Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

GOP Senate candidates backed Trump in trashing bipartisan infrastructure deal

While Republican Senate candidates largely signed onto Donald Trump’s opposition to the wildly popular bipartisan infrastructure bill, Democrats facing tough re-election battles used the negotiations to secure billions in critical funding for their states.

In the end, 19 Senate Republicans defied Trump’s threats of primary challenges and backed President Biden’s infrastructure bill — something Trump vainly promised to pass throughout his term in office — most GOP members  voted against the $1.2 trillion plan that will fund investments in roads, bridges, waterways, broadband internet and other physical infrastructure projects for the next decade.

“Our plan will create good-paying jobs in communities across our country without raising taxes,” Republican negotiators like Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Richard Burr, R-N.C., said in a joint statement with their Democratic counterparts, touting the critical projects that the bill will fund.

Portman was able to secure nearly $10 billion to improve his state’s highways and bridges and billions more for other projects, and Burr’s state will receive more than $8 billion for infrastructure improvements. But both those senators are retiring after the 2022 elections. And the Republicans running to replace them sided with Trump’s efforts to sabotage the bipartisan deal.

Burr and his fellow North Carolina Republican, Sen. Thom Tillis, both voted in favor of the bill, but all three of the top Republicans running to replace Burr — Rep. Ted Budd, former Rep. Mark Walker and former Gov. Pat McCrory — opposed it, criticizing it as too expensive and claiming it may expand the budget deficit. All three supported Trump’s tax cuts, which massively increased the deficit and heavily benefited the richest North Carolinians.

All four top Republicans running to replace Portman also opposed the bill.

“Republicans are bending over backwards to get this deal,” complained “Hillbilly Elegy” author and venture capitalist J.D. Vance, one of the Ohio GOP contenders. “Really, it’s just a partisan hatchet job.”

This trend played out across the country as Republicans trashed the bill while the Democrats they hope to challenge worked to ensure vital funding would flow to their constituents.

While the Arizona Democratic Party called out all of the major Republican Senate candidates for their “silence” on the bill, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., sought to shore up his re-election hopes by securing more than $5 billion to fix roads and bridges in the state, at least $100 million to expand affordable broadband, and more than $500 million for Arizona ports. The package also included a Kelly-authored bill to improve electrical grid reliability and improve wildfire prevention.

“Arizonans in every corner of our state are going to benefit from these investments, from expanded high-speed internet access, to improved roads and transit options, to better security and shorter wait times at our ports of entry,” Kelly said in a statement. “As water levels fall in Lakes Mead and Powell and fires burn across our state and the West, I worked to include priorities that will make our state more resilient to drought and wildfires.”

The three major Georgia Republican Senate candidates have also railed against the plan, arguing that it was too expensive. But newly-elected Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., wasted no time in securing provisions in the bill to benefit the state. The package included billions in funding for low and no-emission school buses that will be distributed through a program based on Warnock’s Clean Commute for Kids Act. Warnock said he also helped spearhead efforts to include $5 billion for the National Infrastructure Project Assistance Program, which is intended to better connect communities, and pushed for the inclusion of $7.5 billion for the RAISE grant program, which funds similar transportation projects. Warnock also fought to include a bill that provides $3 billion to improve highway safety. The Senate also included the RURAL Act, a highway safety bill that Warnock sponsored with Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., and an amendment he proposed with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to speed up construction of new sections of Interstate 14 from Texas to Georgia.

“Coming out of this pandemic, we have a once in a generation opportunity to repair our nation’s aging infrastructure while addressing the worsening climate crisis and supporting job growth, including the clean energy jobs that will move Georgia into the future,” Warnock said in a statement. “This legislation is vital to helping us build toward a future in Georgia that is both economically sustainable and ecologically sustainable.”

The bill will also provide billions to help New Hampshire repair and improve its roads and bridges, expand affordable broadband, and boost its power grid and water infrastructure. But Gov. Chris Sununu, who plans to run against incumbent Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan next year, dismissed the legislation during a radio interview this month even as he acknowledged he hadn’t read it.

“I don’t know exactly where the money’s going,” Sununu said. “I hope it is actually in infrastructure. A lot of times they say infrastructure, it’s really not. Beyond that, people have to understand we got $28 trillion in debt. Show me how we’re going to pay for this without burdening America with the bill for generations and generations.”

Hassan, who was one of the bipartisan negotiators, touted her work on the bill, noting that she directly negotiated $492 million to protect coastal communities and wildlife and $491 million to protect shorelines from erosion and flooding. She was also directly involved in negotiations to include $42 billion to expand affordable broadband, at least $100 million of which will go to her state, and a $1 billion program to improve local cybersecurity. The package also included Hassan’s Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing Innovation Act, which aims to direct loans to develop passenger railroads in New Hampshire and elsewhere. The Senate likewise included Hassan’s amendment to ensure her state would be eligible for an advanced technology grant program that can be used to remove PFAS from drinking water.

“It’s a truly historic bill,” Hassan said on Twitter, “and it’s a testament to what we can do when we come together to find common ground.”

But a growing number of Trump-allied Republicans have shown no interest in finding common ground, even as conservative stalwarts like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., supported the bipartisan bill. Though the bill was ultimately hammered out over months of painstaking negotiations and senators can now show voters that they secured funding that will benefit their constituents, the Trump wing of the GOP has increasingly concluded that doing nothing except launching attacks on the opposition — like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who sits on no House committees — is better for fundraising.

Florida stands to gain about $13 billion for highway projects, $2.6 billion for public transportation and hundreds of millions to expand electric vehicle charging stations and rural broadband. But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., facing a 2022 re-election battle that could become the most expensive Senate election ever, said he could not support the deal.

“I support investing in roads, bridges, broadband, and efforts to mitigate against sea-level rise, and I hoped there would be a bill I could vote for,” Rubio insisted in a statement. “But this bill was negotiated in secret, rushed through the process without meaningful opportunities to have input, and adds a net increase … to the national debt. I can’t vote for a bill like that.”

Fellow Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who is leading fundraising efforts for Senate Republicans, argued that “less than half of this bill is for roads, bridges, airports, and seaports,” insisting it was full of “liberal priorities.”

Some Republican candidates have increasingly echoed Trump’s tone on the bill, including in Pennsylvania, which is expected to get nearly $19 billion for bridges, roads, and other projects. But Republican Senate candidate Jeff Bartos called the bill “the latest iteration of a Washington hell-bent” on spending “money our children and grandchildren haven’t even earned yet.” Fellow GOP candidate Sean Parnell called the bill a “trillion dollar corporate welfare scheme for leftwing special interests.”

“The Republican Senate field continues to demonstrate that they have no real solutions to offer voters,” Jack Doyle, a spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, said in a statement.

McConnell has pushed back on Trump’s criticism of the bill to some degree, instead touting Biden’s credentials as a “moderate” and giving him “a lot of credit” for pushing the bill through. McConnell has held onto his leadership position for years in large part thanks to his efforts to steer more federal money to his constituents in Kentucky than to nearly any other state. He concluded it was vital to pass infrastructure spending despite his vow just three months ago to oppose all of  Biden’s agenda.

“Infrastructure is popular with both Republicans and Democrats,” McConnell told The Wall Street Journal. “The American people, divided, sent us a 50-50 Senate and a narrowly divided House. I don’t think the message from that was, ‘Do absolutely nothing.’ And if you’re going to find an area of potential agreement, I can’t think of a better one than infrastructure, which is desperately needed.”

