviser Steve Bannon, former deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino and Kash Patel, a former chief of staff to then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller. 

“The Select Committee is investigating the facts, circumstances, and causes of the January 6th attack and issues relating to the peaceful transfer of power, in order to identify and evaluate lessons learned and to recommend to the House and its relevant committees corrective laws, policies, procedures, rules, or regulations,” House Select Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said in a statement. 

A committee letter specifically outlined why each of the four will be targeted, according to MSNBC. Bannon, it alleged, “[communicated] with then-President Trump on December 30” and “[urged] him to plan for and focus his efforts on January 6.” Meadows “engaged in multiple elements of the planning and preparation of efforts to contest the presidential election and delay the counting of electoral votes.”

Scavino, the committee added, was reportedly “with the former President on Jan. 5, when he and others were considering how to convince members of Congress not to certify the election for Joe Biden.”

And there is “substantial reason” to believe Patel has documents that could reveal the Defense Department’s role in “preparing for and responding to the attack on the U.S. Capitol.”


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


Particular attention has been aimed at Patel, who was this week accused by Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia adviser, of “running a secret backchannel to President Trump on Ukraine matters,” Axios reports.

According to Politico, Patel’s name has been brought up in a number of depositions about Trump’s alleged scheme to withhold U.S. military support from Ukraine. It was in this scheme that Trump reportedly sought information from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that would damage then-presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign prospects. 

Patel, 41, first rose to prominence for his work as a top staffer on the House Intelligence Committee, serving the efforts of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to delegitimize the FBI and the Justice Department during the Trump-Russia probe. Patel helped assemble a separate probe into the origins of the FBI’s investigation – a venture the FBI called “extraordinarily reckless” because of its potential to publicize classified information about its own ongoing federal investigation, Politico noted.

Patel later ascended through the ranks to become the National Security Council’s senior director for counterterrorism, becoming “increasingly drawn into Trump’s battle against an intelligence community,” a Washington Post op-ed detailed. There, he helped Trump oust a number of the former president’s detractors. “Patel was the action officer,” recalled a former top intelligence official to the Post. “He made it happen.”

According to Hill’s congressional testimony, while on the NSC, Patel grew more involved in U.S.-Ukraine relations, to the point where Trump regarded him as the designated point man on the matter. 

Joshua Geltzer, who was in Patel’s position earlier during the Trump administration, told Politico that Patel’s advisory role would have been way outside Patel’s purview. 

“If true, this sort of activity seems wildly outside the scope of anything a counterterrorism senior director at NSC should be spending their time on,” Geltzer said. “What’s more, it politicizes a piece of the NSC staff that administrations of both parties have worked for decades to keep as apolitical as possible.”

Patel, for his part, has denied any wrongdoing from current and past colleagues, telling Axios that he never “communicated with the president on any matters involving Ukraine.”

“I pride myself on my record as a dedicated national security professional who is entrusted to handle our nation’s most sensitive matters,” he said in a subsequent statement. “At no time have I strayed from my mission to protect the homeland in service to President Trump and the National Security Council.”

Patel, Bannon, Meadows and Scavino are all expected to appear before the select committee in mid-October.

Michigan’s Gov. Whitmer gives up ability to enact mask, vaccine mandates in new budget bill

After a great deal of negotiating, Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Republicans in the Michigan State Legislature have worked out a budget bill — and according to Detroit Free Press reporter Dave Boucher, the “nearly $70-billion budget proposal…. mandates the state publish detailed justification for any future pandemic orders.”

Boucher reports, “Michigan public agencies may not require employees or customers be vaccinated against COVID-19 while state and local health officials cannot enact or enforce mask rules for K-12 students under provisions of a budget bill that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and legislative leaders say will be approved.”

Michigan Senate Bill 82, according to Boucher, passed in the Michigan State Senate with “unanimous support.”

Boucher says of the bill, “The language banning vaccine mandates or passports is thorough, but does provide a federal caveat. State agencies cannot require vaccinations for people to enter any public facility, ‘except as provided by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal Medicare or Medicaid funding’…. The budget bill also bans any state entity from requiring or creating vaccine passports, establishing or publicly releasing any COVID-19 vaccine database or retaliating against someone who chooses to not get vaccinated.”

Michigan’s budget bill and its pandemic-related provisions follow a federal vaccine mandate by President Joe Biden, who recently ordered that employees of federal government agencies and larger companies be vaccinated for the COVID-19 coronavirus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 75% of U.S.-based adults have been at least partially vaccinated for COVID-19. But with recent COVID-19 surge, Biden and Dr. Anthony Fauci (the Biden White House’s top medical adviser) have been expressing frustration over all the U.S. residents who remain unvaccinated.

Marjorie Taylor Greene gets into shouting match with Democrats on U.S. Capitol steps

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, booted from her committees in Congress after spreading baseless conspiracy theories, just instigated a shouting match with Democratic representatives on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Greene, a representative from Georgia, was leaving the House chamber after a vote approving the passage of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that will establish and ensure federal abortion rights but will likely not advance to the Senate, when she launched into an anti-abortion, anti-immigration tirade, according to videos posted to Twitter from the event.

“Look at what’s happening down here, the border’s wide open,” she shouted at several Democratic congresswomen, who promptly went inside the building following Friday’s  “Build Back Better for Women” photo-op on the East steps of the Capitol Building. Included in the group were Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, New Mexico Rep. Melanie Stansbury, Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell and Pennsylvania Rep. Chrissy Houlahan.

Heading down the steps, towards a group of Democratic lawmakers posing for a photo-op, she was confronted by a woman lined up alongside them. “Congresswoman, I wish you would stand with women,” she said.

This further enraged Greene, who took the opportunity to draw a link between standing with women and standing against abortion.

“Stand with women? I do! Stand with motherhood, how about that?” she yelled back indignantly. “There’s unborn women, do they not have a right to life?”

“Why don’t you stand with women? Stand with mothers, stand with babies,” she shot back, muttering that the “Build Back Better for Women” initiative is a “joke.”

“You should all be ashamed!” she yelled into the crowd gathered on the steps, before walking off. But she would not leave the scene without one final confrontation, this time with Dingell, who called for Greene to show some civility.

“Killing a baby up until birth is a lack of civility. It’s called murder.” she retorted, followed by a heated yelling match about the southern border, respecting laws and Christianity.

Greene had one final piece of advice for Dingell before walking away from the Capitol steps: “Control yourself!”

From endorsing the execution of several Democratic lawmakers prior to her election to Congress to her downplaying of COVID-19 to her role in inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol riots,  during which she was apparently “gleeful,” Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York told MSNBC earlier this week  Greene is not new to controversy. In fact, she is known for stoking it and feeding into popular far-right conspiracies. Greene came to be known as the “QAnon candidate” for her belief in many of the conspiracy theories and has continued to stir up conflict throughout her time in office.

Lauren Boebert mocked for spelling error after attempting to “imeach” Joe Biden

Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., introduced articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden on Friday – but not without spelling the word “impeach” as “imeach” in her logo.

Critics were quick to notice the gaffe, which circulated through Twitter until the mistake was corrected an hour later.