After 20 years of dreadful mistakes, U.S. heads for exit as Taliban retakes Afghanistan

Nearly two full decades of lies and wishful thinking from U.S. generals, politicians, liberal interventionists and neoconservative talking heads came into full view Sunday as the Taliban in Afghanistan surrounded Kabul while American military forces and diplomatic personnel rapidly evacuated the U.S. embassy and the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani negotiated a surrender and transition government with opposition forces.

With reports that Bagram Air Base and nearby Parwan Prison had both fallen out of Afghan government hands, Taliban spokeperson Suhail Shaheen told the BBC that his group expects a peaceful transfer of power within days and assured the people of Afghanistan, including those in Kabul, that retribution and revenge would not follow.

“We assure the people in Afghanistan, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe. There will be no revenge on anyone,” Shaheen said.

The Taliban leadership, he continued, has “instructed our forces to remain at the gates of Kabul” and that they had no plans yet to to enter the city. “We are awaiting a peaceful transfer of power,” Shaheen said.

Asked to explain what a “peaceful transfer of power” means in practice, he said: “It means that the city and the power should be handed over to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and then, in future, we will have an Afghan inclusion Islamic government in which all Afghans will have participation.”

A press statement issued from the Taliban echoed that message, urging Afghans not to flee their own country and vowing that both their lives and property would not be threatened.

Subsequently — amid reports that Ghani has already left the country on a flight to Uzbekistan — Interior Minister Abdul Sattar Mirzakwal announced a “peaceful transfer of power” had been agreed to and that a transitional government was being formed. 

“The Afghan people should not worry,” Mirzakwal said in a recorded speech, according to Agence France-Presse.

“The safety of [Kabul] is guaranteed,” he said.”There will be no attack on the city, and the agreement is such that the transition of power will take place in a peaceful manner.”

In recent days, antiwar voices who opposed the initial invasion in 2001 and have railed against the U.S. occupation ever since have pointed out the inevitability of what is now unfolding, the rapid return of Taliban rule despite 20 years — during which trillions of dollars were spent and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were lost — of U.S. military leaders claiming that some kind of victory was possible.

“The tragic events unfolding in Afghanistan are yet further proof of the utter failure of our country’s endless wars and the mindset that enables them,” said Stephen Miles, executive director of the U.S.-based group Win Without War, on Friday. “Nearly two decades of military intervention and occupation did not build lasting peace. No number of bombs dropped, no length of time occupied, would have.”

On Sunday, veteran peace activist Medea Benjamin was among those wondering whether anyone in the U.S. military or foreign policy establishment would ever be held accountable for the deceit or failures in Afghanistan. “Who is going to be fired for 20 years of horrific failure in Afghanistan?” Benjamin asked on social media. “Who would you suggest?”

In a separate Sunday morning tweet, Benjamin said: “As the blame game for the Afghan crisis heats up, I want to add all who supported this disastrous invasion from the beginning, including those who bashed us at anti-war protests. We were right, you were wrong. We should have never invaded Afghanistan. Period.”

“The whole war on terror has proved a terrible failure and this should be admitted,” said Lindsey German, convener of the U.K.-based Stop the War coalition, in a statement on Sunday.

“We should also consider how the lives of Afghanis would have been improved if only a fraction of the money committed to this war … had gone into improving their lives through investment in infrastructure, housing, education, agriculture,” German added. “That was an opportunity that could have been taken but was ignored in favor of military solutions. And those have brought us to where we are today.”

With a massive U.S. evacuation operation underway, the UN warned Saturday of the potential for a massive refugee crisis as many Afghans — not assured they will be safe, or unwilling to live under Taliban rule — try to leave the country. On Friday, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) called on neighboring countries “to keep their borders open in light of the intensifying crisis” and warned that “inability to seek safety may risk innumerable civilian lives.” The UNHCR said it was standing ready to help counties scale up their humanitarian and assistance efforts as needed.

In a statement issued by the White House on Saturday, President Biden said that while he had mobilized approximately 5,000 U.S. soldiers to provide security and assist with the evacuation of Afghanistan, he was not considering changing course to maintain the occupation of the country which has been ongoing since 2001.

“I was the fourth president to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan — two Republicans, two Democrats,” Biden said. “I would not, and will not, pass this war on to a fifth.”

Florida mayors upset at “dictator” Ron DeSantis, say he won’t take their calls during pandemic

Florida mayors are growing increasingly exasperated by Gov. Ron DeSantis gathering “dictator” powers and refusing to take their phone calls.

Local officials across the state — including some Republicans — expressed frustration with the governor’s moves to prevent them from taking action against the coronavirus pandemic, and Hialeah’s mayor condemned DeSantis for blocking him from imposing a mask mandate in his heavily Republican community, reported the Washington Post.

“He’s a dictator,” said Mayor Carlos Hernandez, a Republican. “It’s a shame because we’re paying the price.”

A spokeswoman for the governor called the mayor’s comments “ridiculous,” adding that DeSantis had a right to use “executive power” if “local officials overstep and infringe on individual rights.”

“Since when do dictators prioritize individual rights over the unchecked expansion of government power?” said DeSantis press secretary Christina Pushaw, who pointed to reports that Washington, D.C., mayor Muriel Bowser had not abided by her own mask mandate. “That is truly dictatorial behavior. Rules for thee, but not for me.”

Florida legislators had been taking away authority from local government well before DeSantis took office in 2019, with many bills originating with the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and that loss of control has infuriated some mayors.

“Florida is a big state, and each corner of the state has its own challenges, so it’s hard for a one-size-fits all approach,” said Fort Lauderdale’s Democratic mayor Dean Trantalis.

Local officials say their frustration is compounded by DeSantis’ refusal to speak with them.

“I have never spoken to Ron DeSantis,” said St. Petersburg’s Democratic mayor Rick Kriseman. “He’s never called me, and the times I have tried to reach out to him and talk to him, whether by phone or when I was in Tallahassee, I have never been granted permission or an opportunity for an audience with him.”

Lawyer who fed Trump ‘nonsense’ legal theories ahead of Jan. 6 dumped by firm’s partners: report

According to a report from the Daily Beast, an obscure lawyer who managed to get the attention of then-president Donald Trump before the “Stop the Steal’ rally on Jan. 6th that preceded the Capitol riot was dumped by his partners and now they refuse to talk about him.

As the report notes, Kurt Olson, co-founder of New York’s Klafter, Olsen & Lesser — which has since changed names with him out — has caught the interest of political observers over how he was able to become a Trump favorite with many in the former administration saying they never met him despite his major influence on Trump.

According to the Beast, ” Emails released by the House Oversight Committee and reporting by Politico show that after the election, the Maryland attorney rose from relative obscurity in conservative politics to capture the ear of then-President Trump. Despite his access, several lawyers and administration officials intimately involved with the anti-democratic effort did not know or simply couldn’t remember Olsen—a reflection of the disjointed and chaotic state of post-election MAGA politics as different factions pushed competing authoritarian ideas and fought amongst themselves.”

Among the few who said they were familiar with his work, one described his legal advice to Trump as “nonsense.”

“Olsen’s ascent to the heights of MAGA activism began in December 2020 when [Texas Attorney General Ken] Paxton put together a Supreme Court case to toss out Joe Biden’s electoral victory in Pennsylvania,” the report states. “The move placed Olsen, who had little-to-no national profile in conservative politics, at the tip of the spear in the Trump-backed effort to overturn the 2020 election in court.”

After Paxton’s suit was shot down by all nine Supreme Court justices, Olson was able to gain access to Trump where he pitched the former president on having the Justice Department attempt to do what the Texas lawsuit to overturn the election didn’t do.