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1441465613684252672

“If you want to file for impeachment, you could at least spell the word correctly,” tweeted DemCast columnist David Weissman.

“Lauren Boebert calls to ‘Imeach’ Biden,” echoed Salon contributor Dean Obeidallah. “Looks like the GOP is not just anti-science, and anti-democracy they are  Now also anti-Spelling”

Kyle Clark, a reporter for 9News, joked that if Boebert’s “Biden would be the first US President to be imeached.”

In her release, Boebert argued that the Biden administration is “not being held accountable” for “colluding with the Taliban.”

“There have been no resignations, no indictments, no investigations, no congressional oversight, no outcry from the mainstream media, and no apologies,” the Colorado conservative stated in a press release. “So I’m stepping up to hold Biden and Harris accountable by filing articles of impeachment for giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies and colluding with the Taliban.”

Boebert also took aim at Vice President Kamala Harris, suggesting that she “is complicit in all of this.”

“One way or another,” she said, “Kamala needs to be impeached for her failure to step up and stop this avoidable catastrophe.”

Boebert’s impeachment articles against the president have been co-sponsored by Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., Ralph Norman, R-S.C., Louie Gohmert, R-Tex., and Jody Hice, R-Ga. 

“Afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a terrorist super state that will threaten the region, the world, and the American homeland for years to come, and the responsibility falls entirely on President Biden’s shoulders,” Hice similarly echoed in a press release. “He has been woefully derelict in his most basic duties as President and he has proven himself incapable of leading our nation. He must be removed from office as quickly as possible.” 


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


The move comes in the wake of the Biden administration’s military pullout from Afghanistan, where the U.S. was previously engaged in a protracted, 20-year intervention purported to prevent the Taliban from rising to power. In mid-August of this year, the Taliban successfully seized control of the nation’s Capitol building in Kabul, prompting the U.S. to initiate a long-awaited withdrawal from the nation. 

Since then, the U.S. has been coordinating mass evacuations for thousands of Afghans seeking refuge from the Taliban, which is expected to enact a brutal regime of religious tyranny. In late August, during ongoing evacuations from Kabul’s International Airport, a suicide bombing attributed to Islamic State Khorasan Province (IS-KP) – an Afghan affiliate of ISIS – took place, leaving 169 Afghan civilians dead, along with 13 members of the United States military. 

The next day, the Biden administration executed a drone strike on what the U.S. military said was a vehicle carrying three IS-KP members to prevent another “likely” terror attack. A subsequent investigation by The New York Times found that none of those targeted – ten people, including seven children – were not a part of IS-KP but an international aid organization. After declaring it a “righteous strike” that targeted “high-profile ISIS targets” and “planners and facilitators,” the Biden administration incrementally admitted that attack was “a tragic mistake.”

It is not immediately apparent how Biden “colluded” with the Taliban. Back in February of last year, Donald Trump struck a deal with the Taliban wherein the U.S. promised a full military withdrawal from the country in 14 months if the Taliban agreed not prevent the country from being riddled with terrorism. 

Boebert is not the first lawmaker to file articles of impeachment against the president. 

Earlier this week, Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, filed a set of impeachment articles against the president, citing Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, the border crisis, and his effort to extend the eviction moratorium – which has proven a lifeline for millions of Americans struggling under the weight of the pandemic. Last month, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., also put forward three impeachment resolutions against Biden that have little chance of advancing. 

None of the impeachment articles introduced by Republicans are expected to see a floor vote, much less pass one. 

“Aly Raisman: Darkness to Light” wields celebrity to empower all survivors

Last week, two-time Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman joined former teammates and fellow survivors in testifying before the U.S. Senate about sexual abuse they’d faced from their former team doctor, Larry Nassar. Raisman’s story as a survivor and leading voice for survivor justice is now the subject of new Lifetime documentary “Aly Raisman: Darkness to Light,” named after the Darkness to Light organization founded in 2000 to prevent child sexual abuse. 

“Helping people heal and preventing abuse is far more important than any Olympic medal I could win,” Raisman, who holds six Olympic medals, says in the opening minutes of the documentary. 

What follows is more than a rehashing of Raisman’s trauma, or another retelling of the devastating harm Nassar unleashed on hundreds of vulnerable victims. Raisman, guided by conversations with Me Too founder Tarana Burke, travels the country connecting with other survivors of sexual abuse and particularly child sexual abuse. She lends her significant visibility to fellow survivors from all walks of life, comforting and relating to them, and giving them the space to share their stories of pain and healing with a platform that’s typically been reserved for famous people like Raisman.

“Darkness to Light” was destined to be a powerful story, with a voice as courageous and honest as Raisman’s at its helm. But the documentary’s brilliance and compassion lie in how it flips the script on the most recent, popularized iteration of #MeToo.

Since its mainstream nascence in 2017, reintroduced by Alyssa Milano as a rallying hashtag several years after Burke founded Me Too, some have been critical of how this version of the movement has emphasized celebrity faces. This has pushed the most vulnerable, non-famous victims of sexual abuse to the margins: exploited workers, queer and trans youth, people with disabilities, and folks from other groups who experience some of the highest rates of sexual violence.


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


As Raisman shares intimate conversations with and hands her mic to Black woman survivors, survivors with disabilities, queer survivors, male survivors, and fellow survivors of child sexual abuse, we’re reminded that everyone is vulnerable, and sexual violence doesn’t just happen to one specific type of person. 

Yes, this includes celebrities, like star athletes or the many prominent actresses who spoke out against Harvey Weinstein — but it also includes people who tend to be even more vulnerable, along lines of race, class, ability, and sexual orientation or gender identity. Sexual abuse isn’t some rare experience held by a select few female celebrities who finally have the power to speak up and be believed, contrary to the majority of 2017 and 2018 headlines. Nor is it an experience that “strong” women can take action to adequately shield themselves from.

The statistics “Darkness to Light” presents early on speak for themselves: 60% of Black women have experienced sexual assault by the time they turn 18. Indigenous women are 3.5 times more likely than women of any other race to experience sexual violence. Fifty percent of trans people and 83% of women with disabilities have experienced sexual assault. One in five women have experienced attempted or completed rape, and one in six men has experienced some form of sexual abuse.

Raisman talks to survivors who comprise nearly all of these identities, including Erica Dixon, a disability justice advocate and survivor who shares her story with Raisman, and explains that her lack of faith in the criminal justice system prevented her from reporting — a common experience. At one point, Raisman asks Dixon, “When you’re talking to a survivor and supporting them, have you ever reflected on how I’m much nicer to them than myself?” It’s a feeling both women have experienced, and this moment of pure connectivity is one of many Raisman shares with the survivors she meets.

At the beginning of the documentary, Raisman admits to Burke that upon coming forward, she struggled because she “wanted to be seen as a survivor,” and feared that if she were “seen laughing and having fun after talking about this experience, it’s going to look like I’m not suffering.” Similarly, Dixon recalls how healing and pursuing justice for herself looked like continuing to live her life each day, rather than trying to be a “perfect survivor,” adopting the joyless, colorless lives that society expects “real” rape victims to live.

With other survivors, including a man who experienced sexual abuse from the Ohio State University wrestling team doctor, and a woman who had survived child sexual abuse from her small town’s pediatrician, Raisman connects over the experience of being triggered. 

Early on in “Darkness to Light,” Raisman emphasizes that hearing “graphic details” of other survivors’ assaults can be highly triggering to her, staying with her for weeks and months, giving her intense anxiety and discomfort, and keeping her up at night. She and the survivors she connects with, as well as the experts interviewed by the documentary, discuss how specific, highly personal triggers can take survivors right back to the moment of their assault, even years later.

Throughout the documentary, Raisman bonds deeply with fellow survivors, amplifying their unique stories, the complex roles of their identities, and many of the universal threads of shared experience between them. With fellow child sexual abuse survivors, Raisman discusses how children are taught to not trust what they feel, and one expert interviewed by the documentary raises that “many [children] convince themselves they weren’t abused, or tell themselves it was their fault.” 

Anton Gunn, a board member of Darkness to Light, notes that many survivors silence themselves with their own second-guessing. “It is very common for survivors to actually believe what’s happening to them is not that bad, or not as bad as someone else’s circumstance, so it’s really important that you never minimize what you’re feeling, or your experience,” he says.

There’s a visceral feeling attached to the connections Raisman forges with other survivors, as she comes to meet them where they are. There’s a deep intimacy in their bonds over shared experiences with trauma and healing, but it’s an intimacy that invites more survivors in, instead of pushing anyone away.

The most visible survivors of sexual assault will always be the cultural icons and celebrities who have the power and platforms to come forward and be heard. Far be it from anyone to ask for or demand more of those who, like Raisman, have risked everything to speak their truths to the world. But in “Darkness to Light,” Raisman shows all the possibilities that open up when famous survivors and advocates like her share their power and platforms with others — and redefine our notions of what a survivor looks like, along the way.

“Aly Raisman: Darkness to Light” premieres Friday, Sept. 24 on Lifetime at 8 p.m.

Daily Show’s Jordan Klepper takes down anti-mask protesters at North Carolina school board meeting

If a frontline has emerged in the new culture war, it’s surely local school board meetings — where right-wing activists in dozens of municipalities have staged scenes over everything from COVID-19 safety measures to anti-racist lessons. 

It was into this “thunderdome” — a school board meeting in Johnston County, North Carolina — that The Daily Show’s Jordan Klepper stepped this week in an attempt to better understand the psyche of anti-maskers who had gathered for a protest against school COVID-19 prevention measures. Leading the protest just a few paces away was Rep. Madison Cawthorn, a Republican from the state who has emerged as a key figure in the conservative war on public health measures to tamp down on the surging virus. 

It’s hard to say what exactly Klepper was able to learn from the segment — except for the fact that not many of his interviewees knew what they were talking about. 

One attendee, in an “I Don’t Co-Parent With The Government” T-shirt, the slogan du jour of the protest, said that she was against “all mandates.” 

Klepper pointed out that co-parenting with the government is sort of the point of public schools, to no avail. “If you don’t want to co-parent with the government, don’t get pregnant in Texas,” he added. 


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


Another said that her son had developed acne from wearing his mask “But has he had COVID?” Klepper asks —  the answer, of course, was no. 

The segment features footage of parents holding signs with anti-mask slogans, children draped in “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, and others waving American flags. One self-identified parent even says that he’d been to the ICU three times this past year, floating wild conspiracies about hospitals faking COVID cases for… well, it’s not entirely clear.”I’ve walked through the hospitals, I’ve videoed inside hospitals, and guess what? They aren’t full of COVID patients.” 

Klepper also stumps another attendee, who said that it was dangerous to use masks because it causes people to “breathe in toxins,” by asking how surgeons manage hours-long procedures while wearing even more extensive protective equipment.

A particularly wild exchange featured one woman who claimed that in her “research,” she found that Satanists stand six feet apart and wear masks during rituals. “Is it coincidence?” she says shrugging, “I don’t know.”

The Church of Satan responded to the video on Twitter, saying “As Satanists, we can assure you the lady at the end has no idea what she’s talking about.”

The protest comes as more than 16,000 North Carolinians have died since the start of the pandemic. As of Friday, there were over 1.3 million cases reported in the state.

Watch the full clip below via Twitter:

From QAnon to anti-vaccination, scholar Andy Norman says we face a scourge of “mind parasites”

We are in the midst of an ignorance outbreak. QAnon’s account of global politics, despite being both irrational and implausible, has enraptured thousands. Specious anti-vaccine rhetoric abounds even among the educated. Everywhere we turn, bad ideas are spreading like a, well, virus.

Author Andy Norman takes that problem literally. In his provocative book “Mental Immunity: Infectious Ideas, Mind-Parasites, and the Search for a Better Way to Think,” the director of the Humanism Initiative at Carnegie Mellon University and founder of the Cognitive Immunology Research Collaborative reveals a growing scourge — and explores what we can do to fend it off. As he explains why thinking for yourself is a poor strategy and why everyone is not, in fact, entitled to their own opinion, Norman offers a compelling case for a regimen of mental resistance. Salon talked to the author recently about how to survive an era where misinformation is more common than the flu, and why “humility is a really important, under-appreciated cognitive virtue.”

As always, our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

When you say that bad ideas are mind parasites, you mean just that. Tell me about that, because that is hard, especially for those of us with a philosophical bent to get our heads around.

It’s certainly stretching the concept of a parasite in a new direction, right? Words evolve as people find analogies or metaphors that are useful. One way to get used to the idea is to acknowledge that I’m stretching the concept of parasite into a new domain. It doesn’t have to change our concept of bad idea; it’s another way to look at it. Parasites require a host, bad ideas require a host. Parasites often compromise the health of their hosts. Bad ideas can also compromise the mental wellbeing of their hosts. Parasites can leap from body to body. Bad ideas can leap from mind to mind.

Parasites can induce behavior that spreads the parasite to other bodies by inducing a sneeze, and bad ideas can induce their hosts to spread them by, for example, proselytizing or sharing things on Facebook. If you go through and create a list of attributes that parasites have, bad ideas have all of the relevant properties. It makes sense to think of bad ideas as mind parasites, and it’s useful in illuminating in ways that give us new strategies for combating them.

When we think about inoculating the mind — how do we do that when so many of us really seem to be very adamantly anti-vaccine?

Convincing the anti-vaxxers to get their minds inoculated is of course probably the hardest problem of them all. One of the things the science says is that it’s easier to prevent the mind infection than to cure one. If you can teach somebody critical thinking when they’re young, hopefully you don’t have to do any cult deprogramming later in their lives. Or you don’t have to try to rid your crazy uncle of QAnon beliefs if that crazy uncle learned critical thinking young and never has to be deprogrammed

Psychologists have been studying mind inoculation for about fifty years now. Exposure to certain kinds of arguments and objections can strengthen the mind’s resistance to bad ideas. It can also strengthen our mind’s resistance to good ideas and arguments. In other words, you can manipulate a mental immune system in such a way as to make it reject good arguments. Propagandists and demagogues use such strategies almost instinctively. The famous logical fallacy of straw man argumentation works because it sort of hijacks the mind’s immune system and induces it to overreact to a good argument.