Olsen attempted to get an audience with acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen that failed, but by then he had Trump’s ear.

According to the report, “Olsen’s name also appeared on a memo that was hand-delivered to Trump in his very last days in office—a memo that also appeared to include a recommendation on resorting to ‘martial law if necessary.’ When pillow magnate and staunch Trump ally Mike Lindell visited the White House to brief Trump and administration officials and attorneys on his wild claims of Chinese hacking efforts in the 2020 election, Olsen’s name even appeared in a photo of documents Lindell brought to Trump, next to figures like Sidney Powell and Kash Patel, as suggestions for who Trump should appoint to senior positions during his quest to stay in power.”

According to the report, his involvement in the Paxton suit led his partners to dump him.

“Shortly after he signed on to help Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election at the Supreme Court, the firm changed its name and registered a new website—without Olsen’s name in the URL—on Feb. 24. Now, where Olsen’s bio used to be, a disclaimer says, ‘Kurt Olsen is not affiliated in any way with Klafter Lesser LLP,'” the report states adding that no one at the firm was willing to talk about him when contacted.

You can read more here.

20 common American behaviors that are considered rude elsewhere around the world

Just because you’ve mastered the art of not looking like an uncultured, uncouth slob in your own country doesn’t mean those skills translate to the rest of the world. In fact, many behaviors that would be considered innocuous — or even polite — where you’re from might raise (or sternly lower) eyebrows in other parts of the world. With that in mind, here are 20 behaviors that are widely viewed as acceptable in the United States but considered rude in other corners of the globe.

1. Referring to the United States as “America”

South America is also “America,” and South Americans regard it as rude and dismissive of their continent when we refer to our country using this umbrella term. —Erika Wolf

2. Putting your hands in your pockets while speaking

What’s considered a go-to move for socially awkward guys and gals throughout America is actually considered disrespectful in quite a few countries. Just ask Bill Gates, who, in 2013, found himself in the middle of a minor international controversy after shaking South Korean president Park Geun-hye’s hand with his left hand firmly planted in his pocket. Many South Koreans were — unlike Gates — up in arms about the gesture, but Gates, who, according to the gaming website Kokatu is “a long-time, serial hand-in-pocket shaker,” surely meant no harm. Lest we forget, he started off as a socially awkward American guy himself once upon a time. —Adam D’Arpino

3. Casually asking, “How are you?”

Ask this question in Europe — particularly in Italy — and you’ll get a detailed answer, not the “fine” you might be expecting from asking it in the U.S. —EW

4. Open-mouth laughing

Americans, in general, tend to laugh freely and loudly. Of course, people all around the world like a joke, but it doesn’t always follow that exploding into hysterical, open-mouth laughter is a desired, or even polite response. In Japan, open-mouthed, teeth-exposed laughter is thought to “sound like horses,” and is considered impolite, and in particular, unladylike, in the same manner Americans consider coughing, yawning, or eating with your mouth open to be rude. —AD

5. Accepting a compliment

How many times did mom tell you to say “thank you” after Aunt Gladys called you a handsome fella? Well, if you were in Japan, you could have denied it. Accepting a compliment is seen as arrogant and egotistical. —EW

6. Whistling

In the United States, whistling is as open to interpretation as half a glass of water: Positive types associate it with a carefree, can-do attitude, while cynics associate it with cloying levels of chutzpah and deficient levels of self-awareness — but you’d be hard-pressed to find many folks who consider it rude. But this isn’t the case in Haiti, especially for kids, who are generally to be seen and not heard. According to Haitian Creole language blogger Mandaly Claude Louis-Charles, whistling exists alongside sitting cross-legged, making direct eye contact, and standing with your hands on your sides as things to never be done near elders. —AD

7. Sitting in the back of a taxi

While most American cabbies would find it a little disconcerting if rode alongside them in the front passenger seat, in other areas of the world—like New Zealand, Australia, and parts of the UK — it’s considered rude notto sit next to the driver. Riding in the back of the car while they sit up front would have the driver thinking you’re a snob. —EW

8. Showing up on time

While most Americans are fine with people showing up fashionably late to certain kinds of parties and events, it’s generally considered bad form to keep folks waiting, particularly if the events of the night are time-sensitive. Take, for instance, a dinner party where there’s a lot of preparation involved and showing up late means potentially delaying the meal. In Argentine culture, however, showing up for a dinner party right on the nose would be like showing up roughly an hour early in America: It would be considered slightly audacious, and you’d risk finding your host still in the throes of preparation. This consistently lax sense of timekeeping extends to many corners of Argentine culture. —AD

9. Wearing shoes indoors

In many households throughout Asia (and lots of European households, too), it’s considered rude to wear shoes indoors. Often, hosts will have slippers for guests to wear; some sites suggest bringing along clean socksto change into. Regardless of where you live, taking off your shoes is a good practice for a sanitary home—EW

10. Blowing your nose in public

This one isn’t as counterintuitive as a lot of the other entries on the list. The bathroom is reserved for almost every activity that involves getting something in or on your body out or off of it, but in America, nose-blowing in public is considered a minor annoyance rather than a no-no, the way it’s viewed in Japan. In fact, the Japanese word for nasal discharge, hanakuso, literally means “nose waste.” —AD

11. Requesting condiments or salt for your meal

If you’re vacationing in Portugal and want to add a little salt and pepper to your dish, know that by asking for those seasonings, you’re insulting the chef’s skills. (But if the shakers are already on the table, season away!) And don’t even think about asking for ketchup in France.Redbooksuggests researching the dining etiquette of every foreign country you visit, considering how many variations there are even just throughout Europe. —EW

12. Tipping

In the U.S., not tipping is the easiest way to become the least popular person at any restaurant or bar, equally hated by friends, significant others, servers, and restaurant owners alike. But in Japan, tipping at restaurants is actually considered rude—superior service is expected without an added incentive and is calculated into the bill. Considering tipping has little to do with good service, and that it makes servers’ ability to make a living wage completely reliant on the kindness of customers, it might be one custom worth ditching within American borders [PDF]. But don’t totally skimp on the tips if you’re traveling in Japan. In services like tourism, where guides are primarily interacting with Westerners, the practice has caught on a bit. —AD

13. Opening a gift in the presence of the giver

This might seem like an odd one, since in America seeing a gift-opener’s sincere appreciation/half-hearted attempts to disguise their disappointment is pretty much the best part of gift giving. But in many Asian countries, including China and India, tearing right into a present in front of the gift-presenter is considered very poor form, both because if one gift-giver has clearly out-gifted someone else, it’s a bit awkward, and because digging right in looks a bit greedy and lacks suspense. —AD

14. Not rejecting a gift

The social politics of gift-giving around the world and throughout history is surprisingly complex and laden with opportunities for missteps, so here’s another tip to keep in mind in case you’re ever traveling through Asia and feeling super generous. In the United States, having someone reject a gift up to three times might look a bit overly modest at best, and a bit rude at worst. However, in much of Japan it’s par for the course — according to blogger Makiko Itoh, it’s “a ritualistic dance” of manners and tradition. —AD

15. Wearing athleisure, or any kind of sweatpants

Bumming around like you’re popping to the store for milk simply isn’t an option in most Asian and European countries. And just because as a tourist you’re doing a lot of walking, it’s no excuse to look like you’re heading to the gym. Real clothes, with zippers and buttons, are the norm. —EW