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 I found interesting in the book is this idea of a social immunity building. In the same way that a collective ideology can be dangerous, collaborative understanding can strengthen us.

Jonathan Rauch’s new book, “The Constitution of Knowledge,” is very good on this. He points out that the best exemplars we have in our culture of knowledge construction are all profoundly collaborative. Good investigative reporting often involves many people collaborating together. Research often requires peer review and an entire community of researchers checking results. The best thinking is deeply collaborative. That means that the advice we often give young people today, “Think for yourself,” is terribly ambiguous and not necessarily good advice. We worry that when people think together, they’ll slip into groupthink, and that’s why we run around telling young people to think for themselves. what we now need to do is teach people how to think together and to help each other identify each other’s mind parasites. No one of us can do enough to keep our minds healthy, unless we learn how to collaborate with others who see things differently and can spot things we miss.

And that is tricky, because you talk about the Lake Wobegon effect, where we all think we’re above average. How do we get unstuck from that, and admit, “I don’t know everything”?

Humility is a really important, under appreciated cognitive virtue.One way to do it is to engage in Socratic dialogue. Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher, would pose questions that would raise people’s awareness of the gaps in their understanding. The more aware you become the gaps in your understanding, the more humble you’ll be, and the wiser you become. We need to learn a form of discourse, a form of conversation and a mode of idea testing, that gives much more time and attention to the questions and that fixates less on easy answers. When you spend time considering other people’s doubts and questions and challenges, those are essentially the mind’s antibodies.

Think of doubts as the antibodies of the mind, and your mind will generate some of them. Other people’s minds can generate other questions, other doubts. By paying attention to them in a conversation that’s full of clarifying questions, that turns out to be one of the most powerful mind inoculants of all. It requires getting the hang of a really fascinating mode of discourse, which is kind of philosophical. It places a great deal of emphasis on clarifying and trying to, together, figure out the shape of the gaps in our understanding and starting to get our heads around what it would take to fill those gaps.

It requires being okay with the discomfort of maybe being wrong, and not getting the high that we get from our confirmation biases.

The great British philosopher Bertrand Russell said one of the premier virtues of philosophy is that it helps us become comfortable with uncertainty. There’s a great deal of uncertainty in the world and especially in this fast breakneck society we have right now. Then once you learn how to be comfortable with uncertainty and to navigate that uncertainty primarily with questions. The fast pace of modern life can make you really anxious. And when you’re anxious, you don’t think clearly.

I’m wondering where you see the place of faith and spirituality in this really strong interrogation. When you say a belief is reasonable if it can withstand challenges, where do people of faith fit into that?

I have both a cautionary word for people of faith and a word of encouragement. When people use the word “faith” to excuse irresponsible believing, believing that has no basis, that weakens their mind’s immune system. You can accustom yourself to believing things without support or believing things without empirical validation or believing by simply brushing aside questions. When your mind becomes comfortable with that mode, your resistance to mind parasites declines. There’s research out of Canada now that says that if you raise a child to accept things on faith, they’re more likely to become a conspiracy theorist later in life. Many forms of religious faith are very problematic from a mental health standpoint. They provide a kind of superficial comfort at the expense of our long-term ability to spot and remove bad ideas.

But many people use the word “faith” in a somewhat different way that I want to express sympathy and approval of. That’s to say, we need hope. There’s something profoundly admirable about being resolutely hopeful, being determined, just being willfully hopeful. I think it’s great to be willfully hopeful. I think it’s bad to indulge in willful believing. Depending on what we mean by faith, that’s either a good or a very bad thing. Faith understood as resolute hopefulness is a wonderful thing, faith understood as willful belief I think is a profoundly harmful thing for collective prospects.

One of the important things that I took from this book was this idea that our beliefs are not private. This both-sides-ism, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion” doesn’t help and is actively toxic. You say there are certain worldviews that are just toxic.

When people start doing things that harm others, I think we start to develop grounds for objecting to those behaviors, and belief is just like that. If you believe things that don’t harm others, fine. But if you believe things that indirectly do harm others, they become a matter of public concern. So if I believe that vaccines are the spawn of the devil and refuse to vaccinate my kids, my kids end up being harmed. My beliefs can harm others. If I believe irresponsible things and end up casting my votes or for a would-be authoritarian leader, I end up harming the entire public.

When you dwell on examples of beliefs that harm others, you realize that it’s perfectly irresponsible to indulge the idea that everyone is entitled to their beliefs. It lets our beliefs both drift away from what’s genuinely helpful and moral, but it also lets them drift away from reality and lets them drift away from each other. And when our worldviews drift too far apart, as we’re seeing now, it gets really hard to have productive conversations and to keep a specific experiment together. So for social reasons, for truth and honesty reasons, and for moral reasons, we need to get rid of the idea that belief is where everyone is entitled to their opinion, and instead adopt a more public spirited concept of belief.

How do we then translate that to our combative relatives and neighbors in a way that doesn’t escalate the polarization?

The same way your body’s immune system can overreact and attack your body, the mind’s immune system can overreact and attack good information, even in your own mind. The trick is learning how to calm your mind so you don’t feel defensive so that we can actually dialogue together in fruitful ways. I think that the emerging science of mental immunity canhelp us learn how to maintain that calm demeanor, where we don’t get defensive by other people’s arguments and reasons. The problem is that when we get defensive, we stop listening to one another. We stop hearing each other’s reasons, and learning from them. 

“Nevermind” 30 years on — how Nirvana’s second album tilted the world on its axis

For many of us back in 1991, it felt as if the planet tilted slightly further on its axis when “Smells Like Teen Spirit” — the lead single from Nirvana’s “Nevermind” album — began to dominate the airwaves. The song’s compelling fusion of blast furnace punk, whimsical melody and inscrutable lyrics was unlike anything else commercial radio had embraced up to that point.

Friday, Sept. 24 marks the 30th anniversary of the release of “Nevermind.” Materialising apparently out of nowhere, within four months the album had shoved its way to the top of the U.S. charts, dislodging Michael Jackson’s Dangerous in January of 1992. It did almost as well in Australia, reaching number two.

“Nevermind” has gone on to become a recording phenomenon, with over 30 million copies sold. Nobody saw this coming, not least the band’s record company. John Rosenfeld, who worked for Nirvana’s label, Geffen, at the time of its release has said they originally projected sales of 50,000.

Nirvana formed in 1987 in the logging and fishing town of Aberdeen, Washington. Featuring guitarist, vocalist and principal songwriter Kurt Cobain, bass player Krist Novoselic, and new drummer Dave Grohl, “Nevermind” was Nirvana’s second album — the first for a major label.

Instantly identifiable by its cover image of an infant swimming toward a fish hook baited with a dollar note, it included three more frenetic-cum-fragile singles — “Come As You Are,” “Lithium” and “In Bloom” — as well as two haunted acoustic tracks — “Polly,” a repudiation of sexual violence, and the cello-bathed “Something in the Way,” which alluded to homelessness.

A range of factors converged to draft Nirvana into the mainstream with “Nevermind.” Certainly, the quality of the songs helped.