16. Doing pretty much anything left-handed

Sure, in America shaking hands is universally reserved for the right hand. But in almost every other facet of life, while being left-dominant may mean suffering hundreds of minor inconveniences on a daily basis, it doesn’t make it look like it’s your life’s work to insult everyone, all the time. Here are just a few things that, in many parts of the world, aren’t to be done with the left hand: give gifts, receive gifts, touch people — just about anything and everything that involves contact and doesn’t require two paws. Why? If your first instinct is to think the left hand is associated with evil, you aren’t wrong; there are myths about the left hand and lefties being sinister across many, many cultures. But the primary reason is much more practical: Throughout history, and still in many countries throughout the world, the left hand is reserved for the nittiest and grittiest of bathroom duties. —AD

17. Going sans mask while sick

If you live in a major metropolitan area, there’s a good chance you’ve seen a Japanese person sporting a surgical mask, even if they’re, say, wearing business attire and probably not fresh out of surgery. Mask wearing is generally common courtesy for people who feel like they’re coming down with something and don’t want to spread their germs. It makes sense, considering Japan is one of the most densely-populated and urban large countries on Earth. Interestingly, masks have also caught on in Japan for a wide range of reasons beyond shielding germs, including staying warm, hiding emotional reactions, and just looking generally fashionable. These days, mask-wearing is commonplace in many areas of the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic—AD

18. Crossing your fingers

Sure, this isn’t exactly an everyday occurrence in America, but if you spot someone crossing their fingers, chances are they’re wishing themselves or someone else the best of luck and wishes. But crossed fingers carry a very different connotation in Vietnam: It’s a quick, crude and impolite shorthand for “vagina.” —AD

 19. Throwing a backwards peace sign

Now, if your palm is facing away from you, you won’t incite a brawl. But in the UK, if you do what so many Americans do in Instagram selfies and flash the peace sign palm inward, then it’s an insult. In fact, a Brit on social media even took the time to inform Zendaya that she was doing it wrong. According to Reader’s Digest, one theory—which has not been proven—has the offensive gesture dating all the way back to a 15th-century battle in which imprisoned archers had their index and middle fingers cut off, rendering them useless with their bows. Those who were lucky enough to escape with all the fingers intact were said to have defiantly thrown up those two fingers as they fled. —EW

20. Gesturing to someone to “rock on”

While it’s totally cool for metal fans to make the sign of the horns at concerts, in many countries, it apparently means that a man’s wife is sleeping around behind his back . . . but everyone else knows it. —EW

The reason reading makes you sleepy

You’ve finally tucked yourself into bed and cracked open the detective novel you’ve been waiting all day to get back to. Three pages later, you’re fighting a losing battle against two suddenly very heavy eyelids.

You were wide awake mere minutes ago, and the protagonist just uncovered a promising new lead in the case. So, what gives?

As the BBC’s “Science Focus” explains, the coziness of your covers could be working against you. People usually try to read in a quiet, comfortable atmosphere, and those conditions happen to be ideal for sleep. Reading also eases your mind and draws its focus away from whatever preoccupations might otherwise keep you awake.

“For many [people], reading can be relaxing and enjoyable, which can put your mind and body in the appropriate mindset or mood to go to sleep,” Dr. Raman Malhotra, a neurologist and member of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s board of directors, told Refinery29. “The main reason reading may help some fall asleep is that it allows your mind some time to rest and relax before turning out the lights to fall asleep.”

The concentration required to process every word can be pretty exhausting, too, especially if your chosen tome is dense. And reading line after line of anything can make you feel like giving your eyes a break.

These factors all make reading a great activity to add to your pre-sleep routine if you’re looking for ways to fall asleep faster. But if your body’s snoozing impulse is continually keeping you from enjoying a good book, there are some tricks to thwart it. Book Riot suggests reading in the morning, or trying an audiobook instead. Reading in a spot that isn’t your bed — preferably one where you’re sitting up, rather than lying down — can help, too. Reading in a public place like a coffee shop or park can also discourage dozing.

[h/t Refinery29]

Do you love reading? Are you eager to know incredibly interesting facts about novelists and their works? Then pick up our new book, The Curious Reader: A Literary Miscellany of Novels and Novelists, out now!

Thanks to climate change, supply chain disruptions are poised to be the new normal

Dr. Thomas Goldsby, a professor of supply chain management at the University of Tennessee — Knoxville’s Haslam College of Business, assigns his undergraduate student a “routine exercise” that frequently proves revelatory. Its purpose is to illustrate the complexity of the various trade routes that bring products from all over the world to consumers. The assignment is to figure out how far the students can trace the supply chain — if possible going back to the exact point when the raw materials were extracted.

“When my students have had an opportunity to present their results to the companies and the products that they produce, the company executives learn something every time,” Goldsby told Salon. “I just think it’s remarkable that my undergraduate students can present news about the business or the products and the senior executives are like, ‘Wow, we had no idea that a golf club manufacturer is wondering why they have a hard time getting titanium.’ It’s because there’s not a lot of titanium that goes into a golf club, but there’s a whole heck of a lot of it that goes into an aircraft to build the fuselage.”

Goldsby uses this exercise to explain the complexity of the supply chains and how unanticipated hiccups — such as another industry wanting a resource you need, and you not knowing it — can have drastic, unexpected consequences.

The internecine nature of the supply chain means that seemingly unrelated things can have an effect on each other — say, a global pandemic and a microchip shortage. Microchips, the sets of circuits hosted on small flat pieces of silicon, are intrinsic to so much of industrial civilization: they are used in computers, cars, mobile phones, home appliances and virtually all other electronic equipment. We already have a shortage of microchips because of COVID-19. Yet it is going to get a whole lot worse because of global climate change.

Pandemics may not seem to have much to do with the manufacture of microchips; silicon chips, certainly, cannot contract the virus. Yet the supply chain for microchips is fickle: historically, chipmakers were usually able to keep pace with growing demand for chips in products like automobiles and home electronics. But the pandemic interrupted that rhythm by causing consumers to behave in unpredictable ways, with manufacturers struggling to correctly foresee how many chips they would need for everything from Volkswagens to Playstations. Because the supply chains are so complicated, this made it easier for problems to arise that delayed production or transportation.

Worse, the industry has a lot of bottlenecks. There are only a handful of foundries that account for most of the world’s chip fabrication, resulting in roughly 91% of the contract chipmaking business being located in Asia. This makes countries like the United States vulnerable to production disruptions either in those distant lands or at any step along the way. Likewise, there are companies in the United States, Japan, the Netherlands and elsewhere that have also found ways to make themselves indispensable to the global manufacturing of microchips. The end result is that this particularly important piece of equipment is especially vulnerable to shortages when there are unexpected alterations to consumer demand, a phenomenon known as the bullwhip effect.

Experts do not believe that the chip shortage is going to end anytime soon, but it is only the beginning of the problem. If you thought COVID-19 caused problems for supply chains, imagine how they’ll be blown apart when climate change causes extreme weather events, rising sea levels and massive spikes in temperature all over the world. There will be increasingly frequent and severe wildfires on the Pacific Coast, flooding in our eastern cities and millions of refugees. It is impossible to anticipate the number of new variables this will throw into orderly supply chain management — other than accepting that particularly intricate supply chains are almost certainly going to start coming apart.

“The industry is very clearly dependent on globally-interconnected supply chains and distribution systems,” Dr. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, told Salon by email. “Anything, such as COVID-19, that disrupts transportation is going to disrupt these supply chains and distribution systems and lead to bottlenecks and backlogs.”


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


Mann cited a recent report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explaining that this “will clearly lead to delays in the distribution of microchips and will presumably have an adverse impact on the semiconductor and computer industries.”

The most obvious solution to this problem, naturally, would be for world leaders to take global warming seriously and do whatever it takes to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fix the damage already done to our planet. Frustrating though it may be, however, there are practical geopolitical realities which strongly suggest this may not happen. That means we face a chip shortage in the foreseeable future — among other shortages.

“I think that we need to acknowledge that there are interactions that we don’t yet fully understand and appreciate,” Goldsby told Salon. He later added, “We’ve got to go back to raw material extraction and we need to try to map it out and understand where those raw ingredients come from.”

This is more challenging than it might seem, because despite their small size, microchips are very intricate.

“It’s basically like making a cake,” Dr. Ron Olson, Director of Operations at Cornell NanoScale Science and Technology Facility, told Salon. “You start off with this base layer, then you add and subtract metals and oxides in different layers, just like following a recipe on a cake or baking or whatever. Then you end up with your final product.”

Dr. Christopher K. Ober, a professor of materials engineering at Cornell University, explained that one way to get around possible shortages is to follow the example of a car manufacturer that proved more resilient to supply chain issues than other organizations.

“Toyota really was a big proponent of lean manufacturing,” Ober explained. “Basically they didn’t keep anything in warehouses. It was delivered in a truck at the same time they were going to put it into a car. What Toyota learned, I think it was because of [the Fukushima earthquake in 2011], they couldn’t entirely depend on instantaneous delivery. They actually had to start storing critical parts that might be hard to access.”

While this kind of smart resource allocation can protect companies from immediate issues like chip shortages, one economist argued to Salon that we need to stop assuming lengthy supply chains are an inevitable and necessary part of our economy. According to Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, lengthy international supply chains were developed by a handful of powerful corporate elites to maximize their profits — regardless of the obvious fragilities in such arrangements.

“It was a deliberate economic sequence of decisions made by a particular group of people for particular purposes that created the global supply chain,” Wolff explained, saying the choices were made by the thousands of people who comprise the boards of directors in American corporations. “They decided, starting in the 1970s, that American capitalism had reached a kind of tipping point. It had grown spectacularly over the previous century. It had made a ton of money, but along the way, it had had to compensate the working class. Not on a scale that the working class deserved, needed or wanted, but because of the unionization, they had to come across with something.”

They did, improving working conditions for American employees at the behest of labor, but in the process corporations saw their profits decline. Then they turned to nations in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Many of them had only recently shaken off the yoke of European colonialism and could not protect their workers as well as Americans. Their citizens had taken over their governments and been able to improve the education, health care and other social systems for their people (these had been neglected by the European colonial powers). This mean that they could be substituted for American workers at much lower cost.

“Long story short, a massive relocation of business was accomplished by the capitalists of the world, in which they went to China, India, Brazil, and other places far away from the centers of capitalism in Western Europe, North America and Japan,” Wolff observed. “That’s why we have long supply chains. It was the corporate leadership that made the decision to maximize their profits by moving all that.”

Like so many other features of capitalism, the development of long supply chains seems poised to self-immolate because of climate change. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the economic titans are interested in changing the way supply chains work at this juncture. That means we are facing a future where we lose access to the internet, can no longer watch television or movies, have countless useless cars and struggle to find food. Hence, unless the economy is restructured to end climate change and ridiculously long supply chains, it is hard to see how realistic hope will be possible.

After 20 years of lies and war, U.S. retreat underway as Taliban retake control of Afghanistan

Nearly two full decades of lies and wishful thinking from U.S. generals, politicians, liberal interventionists, and neoconservative talking heads came into full view Sunday as the Taliban in Afghanistan entered Kabul, while American military forces and diplomatic personnel rapidly evacuated the U.S. Embassy and the Afghan government of President Ashraf Ghani negotiated a surrender and transition government with opposition forces.

With reports that Bagram Air Base and nearby Parwan Prison had both fallen out of Afghan government hands, Taliban spokeperson Suhail Shaheen told the BBC that his group expects a peaceful transfer of power within days and assured the people of Afghanistan, including those in Kabul, that retribution and revenge would not follow.

“We assure the people in Afghanistan, particularly in the city of Kabul, that their properties, their lives are safe. There will be no revenge on anyone,” Shaheen said.

Asked to explain what a “peaceful transfer of power” means in practice, he said: “It means that the city and the power should be handed over to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan and then, in future, we will have an Afghan inclusion Islamic government in which all Afghans will have participation.”

A press statement issued from the Taliban echoed that message, urging Afghans not to flee their own country and vowing that both their lives and property would not be threatened.

Subsequently—amid reports that President Ghani had already left the country—Interior Minister Abdul Sattar Mirzakwal announced a “peaceful transfer of power” had been agreed to and that a transitional government was being formed. 

“The Afghan people should not worry,” Mirzakwal said in a recorded speech, according to Agence France-Presse.

“The safety of [Kabul] is guaranteed,” he said.”There will be no attack on the city, and the agreement is such that the transition of power will take place in a peaceful manner.”

In recent days, anti-war voices who opposed the initial invasion in 2001 and have railed against the U.S. occupation ever since have pointed out the inevitability of what is now unfolding, the rapid return of Taliban rule despite twenty years—during which trillions of dollars were spent and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were lost—of U.S. military leaders claiming that some kind of victory was possible.

“The tragic events unfolding in Afghanistan are yet further proof of the utter failure of our country’s endless wars and the mindset that enables them,” said Stephen Miles, executive director of the U.S.-based group Win Without War, on Friday. “Nearly two decades of military intervention and occupation did not build lasting peace. No number of bombs dropped, no length of time occupied, would have.”

On Sunday, veteran peace activist Medea Benjamin was among those wondering who—any one in the U.S. military or foreign policy establishment—would ever be held accountable for the deceit or failures in Afghanistan.

“Who is going to be fired for 20 years of horrific failure in Afghanistan?” Benjamin asked on social media. “Who would you suggest?”

In a separate Sunday morning tweet, Benjamin said: “As the blame game for the Afghan crisis heats up, I want to add all who supported this disastrous invasion from the beginning, including those who bashed us at anti-war protests. We were right, you were wrong. We should have never invaded Afghanistan. Period.”

“The whole war on terror has proved a terrible failure and this should be admitted,” said Lindsey German, convenor of U.K.-based Stop the War coalition, in a statement on Sunday.

“We should also consider how the lives of Afghanis would have been improved if only a fraction of the money committed to this war… had gone into improving their lives through investment in infrastructure, housing, education, agriculture,” German added. “That was an opportunity that could have been taken but was ignored in favour of military solutions. And those have brought us to where we are today.”

With a massive U.S. evacuation operation underway, the United Nations warned Saturday of the potential for a massive refugee crisis as many Afghans—not assured they will be safe or unwilling to live under Taliban rule—try to leave the country. On Friday, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) called on neighboring countries “to keep their borders open in light of the intensifying crisis” and warned that “inability to seek safety may risk innumerable civilian lives.” The UNHCR said it was standing ready to help counties scale up their humanitarian and assistance efforts as needed.

In a statement issued by the White House on Saturday, President Joe Biden said the while he had mobilized approximately 5,000 U.S. soldiers to provide security and assist with the evacuation of Afghanistan he was not considering changing course to maintain the occupation of the country which has been ongoing since 2001.

“I was the fourth President to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan—two Republicans, two Democrats,” Biden said. “I would not, and will not, pass this war onto a fifth.”

Navigating the complicated world of sustainable meat delivery

Shopping for 100% grassfed beef or pastured chicken used to mean seeking out a specialty butcher shop, visiting a farmers’ market, or going straight to the source by stopping by a local farm.