So did “Teen Spirit”‘s incendiary video, which conveyed generational antipathy through robotic cheerleaders, a swarm of convulsive teens and a wizened school janitor (Cobain having held down just such a job for a short time). Producer Butch Vig and mixer Andy Wallace were also vital, applying precisely the right amount of gleam to the band’s coarse-grained, jet engine roar.

Significant, too, were the many post-punk musicians who in the 1980s shaped what Nirvana biographer Michael Azerrad subsequently termed a “shadow music industry“. This underground faction of American bands — Minutemen, Hüsker Dü, Dinosaur Jr, Mudhoney, Sonic Youth and others — forged a crucial alternative, do-it-yourself aesthetic pathway through the ultra-conservative Reagan-Bush era.

Sometimes important art takes time to inject itself into the bloodstream of the culture. While the Velvet Underground are now acknowledged as a pivotal force in early rock music, at the time their records had limited critical cache and sold poorly. With “Nevermind,” however, audiences caught on quickly, leaving cultural commentators scrabbling to hook on to a hurtling zeitgeist.

Three stars from Rolling Stone

Bass guitarist Novoselic has since spoken derisively of the many journalists who initially mocked “Nevermind” before later claiming “they loved it from the start.”

In hindsight, this seems slightly exaggerated. Some publications did completely overlook the record at first. A few came in with fists flailing: the Boston Globe referred to it as “moronic ramblings“.

Others, though, were prescient in their praise. Melody Maker’s Everett True prophesied “Nevermind” would “blow every other contender away”.

Renowned author Greil Marcus expressed a surprising preference for Nirvana’s murky debut album “Bleach,” while Chad Channing, the drummer replaced by Grohl to make “Nevermind,” complained the record’s major label sheen wasn’t true “grunge.”

But the most revealing response came from Rolling Stone magazine, whose initial reviewer Ira Robbins was one of the smarter music writers of the time. He concluded that “Nevermind” found Nirvana “at the crossroads — scrappy garageland warriors setting their sights on a land of giants.” The magazine’s editors hedged even more bets by adding a three-star rating, the rock press equivalent of consigning a record to eternal mediocrity.

Rolling Stone eventually yielded to popular sentiment. In 1992 there was a revised four-star review. Then, in 2004, “Nevermind”‘s standing was upgraded even further: a five-star ranking in that year’s Rolling Stone Album Guide. This followed on from 17th place in the magazine’s 2003 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list, putting it up there with Highway 61 Revisited, Are You Experienced? and Marquee Moon.

Robbins, too, seemed determined to set the record straight as soon as the opportunity arose. For the 1996 edition of his Trouser Press Guide, the review of “Nevermind” — one of the longest in the entire volume — deemed it “the Rosetta Stone of ’90s punk-rock.”

By the 1990s, music criticism was changing. A glut of available recordings — nowadays an overwhelming deluge — coincided with further fragmentation of the rock genre both in style and format. At the same time, publications like Rolling Stone were increasingly seen as tied up with traditionalist, patriarchal notions of popular music history.

Kurt Cobain voiced the alienation of a marginalised youth who couldn’t care less about the old rules. His group’s music was nowhere near as unorthodox as, say, that of close friend Dylan Carlson’s influential drone-metal project Earth. But “Nevermind” was a subversive assault upon the rock elite from within: a big guitar sound without the big-dick attitude.

Into the stratosphere

We’ll never know exactly what sent Nirvana into the stratosphere while artists of comparable brilliance didn’t transcend their relatively minor standing. After all, in the 1980s quite a few of us in Australia were convinced each new Go-Betweens record would be the one to spark global domination.

Similar could have been said for Public Enemy circa 1991, or for Sleater-Kinney (like Nirvana, hailing from the Pacific Northwest) a few years after.

No doubt Cobain himself would have conceded being a white, all-male, U.S.-based guitar-bass-drums outfit (albeit one from the seamier side of the tracks) gave them a leg-up on these and many other contenders.

Cobain’s amalgam of influences was expansive, from the Raincoats, Iggy Pop, Ian MacKaye and REM to Samuel Beckett and William S. Burroughs. He wasn’t above raiding the classic rock fortress for ideas, but also excavated deep below in search of subterranean misfits to emulate.

Nonetheless, Boston’s Pixies were the main forebears of Nirvana’s trademark quiet-loud-quiet sound. As it happens, I recall The Happening, an extraordinary Pixies song from 1990, giving me the same kind of this-could-be-the-one jolt that Teen Spirit did a year later. Yet one is regarded as a historical turning point, the other an obscurity.

Wherever the alternative banquet began, big business and media were always going to be quick to gatecrash. As “Nevermind” broke, the corporate vultures weren’t just circling: they’d already flown in to commence tearing the last morsels from the skeleton of post-Reagan America.

As journalist and political analyst Thomas Frank noted in his important 1995 essay Alternative to What?, by the time of Cobain’s 1994 death by suicide, the commodification of rebellion was complete. For the ultimate proof, Frank pointed to a cynical MTV advertisement found in the business sections of certain newspapers and magazines. It featured an image of a grunge-styled youth along with the caption: “Buy this 24-year-old and get all his friends absolutely free”.

Corporate scavengers aside, “Nevermind” continues to stir fans and critics. Its history continues to be told, and many of the sharpest (and best written) recent takes are by Australian writers.

Josh Bergamin’s recent note-perfect analysis sets “Nevermind”‘s success within contrasting milieus of generational disillusionment and executive greed, arguing Cobain and many of his fans engaged in radical acts of political resistance.

Cristian Strömblad uses the context of growing up in suburban Brisbane to tell of how Nirvana helped open up new aesthetic worlds.

Tiarney Miekus explores perennial death-of-rock narratives in light of “the big dumb accident” that was Nevermind.

Conversely, wardens of the conventional rock canon still emerge to disdain the achievements of alt-culture’s “anaemic royalty”. In one resentful, ridiculous critique of the album on the Classic Rock Review website, J.D. Cook concluded Nirvana was “only popular because of Cobain’s suicide”, implausibly overlooking the two-and-a-half years of international acclaim preceding that grim epilogue.

A beginning

To me, “Nevermind” wasn’t a peak. It was a beginning. Nirvana was a stunning band and Cobain by all accounts a dedicated, intelligent, yet supremely troubled individual whose life always teetered on the chasm’s edge. Until his death partly stalled the show – the imperatives of consumerism ensuring the band’s ghost would continue to post a profit regardless – the music kept getting better.

Cobain’s craft evolved as success lured his social conscience further into the open. This is palpable on the In Utero album (1993), in songs such as Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle and Rape Me (the latter later distorted by those who hid behind a controversial title to evade its prescient, victim’s-eye view of sexual abuse).

Once “Nevermind” raised Nirvana’s media profile, Cobain continued putting forward positions on different political issues (for instance, after they appeared in drag for the video to In Bloom,” he told an interviewer that “at least it brings the whole subject of homosexuality into debate”).

The band’s social justice stance was made abundantly clear in the liner notes for the 1992 compilation Incesticide, which warned sexists, racists and homophobes would not be welcome to sweat in their particular mosh pit. They also contributed a “leftover” of exceptional quality, a song titled Sappy, to the 1993 AIDS fundraiser album “No Alternative.”