While all of those (great) options are still available, the marketplace for sustainable meat has also moved online, with several companies now offering to deliver organic bacon and drumsticks (and often “sustainable seafood,” too) directly to your door.

Unlike meat delivery outfits that sell commodity meat with nebulous promises of “premium” quality — think Omaha Steaks — these sustainable meat delivery companies primarily operate outside industrial channels and make bold claims about doing things differently around environmental impact, animal welfare, and health.

There’s Grass Roots Farmers’ Cooperative in Arkansas and Porter Road in Tennessee. ButcherBox is so big it runs commercials on national television; Pre will ship you its grassfed steaks through its own site, but you can also order them on AmazonFresh. And after more people turned to delivery during COVID-19, even some individual small ranches started offering online sales and national shipping.

“[Selling online] has been a great tool for a lot of well-intentioned farmers and well-intentioned aggregators. Ordering meat online is not inherently bad…but transparency is super important,” said Camas Davis, a butcher who co-founded the Good Meat Breakdown, a resource that helps consumers find and cook good meat, in response to increased interest in meat sourcing during COVID-19.

So if you’re interested in clicking for chicken and there’s no farmer standing in front of you to answer questions, what else do you need to know to make the right choice? After the recent revelations about fraudulent labeling of grassfed, organic beef at Belcampo, the question is even more timely. We talked to Davis and other experts and did some digging into the landscape of sustainable meat delivery to find out.

What is “good meat,” and are these companies selling it? 

The thing that makes these questions so complicated is that there is no agreed upon definition of “good meat.” At the Good Meat Project, Davis and her team focus on “some form of caring for land, animals, and people.” It’s intentionally vague, she said, because while they want to move animal agriculture towards the most advanced, regenerative methods, they also want the definition to be inclusive enough to acknowledge current realities, which often involve farmers and eaters making compromises to make things work outside the industrial system.  Pastured poultry operations might use non-organic feed to keep costs down, for example, but organic poultry operations might not provide nearly as much outdoor access for their animals.

“We’re trying to help consumers…navigate their own values around meat, not to dictate to them what good meat is,” she said. “We simply say, ‘Here’s our basic definition. There’s a lot within that where you can decide for yourself if something is important or not.’ So…nodding to the fact that there’s not necessarily one right way to do it.”

And when you start to look at the range of online meat companies, it’s clear that they’re taking many different approaches.

Animal welfare is one issue that’s important to many eaters.

Heritage Foods has been selling meat from ancient breeds of livestock — all of which are raised outdoors on pasture — to chefs in New York City and across the country for decades, and it also now offers online ordering and nationwide shipping. Its focus is on preserving heritage breeds of turkey, pigs and more, to raise animals that thrive outdoors, retain agricultural biodiversity, and produce maximum flavor. (Disclosure: I host a podcast on Heritage Radio Network, which was founded by the founder of Heritage Foods.)

This focus on breeds is especially relevant to poultry, since the vast majority of chickens in the US have been bred to grow incredibly quickly, and that fast growth can make it difficult for the animals to move around and lead to health problems, even on farms with plenty of outdoor access.

That was the starting point for Matt Wadiak, the founder of Cooks Venture, a much newer sustainable meat delivery company based on an 800-acre farm in Arkansas. Cooks Venture is breeding its own slow-growing chickens to produce birds that have strong, healthy frames and that develop muscle later, for more tender meat. In addition to its own farm, a network of about 60 farmers in Arkansas and Missouri raise Cooks Venture’s unique birds, which are free to roam and forage on pasture when they’re not in the barns. Wadiak’s primary goal was producing a higher welfare breed because he believes chickens belong outside but doesn’t think industrial breeds can thrive on pasture. “That is a bird that is specifically bred to be in a very controlled environment,” he said. “They’re putting these animals where they were never meant to be, and the bird is still in a genetic prison.”

Wadiak also prioritizes environmental initiatives such as a large silvopasture installation just completed at the Cooks Venture farm and a long-term project he’s working on to harvest cover crops for feed. But unlike some other companies, his chickens are not eating organic feed. ButcherBox, on the other hand, only sources organic chicken, which means the birds are fed organic feed but may not have the same level of access to the outdoors.

One thing the two companies do have in common with each other and many others in this space (including Crowd Cow and Pre) is that they’re both sourcing the grassfed beef they sell primarily from Australia and New Zealand.

Wadiak presents that option as the best choice. He believes those countries are better suited for 100% grassfed beef production because cattle there can graze on lush grasses 365 days a year.

ButcherBox founder Mike Salguero sees the issue a little differently. He said the company sold grassfed beef from US farmers in its early days, but that as it grew, there weren’t enough farmers doing 100% grassfed production to support the demand, and that the beef he was getting domestically didn’t match the quality of Australia’s, since farmers there had a well-developed system and the climate advantage. “But I do not want to source from Australia forever,” he said, explaining that he’s now engaging with the Department of Agriculture to encourage a study of scaling up grassfed production in the US. “I think the opportunity is to build a grassfed beef program in the United States. In order to do that, we have to change some stuff. We can’t just plug it into the commodity model,” he said.

Of course, there are other companies selling grassfed beef from small farms in the US, and as Davis points out, while the supply may not meet the demand that bigger companies can drum up, companies can make the choice to use that demand to help grow domestic supply. “They could choose to buy from domestic grass-fed producers or commit to supporting the growth of those producers by saying, ‘We have x amount of demand, we commit to buying this amount from you. Let’s make this happen in three years when your grassfed beef is ready.’ That kind of thing. But obviously that’s a long-term commitment.”

For example, Heritage Foods, Porter Road, and Grass Roots Farmers’ Cooperative were all created to build a bigger market for small farms that are already raising animals sustainably here. A pair of Nashville chefs created Porter Road as a butcher shop to sell meat from local farms in Tennessee and Kentucky and then expanded it to include national shipping in 2018. All of their meat — beef, pork, lamb and chicken — comes from animals raised on pasture. However, instead of 100% grassfed, their farmers finish their cattle by feeding them grain in the field at the end of their lives. This cuts out the feedlot system but produces meat that more closely resembles what most Americans are used to, which the founders believewill help them have a bigger impact on creating better systems in the US.

Grass Roots Farmers’ Cooperative sells grassfed beef, forested pork and pastured poultry from a network of small farms mostly located in Arkansas and Missouri and owns and operates its own processing.

Rebecca Thistlethwaite, director of the Niche Meat Processor Assistance Network (NMPAN) based at Oregon State University, pointed to Grass Roots as an example of a meat delivery company that was creating value for farmers and communities in rural America. “I’m interested in helping US farmers and ranchers. I want to keep farmers on our land viable. So number one, my top concern is money going to US producers,” she said. During COVID-19, Thistlewaite created a database of individual small farmsaround the country selling their meat online. “Second, I’m really interested in getting more dollars into the producers’ hands rather than into the hands of intermediaries or investor-owned corporations or having profits go to shareholders. That’s just extracting wealth from the countryside, and that model is what’s destroying rural America. So that’s not something I want to contribute to either,” she said.

While she has been too busy recently to continue updating the database, it’s still an incredible resource if you’re interested in getting your meat delivered directly from a farm rather than through a company that aggregates. Aina is another website that allows you to search for farms that deliver in your area, including meat producers.

What does it mean to be transparent? 

Transparency is a word used often in this world, but, ironically, it’s often unclear what it means. Grass Roots makes transparency easy. In addition to providing the names of its member farms and detailing the practices those farms follow, it uses blockchain technology that allows you to trace each piece of meat to a specific farm. Heritage Foods also provides detailed information on all of its farms.