The group even did its best to subvert MTV’s rebellion-into-cash mentality at their November 1993 “Unplugged in New York” appearance. The show featured gut-wrenching versions of the best tracks from In Utero (Pennyroyal Tea and All Apologies) and a touching three-song gambol with underground mentors Meat Puppets. Topping it off were surely two of the most remarkable cover versions ever performed: David Bowie’s “The Man Who Sold the World” and Lead Belly’s “Where Did You Sleep Last Night.”

Today, Nirvana’s iconic stature is only confirmed by it being caught up in two of America’s pet modern-day farces: the conspiracy theory (some still claim Cobain’s death was murder) and a multi-million dollar lawsuit (the child depicted on “Nevermind”‘s cover is currently suing the band and others for damages).

As for all that voice-of-a-generation stuff . . . well, Nirvana’s appeal was hardly universal: they meant something to plenty of people in places like New York and Sydney, probably a lot fewer in Addis Ababa or Tehran.

Nor is the ultimate cultural significance of Nevermind easily pinned down. In that context, it is worth remembering that two other major US events of 1991 — the videotaped beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles and the Luby’s Cafeteria mass shooting in Texas — didn’t exactly portend epochal change in racial equality or gun control.

“Nevermind” didn’t change the world. But for a while it helped some of us believe the world could change, and that is enough.

Dean Biron, PhD in Cultural Studies; teaches in School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

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

Rudy Giuliani lashes out at Fox News, calls his ban from network “outrageous”

Rudy Giuliani and his son have reportedly been banned from appearing on Fox News amid Dominion’s $1.6 billion lawsuit against the channel for backing Trump’s baseless election fraud conspiracy. 

The development, first reported by Politico, allegedly came just the night before the former New York mayor was slated to appear on “Fox & Friends” for the show’s coverage of the 20th anniversary of 9/11. Host Pete Hogseth reportedly called Giuliani personally to deliver the news, leaving the former prosecutor feeling “really hurt” because he had “done a big favor” for Fox News founder Rupert Murdoch back in the 1990s. 

“[Giuliani] was instrumental in getting Fox on Time Warner so it could be watched in New York City,” a source familiar with the matter told Politico.

“I could not have been more disappointed with the Fox coverage on the 20th anniversary of September 11,” Bernard Kerik, the disgraced New York City police commissioner under Giuliani, told Politico. “Then they chose to intentionally ignore Mayor Giuliani who was, and who according to their own coverage for the last two decades was America’s hero on the day and in the aftermath of the attack. Regardless of reasoning, I think this was another demonstration of Fox’s cowering to the far left.”

Politico also reported that the three-month ban, which also applies to Giuliani’s son, Andrew – a political advisor currently vying to be New York’s next governor – apparently came “from the top” 

Last year, Fox News banned Trump campaign adviser Harlan Hill for tweeting that Kamala Harris, then running for vice president, was an “insufferable lying b**ch.”

Asked about Giuliani’s apparent ban by Salon, a Fox News spokesperson denied that Rudy Giuliani was scheduled to appear on the segment’s September 11 programming. A spokesperson also denied any ban on Andrew Giuliani, citing multiple appearances on the network since he announced his run for governor. They did not comment on whether Rudy Giuliani was barred from the network.

During a Friday taping of Steve Bannon’s show, Giuliani called the ban “outrageous” while taking a dig at the network.

“They do a pretty good separation between Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.”

The alleged ban comes on the heels of a long-brewing legal feud between Fox News, Giuliani, and Dominion Voting Systems. Back in March, Dominion filed a sweeping $1.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News, Guliani, and host of Donald Trump affiliates for promulgating the former president’s baseless allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. The software giant argued that the channel “recklessly disregarded the truth” and “endorsed, repeated, and broadcast[ed] a series of verifiably false yet devastating lies about Dominion.”


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


Also in the mix is Smartmatic’s $2.6 billion lawsuit against Fox News, which alleges complaints of a similar nature, citing that the channel granted Giuliani a platform to spout unsubstantiated claims about election fraud. Fox has since filed a motion to dismiss Dominion’s lawsuit and is also urging a court to shoot down Smartmatic’s. 

Giuliani, for his part, has backtracked somewhat on his claims of election fraud, saying back in August that his claims were “substantially true,” while admitting that he didn’t understand how Dominion’s voting software works. Earlier that month, a 2018 deposition transcript was unveiled in which Giuliani effectively admits to the FBI that he had used Fox News to promote “fake news” about Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 election. 

Giuliani isn’t the only one from Trump’s orbit to have fallen out of the network’s good graces. According to Politico, a number of senior Trump aides have struggled to book appearances on Fox News. “They’re not doing us any favors,” one aide told Politico. 

The ban is just the latest in a series of reputational blows for Giuliani over the past several months. Back in August, it was reported that the former mayor was “close to broke” as a result of his legal entanglements with Dominion, Smartmatic, and federal investigators probing his alleged work as an unregistered lobbyist for Ukraine. Two months earlier, Giuliani had his law license suspended by the state of New York for his “demonstrably false and misleading” claims about the 2020 election.

With additional reporting by Zachary Petrizzo.

Texas launches 2020 election “audit” demanded by Trump — as Arizona probe gives Biden a bigger win

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s administration announced a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election in four of that state’s biggest counties on Thursday even as a similar effort in Arizona showed President Joe Biden winning with an even larger margin.

The Texas secretary of state’s office announced the probe hours after former President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pushed debunked lies about the election, demanded that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott add an election audit bill to the state legislature’s special session. Trump won Texas comfortably, but for unclear reasons is unsatisfied with that result. 

There has been no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the Texas election but Trump wrote in his letter to Abbott that Texans “don’t trust your election system, and they want your leadership on this issue, which is the number one thing they care about.”

Hours later, the Texas secretary of state’s office issued a statement announcing that it has “already begun the process in Texas’ two largest Democrat counties and two largest Republican counties — Dallas, Harris, Tarrant, and Collin — for the 2020 election,” calling for the legislature to fund the effort.

The office is currently led by an interim chief after former Republican Secretary of State Ruth Hughs resigned amid Republican acrimony over her office confirming that the state’s election was “smooth and secure.”

The statement did not say what prompted the move but Democrats said the state was clearly bending to Trump’s will.

“Let me be the first to congratulate the disgraced former president, Donald Trump, on his apparently becoming the new governor of Texas,” tweeted state Rep. Chris Turner, a Democrat. “Pitiful yet predictable that [Abbott] has capitulated to Trump yet again.”

Trump has continued to push baseless allegations of fraud in last year’s election even though his own Justice Department investigated at the time and found no evidence. Trump has called for so-called “audits” similar to the one in Arizona in other states. including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.

But leaked draft copies of audit results from Maricopa County, Arizona, on Thursday showed that Trump lost by a wider margin than the county previously reported. Though the draft audit report still attempts to push questions about the election process, which experts say are misleading, the document also debunked various of Trump’s conspiracy theories, including “Sharpiegate” and claims that the county received tens of thousands of absentee ballots that had not been sent out. Trump insisted after the leak that the audit “uncovered significant and undeniable evidence of FRAUD” even though a spokesman for the review told reporters that “it doesn’t look like it” uncovered evidence of a “massive fraud or anything.”