But the bigger companies like ButcherBox, Crowd Cow, Pre, and even Cooks Venture (for beef) are generally sourcing meat through intermediaries, so you might not be able to trace what’s on your plate to a specific farm. A company like Pre buys from thousands of farms in Australia and New Zealand, but it does share fairly detailed sourcing standards. Thrive Market, a leading online retailer of what it calls “ethically sourced” groceries, sells a wide variety of meats from producers — some who are identified and others who aren’t  — using a range of practices, so sorting through the options takes some work. Its own Thrive Market beef comes from Chile, where it says the cattle are 100% grassfed. Some of its meats come from outside brands that have certifications and other qualifiers, like California-based Mary’s certified organic chicken, which the Cornucopia Institute gives high marks for its practices, but other poultry options are less transparent, like its Thrive Market chicken thighs which don’t identify a farm or supplier and which it says are from “humanely, pasture-raised heritage birds,” all terms that are impossible to check.

Other companies also share the brands they’re buying from, which can be helpful. ButcherBox buys chicken from Shenandoah Valley Organic’s Farmer Focus and pork from Niman Ranch, for example. There’s also overlap: Crowd Cow sells Cooks Venture’s chicken.

Of course, as the Belcampo situation demonstrated, while it’s likely a rare occurrence, even companies that provide detailed sourcing information can sometimes lie. “There’s only so much you can know if you’re being actively deceived,” said Bryan Mayer, a leader in the better meat industry who co-developed Fleishers‘ butcher training program many years ago. “Never has the consumer had more information available to them, but is it good information?” Mayer said butcher shops with the highest standards across the country have built their reputations with customers based on trust over many years. Online, that’s harder to do, because a lot of that trust-building involves the ability to ask direct questions. Davis and Thistlethwaite both made a similar point: they said that the biggest tell is if a company — whether it’s a massive aggregator or a small farm selling its own products — is willing and able to answer any and every question you might have.

“I need to get to a place where I feel comfortable buying the meat, and that means that I need meat producers and professionals who can tell me where that meat came from and how it got to my table,” Davis said. Thistlethwaite suggested looking for farms and sellers that provide photos and videos of their individual farm operations, talk in detail about their practices and standards, and allow for occasional visits to farms.

Third-party certifications can also be helpful, especially when buying from an online seller that is a larger aggregator, although they vary in reliability.

The Cornucopia Institute provides scorecards on organic beef and poultry that score different brands on their level of commitment to meaningful organic systems, but many of the brands and farms selling online are not covered in the scorecards.

For animal welfare across all kinds of meat, Animal Welfare Approved is the most rigorous and meaningful certification. To verify beef is 100% grassfed, there are several reliable third-party certifications, including PCO Certified 100% Grassfed, American Grassfed, Certified Grassfed by AGW, and NOFA-NY Certified 100% Grassfed.

The bottom line

These considerations barely scratch the surface of what you could consider when deciding whether or not to buy your meat online and who to get it from if you do. There’s also the packaging (many companies are now using 100% recyclable or compostable options) and how farmers and workers are treated and compensated.

In the end, it’s clear that getting meat delivered to your door can be a sustainable, ethical option. But just like you don’t really know how the local farmers at the farmers’ market are dealing with weeds or treating their animals until you ask, you’ll have to evaluate each company and farm you click individually, by looking into the information they provide, asking questions and checking certifications. And if you do find a company or farm that sells online that aligns with your “good meat” values, it could help further shift your purchasing away from industrial sources.

Thistlewaite sees it as one piece of the good meat puzzle. “There are a variety of reasons why buying local year round doesn’t always work, so I think buying from one of these farms that ships frozen products is not a bad thing at all,” she said. “I buy some local meat at a local butcher shop that’s owned by a farmer, I buy some at my farmers’ market, and then I buy frozen meat shipped from Arkansas from the Grass Roots Farmers’ Cooperative because I can get more variety.”

How hot sauce and butter rewrote the chicken wing’s underdog story

I love a good underdog story, which is, originally, how the story of the Buffalo wing begins. In the 1960s, chicken wings weren’t quite scrap meat, but they also didn’t command the prices that white-meat breast or even skin-on thighs did at the local butcher. 

They were akin to chicken feet and necks — the bony bits best used for making stock and adding savoriness to stews. In fact, according to Dominic Bellissimo, his mother, Teressa, first served the wings at her bar as something special to pass around gratis at the stroke of midnight. The Anchor Bar, which Teressa co-owned with her husband Frank, was located in a very Catholic pocket of Buffalo, N.Y., and many of the more devout patrons didn’t eat meat on Fridays.

When the clock struck 12 and it was officially Saturday, they’d serve the wings as a cheap snack for barflys, something akin to peanuts and stale Chex Mix. 

When he was alive, Frank told the story a little differently. As New Yorker Magazine reporter Calvin Trillin wrote in 1980, Frank said the bar had ordered a delivery of chicken necks, which they used to flavor their weekly batches of spaghetti sauce. Instead, a shipment of chicken wings arrived. 

RELATED: Coffee and beer are the secret ingredients to these juicy – but not spicy! – chicken wings

“Frank Bellissimo thought it was a shame to use the wings for sauce,” Trillin wrote. “‘They were looking at you, like saying, ‘I don’t belong in the sauce,’ he has often recalled. He implored his wife, who was doing the cooking, to figure out some more dignified end for the wings.”

Indeed, the wings were destined for greater things, soaring to new heights, primarily thanks to the coating that Teressa concocted, a mouth-puckering — but surprisingly luxe — combination of vinegar-based hot sauce and melted butter. 

What started as “a blue-collar dish for a blue-collar town,” as one Buffalonian interviewed by Trillin put it, became the basis for a multi-billion dollar industry as wing chains began to dot the American landscape. Buffalo Wild Wings opened in 1983, followed by Hooters a year later. Already-established chain restaurants like Domino’s, McDonald’s and Pizza Hut soon added the wings to their menus. 

In 2002, the inaugural National Buffalo Wing Festival (now shortened to Wing Fest) took place in Buffalo. “Of local festivals that have come and gone,” Jill Greenberg wrote for ArtVoice, “the Wing Fest’s staying power is a result of raising approximately $200,000 for local charities and serving almost 3,000,000 chicken wings with 100 sauce varieties to over 500,000 hungry visitors over the years.” 


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


According to Greenberg, there are now at least hundreds of sauce varieties to coat wings, from sticky-sweet barbecue to the lemon-pepper wet of “Atlanta” fame (which deserves a “Saucy” column of its own). 

But the thing that made the original chicken wing explode in popularity was that original Buffalo sauce. If the story of the wing was positioned as a cliched high school coming-of-age drama, the once-humble chicken wing is the quiet art student just waiting for the right boy — the Buffalo sauce, in this analogy — to remove her glasses and reveal her appeal to the world. 

It’s the perfect mix of buttery lusciousness, salt, acidity and heat; the condiment world’s true platonic ideal of “Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat.” And while people have their favorite standard hot sauces to throw in the mix — Frank’s Red Hot is popular where I’m from — there’s definitely room to experiment a bit with more nuanced hot sauces. 

I’m not necessarily talking about wing-competition-hot hot sauces (but if that’s your thing, give “Hot Ones” a watch). Instead, consider hot sauces that bring an additional flavor to the table. Here are a few examples: 

Gochujang 

This thick, red paste is a staple in Korean cooking, thanks in large part to its sweet heat and subtle funkiness. Made with red chile pepper flakes, glutinous rice, salt and fermented soybeans, it also has a touch of umami flavor that really plays well with meat like chicken. 