“If Trump and his supporters can’t prove it here, with a process they designed, they can’t prove it anywhere,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told The New York Times.

Though the audit failed to show evidence of Trump’s fraud and vote-switching conspiracy theories, it is expected to cost taxpayers millions after Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, decertified the voting machines handed over to Cyber Ninjas, the Trump-linked firm behind the audit, because election officials had no idea what the company did with them after taking them into custody.

While the Maricopa County audit was largely paid for by private donations from Trump supporters, the Texas secretary of state’s office expects that the legislature will use taxpayer funds to fund its effort.

Isabel Longoria, elections administrator for Harris County, the state’s largest, told the Austin American-Statesman that the audit is “another attack by officials on our communities’ trust in elections.”

“Our office has been focused on running fair elections with innovative, equitable approaches during an unprecedented pandemic,” she said.

Texas lawmakers, who already passed a slew of new voting restrictions in response to alleged concerns about “election integrity” — almost entirely the result of fear-mongering by Trump and his allies — earlier this year passed a law empowering the secretary of state’s office to audit two years worth of election results of up to four counties at a time.

Republicans in Wisconsin, where there have already been multiple audits and recounts of the results that confirmed Trump’s loss, have launched an investigation into the election led by a former state Supreme Court justice who spoke at “Stop the Steal” rallies. He said this week that the probe “may include a vigorous and comprehensive audit if the facts that are discovered justify such a course of action.”

Pennsylvania Republicans last week subpoenaed personal information, including driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers, of every voter in the state as part of a similar investigation. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the subpoenas on Thursday, calling the request “illegal, unconstitutional, and unenforceable.”

Texas Democrats say the state’s “audit” is the latest example of the Republicans bowing to Trump despite no evidence to back up his allegations.

“This is all an organized effort to overturn the will of the people,” Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, told the Times, “in an effort to fuel the ‘Big Lie’ and stroke Trump’s ego.”

“The View” interview with Kamala Harris suddenly derailed after hosts test positive for COVID

Just as Vice President Kamala Harris was set to take her seat at “The View” table Friday, co-hosts Sunny Hostin and Ana Navarro were quickly shuffled off the set. The pair had tested positive for COVID-19 just ahead of the show. 

The two remaining hosts, Joy Behar and Sara Haines, sat and chatted with the audience while the crew figured out how to have the vice president do the interview remotely. In the last 10 minutes, Harris made her appearance from another room in the studio.

Between a diplomatic meeting with Indian Prime Minister, Naendra Modi, and attempts at managing the worsening migrant crisis at the southern border, Harris made her first in-studio television appearance since taking office and went straight into addressing the many crises facing the Biden administration.


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


In a perfect segue from the Hostin and Navarro debacle, Harris opened by discussing the continued COVID crisis before discussing abortion rights, Afghanistan and the Haitian migrant crisis at the southern border.

“The United States has to help and we have to do more, and our administration feels strongly about that,” said Harris in response to Behar’s question regarding Haiti. Harris went on to mention the creation and extension of Temporary Protected Status to over 100,000 Haitian migrants and the administration’s reunification goals for those with family members who are American citizens.

Hostin was expected to come down hard on the vice president for the administration’s handling of the Haitian migrant crisis at the border a topic she has become increasingly vocal about in recent days.

“I think that U.S. policy towards Haiti has always been corrupt,” Hostin said on Thursday’s episode of “The View,” heavily criticizing the White House’s historic treatment of Haiti and the recent mishandling of the migrants hailing from the country. Harris’ response was not challenged by either of the hosts present during the show.

The vice president also announced a $1.2 billion investment directed to giving broadband “access and affordability” to school children across the country.

Harris is the second sitting vice-president to sit down with the cast of “The View,” following former vice-president Joe Biden’s appearance on the show back in 2010. This one, however, may go down as the most chaotic and frantic in-studio debut, maybe ever.

A 3-ingredient marinade for sheet pan salmon that gets dinner on the table in no time

Some proteins require a fair amount of coaxing in order to make them tender and flavorful. Think oxtail, game and (yes!) even basic supermarket chicken breasts. Salmon, thankfully, isn’t a member of this group. It shines in a pinch when poached or slow-roasted with just a little bit of salt and a little more olive oil. 

But salmon truly shines with a little extra care in the form of a simple marinade. My go-to salmon marinade only requires three ingredients (four, if you count the oil eventually used to cook the fish), which makes it something I turn to on a near-weekly basis. Plus, it’s multi-purpose — I use it on cubed chicken thighs, pork cutlets and even scallops.

Above all, I keep coming back to this marinade because it augments the flavor of the salmon so beautifully. Now, let’s break down our trio of ingredients: 

Lemon

It’s no great culinary secret that fatty fish, like salmon, does well with a hit of acid. Lemon is a classic way to go. In this marinade, you’re going to use both the lemon zest and the juice — which breaks down raw meat and fish — for a one-two punch of flavor and tenderizing power. 

Scallions 

Scallions tend to taste fresher and a little milder than some of their allium cousins like shallots or white onion, and they also offer a different dimension of flavor. The white stalk hits some sharp garlic notes, while the darker green leaves have a fresh, verdant flavor. 

White Miso Paste 

Miso, an age-old Japanese ingredient, is made by fermenting soybeans with salt and a mold called kōji. The result is a mildly earthy, savory and salty paste that has way more nuance than your typical table salt. 

***

Pulse the lemon, scallions, and white miso paste together with enough cooking oil of your choice to get a thick liquid. (I tend to veer towards good-quality olive oil.) For a more complex flavor, try tossing in a few garlic cloves, something spicy (some red pepper flakes or slices of fresh jalapeño) or even that handful of wilting herbs in your refrigerator. But the three starring ingredients truly stand on their own — and that’s what makes it worth breaking out your blender on a weeknight.

You never want to marinate fish for too long because it can result in the flesh becoming mushy or mealy — 30 to 45 minutes is perfect. After that, I like to toss the salmon on a sheet pan with an extra drizzle of olive oil, alongside some broccoli florets, and roast everything for 12 to 15 minutes. 


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


Serve the marinated salmon and broccoli over steamed white rice — if you’re really pressed for time, instant rice is a lifesaver! — and you have a healthy, flavorful meal ready to go. In the end, dinner is on the table in just over an hour.

***

Recipe: Citrus Miso Sheet Pan Salmon with Roasted Broccoli 

Serves 2 

Ingredients:

  • 1 pound of salmon fillets 
  • 3-4 full scallions, including white and green portions of the stem
  • Zest of one lemon, plus 2 tablespoons of lemon juice 
  • 2 tablespoons of white miso paste 
  • 1/4 cup of olive oil, plus more for roasting 
  • 1 cup of broccoli florets 
  • Salt and pepper to taste 

Directions:

1. In a blender, combine the scallions, lemon zest, lemon juice, miso paste and 1/4 cup of olive oil. Blend until fully combined. If it’s not totally smooth, feel free to add a tablespoon or two of water and blend again. 

2. Pour the marinade into a large bowl or resealable plastic bag, followed by the salmon fillets. After ensuring the salmon is fully coated, cover the bowl with plastic wrap (or seal the bag); place it in the refrigerator for at least 30 minutes, though no longer than an hour. 

3. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Prepare a sheet pan by drizzling with olive oil. Remove the salmon from the marinade and place it on the sheet pan. Line the remainder of the sheet pan with the broccoli florets. Drizzle them with olive oil and season with salt and pepper to taste. 

4. Bake for 12 to 15 minutes, until the salmon is firm but still pink and the broccoli is tender. 

5. Serve with white rice and enjoy. 

More 2- and 3-ingredient recipes: 

The kid-approved way to make quesadilla magic

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.

* * *

Ask any parent, and they’ll tell you: Kids are born scavengers.

If they’re not coming in from the backyard clutching handfuls of twisty twigs and acorns, they’re finding buttons and baubles under the couch to add to their “collection.” Lately, I’ve started putting this “skill” to work with my two-and-a-half-year-old. “Time to go scavenging!” I’ll say, holding open the door of the fridge. Into her tiny mitts go the most coveted ingredients: leftover rotisserie chicken, spinach, tomatoes, chickpeas, or even artichoke hearts.

Ah, yes, the good ‘ol quesadilla. We know, we know: You’ve made a quesadilla before. But we’d like to remind you that it’s just as fabulous for using up those two tiny bites of leftovers as is a frittata or quiche. (If you’re a parent of a young child, you’re probably pretty much drowning in bits and bobs of leftovers.)

Infinitely versatile and ready to welcome nearly any leftover combos in its warm, floury embrace, the quesadilla is a way to empty the crisper and concoct a lightning-quick meal. Plus, it’s very budget-friendly, and kids love to make their own. Here are the key moves.

The tortilla

Corn tortillas might be your taco go-tos, but for quesadillas, you generally want flour. More pliable and accommodating to a volume of fillings, they leave plenty of room for interpretation. The “burrito-sized” (9″-to-10″) tortilla will produce a half-moon quesadilla ideal for older kids and adults. Cut it in half, and you’ve got two meals for a tot, generally speaking.

The cheese

Quesadillas’ charm lies in that epic, stretch-it-to-the-ceiling cheese pull, which requires just the right melty options. Queso Oaxaca is the Mexican classic for ultra-gooey perfection, but Monterey Jack, Cheddar and mozz are high-moisture, easy-melt staples of the Americanized quesadilla canon for a reason. Mixing it up with a blend — which can include Brie, fontina, feta or goat cheese, depending on your kid’s palate — can also work nicely.

No matter your queso, grate your own cheese if you can! We know you’re busy making sure the kid doesn’t jump off the couch, and pre-grated is OK in a pinch, but hand-shredded cheese from a block cooks faster and typically lacks the preservatives of the bagged stuff.

The fillings (“Can I quesadilla it?”)

This part is as simple as pondering which flavors would play nicely together. You don’t have to stick to traditional elements. Think: Buffalo chicken with pepper jack and blue cheese dip on the side. Or bacon, lettuce, tomato and gouda. I’ve done a Mediterranean quesadilla — feta, leftover gyro-style lamb and eggplant — to applause from every family member. Half a hamburger can be crumbled into melty cheddar with caramelized onions and mushrooms. Boursin loves onions, too, as well as roast garlic and avocado. And we’d be lying if we said we’d never quesadilla-ed lox, cream cheese, onions and capers. Don’t exceed three ingredients, and don’t overfill. Half a cup, total, on half an open tortilla will generally satiate even the most extreme preteen cravings.

The tools and technique

For the crispiest-on-the-outside, gooiest-on-the-inside results, I’m smitten with an electric flat top griddle. A deep dive on quesadilla griddling (and deep-frying!) is here. Don’t have a griddle? I like nonstick, but well-seasoned cast iron can work with grease.

It might seem obvious, but the dryer the fillings, the less mess. (For wetter ingredients such as broccoli, blot off any extra moisture with a paper towel or clean kitchen cloth.)

Some people swear by butter, but I love a small dab of a neutral oil like canola for a crunchy exterior. Add your tortilla to the greased pan for 30 seconds per side, over medium heat, before adding your cheese. (Leave a small border around the edges.) Fold the tortilla to form a half-moon, then let cook until the cheese bubbles and the tortilla crisps. Then flip and cook on the other side. If you want to speed the process along, cover your griddle or pan with a lid. (If you’re a cast-iron diehard, you might throw a heavy Staub Cocotte lid on top to smash it down, for extra texture, but you do risk sticking.)

The kid

If the kid is big enough to help, let her: It may ensure she takes a bite of the finished meal, too! And we’ll admit we sometimes make a “safety quesadilla” — yes, just cheese — and put a slice on the plate alongside all the other exciting options. It’s in line with popular theories of raising kids who listen to their bodies.

The condiments

Think outside the salsa caddy triad! Salsa, sour cream, and guacamole are classics, but you don’t need to stick to them. Think: Chili crisp; piri-piri; BBQ sauce; ranch; Green Goddess. (Really!) And be sure to ask which one is your kid’s fave, to ensure she’ll eagerly anticipate it on Fridge Scavenging day.

Ringo Starr’s mission to “Change the World”

Today marks the release of Ringo Starr’s “Change the World,” the sequel to his March EP “Zoom In.” As with the All-Starr Band, the drummer’s decades-long performance project, “Change the World” finds the former Beatle delivering songs with short bursts of punch and power.

Recorded at Ringo’s Roccabella West home studio, the four-song “Change the World” matches, if not exceeds, the quality of “Zoom In.”

“I’ve been saying I only want to release EPs at this point and this is the next one,” Starr noted in the EP’s press materials. “What a blessing it’s been during this year to have a studio here at home and be able to collaborate with so many great musicians, some I’ve worked with before and some new friends.”


Love the Beatles? Listen to Ken’s podcast “Everything Fab Four.”


Composed by Toto members Steve Lukather and Joseph Williams, the EP’s leadoff track “Let’s Change the World” fits squarely with Ringo’s longstanding call for peace as humankind’s “universal melody.” For Starr, “Let’s Change the World” typifies the musician’s dedication — much like fallen bandmate John Lennon — to an unwavering appeal for a world founded on peace and love.

Listen to Ringo Starr’s “Let’s Change the World”:

Written by Starr and engineer Bruce Sugar, “Just That Way” continues in a similar vein, offering a reggae-infused musing on life’s vicissitudes. Starr’s hopeful message is balanced by the reality of life’s twists and turns. The EP ends with a flourish, especially in the hands of consummate songwriter Linda Perry, who shares her talents with Starr on “Coming Undone,” a country-and-western confection along the lines of “Act Naturally” and “Honey Don’t.” Trombone Shorty all but steals the show with a slick brass performance.


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


Starr closes out the set with a top-drawer cover of Bill Haley and His Comets’ “Rock around the Clock.” Featuring a sizzling guitar solo from Joe Walsh, “Rock around the Clock” concludes the EP with a bang. Perhaps Ringo might consider a future EP that addresses a raft of similar rock-and-roll gems from his youth? I’d be all ears, Daddio.