Chili Crisp 

Here at “Saucy,” we love chili crisp — take a look at our guide for using it in unique ways if you don’t believe me. This slightly oily condiment is made with fried chili pepper, garlic and roasted soybeans, which provide a nice textural contrast to the fried wing.

Fruit-based Hot Sauces

Whether it’s mango and habanero or dragon fruit and chipotle, fruitiness and spice are a natural pair. If you’re not looking for blast-your-mouth-off heat, many fruit-based hot sauces are the way to go. 

Mix these with sauces with good butter (here’s our guide to buying it) and elevate your own chicken wings from basic barfly snack to something that causes a local stir — much like Teressa Bellissimo. 

Read More Saucy:

Minnesota GOP rocked by top donor’s sex trafficking scandal, as party chair faces calls to resign

The Republican Party of Minnesota was rocked this week by a scandal involving a top donor and conservative activist who was indicted for operating a child sex trafficking scheme, a sordid affair which also implicated an up-and-coming College Republican leader from the state. 

According to federal charges unsealed Thursday, 30-year-old Anton ‘Tony’ Lazzaro is accused of conspiring with others to recruit six underage victims to engage in “commercial sex acts.” He was taken into custody in Minnesota just a few hours after the indictment was made public, the U.S. Attorney’s office said.

Lazzaro is also reportedly a close friend of state Republican Party Chair Jennifer Carnahan, spurring calls for her resignation from a number of state lawmakers.

Minnesota has proven itself as an important battleground over the last few election cycles — with former President Donald Trump outperforming expectations in the state despite a close loss in 2020. The scandal threatens to upend key fundraising efforts and behind-the-scenes strategizing as Republican try improve upon that performance in next year’s midterms, an especially important cycle given Minnesota’s status as one of the few states with a currently divided legislature. 

The Minnesota College Republicans organization said Saturday that Gisela Castro Medina, the newly installed 19-year-old chair of the University of St. Thomas chapter, had been arrested in Florida Thursday alongside Lazzaro for “obstruction of justice, sex trafficking, and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of underage victims.”

The conservative youth organization was quick to distance itself from both the longtime state GOP operative and Medina, who they claim had not assumed the “official duties” of her new role. 

“We as an organization are absolutely disgusted by the actions of Ms. Medina, and have cut all ties with her effective immediately,” the organization wrote in a statement.

“Our prayers go out to the victims of Anton Lazzaro and Gisela Medina — we believe you. We stand with you. May justice be served.”


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


By Sunday more than a half-dozen Republican state legislators had called on Carnahan to resign. Four of those — state Reps. Steve Drazkowski, Tim Miller, Cal Bahr and Jeremy Munson — penned a two-page letter Saturday which outlined their disgust with recent headlines and hinted at other rumors of impropriety that have swirled around Carnahan in recent years. They also called for an audit into the organization’s financial activities.

Lazzaro and the state Republican Party chair were reportedly close — they hosted a podcast together called “#TruthMatters” from October 2019-January 2020 and have known each other for many years. Lazzaro is also one of the top donors to Carnahan’s husband, Republican U.S. Rep. Jim Hagedorn, and helped campaign behind the scenes for Carnahan’s ascension to her current position, according to Minnesota Public Radio.

 “The news of a close, personal friend and advisor to our state party chair being indicted and arrested for heinous crimes against children doesn’t just look bad. It is bad. It affects members, volunteers and donors’ ability to trust the integrity of our organization,” the lawmakers wrote Saturday. “Chair Carnahan needs to resign.”

Just a day before, state Sen. Roger Chamberlain — another Republican who serves as assistant majority leader — also called on Carnahan to resign. “I find it impossible to believe she didn’t know about his activities,” he wrote in a statement.

Two other Republican state Sens., Michelle Benson and Julia Coleman, also echoed the calls for Carnahan’s resignation.

“Questions surrounding her actions make it impossible for her to effectively serve as chair any longer,” Coleman wrote on Twitter.

Carnahan ultimately fought back with a lengthy screed of her own — attacking her critics while calling the incident a “coup” and an attempt to “defame” her with “false accusations.”

“The party and its leaders cannot be held responsible for donors and unofficial persons,” she wrote on Facebook. “We cannot be expected to know more than law enforcement.”

She did denounce Lazzaro’s alleged actions in her statement, writing, “If the allegations against Mr. Anton Lazzaro are true, this is an abhorrent act that we condemn in the highest possible terms.”

She also pledged to turn over any donations he made to charity.

Creating those wild “White Lotus” wallpapers and the hidden meanings within

HBO's satire "The White Lotus" is the story of a vacation gone wrong for many guests and workers at a luxury Hawaiian resort. That's putting it mildly since one of them ends up dead. But you only have to watch the fascinating – and foreboding – main titles sequence to understand that something rotten is indeed afoot.

Presented as a series of tropical-themed wallpapers, the opening credits begin with images of paradise: lush monstera leaves, hibiscus blooms and snoozing leopards. But soon they make way for darker skies and deadlier creatures, like a camouflaged snake and stinging jellyfish, while images start to bleed and decompose. By the time the title "The White Lotus" flashes onscreen, viewers have been taken on a disturbing odyssey.

Katrina Crawford and Mark Bashore of studio Plains of Yonder spoke to Salon about the process of understanding the show's themes to create the main titles.

"The white lotus flower in all these cultures stands for rebirth and other different things," said Crawford. "It has roots in the mud, and yet is this gorgeous flower that presents itself beautifully at the surface. Also, [series creator Mike White] mentioned 'The Lotos-Eaters' poem, which is all about drifting through life and not actually integrating with things and wanting to hide from the realities of life."

That duality of experiencing beauty while something darker lurks beneath is a theme that also plays out in the main titles. Nothing is what it seems, and this was further inspired by the "tropical kabuki" philosophy practiced by resort manager Armond (Murray Bartlett).

"Armond in the first [episode] mentions something about 'tropical kabuki,' which was a term that we immediately latched on to – this idea of performance," said Crawford. "And then I think because [the show] is a mystery, we really could home in on the idea that details mattered. We try to really reward an audience for their time, for paying attention, and so we try to put little treats and surprises in."

Plains of Yonder hired Australian illustrator Lezio Lopes to draw the actual tropical images. These were then digitized in order to add details like "misregistered seams" and wallpaper-like textures. Subtle animations of key elements highlight the themes of toxicity and betrayal. Throw in an extra bit of cheeky symbolism, and it's safe to say you can't pick up these wallpaper patterns at any Crate and Barrel. 

Take a look at "The White Lotus" main titles:

The Palm Suite

While the opening credits are partly a journey into darkness, they're also more mundanely a tour of The White Lotus resort. Each of the four wallpapers seen in the main titles echo the show's four main suites: Palm, Hibiscus, Pineapple and Tradewinds.

"We thought about how to build some sort of progression. We started with the four suites. In the actual show, one's called the Palm Suite, and that's the first one that shows up, which is palm fronds, monkeys and there's actually a bird called a honeycreeper," said Bashore. 

Crawford explained the significance of including the bird. 

"The honeycreeper – there used to be like 50 different kinds in Hawaii, and now they're down to very few different ones," she said. "So they're either endangered or threatened, and there's a lot of issues for them. So we felt like that idea of this fragile beauty was kind of interesting."

The White Lotus; Wallpaper
"The White Lotus" wallpaper – Palm Suite (HBO)
 

The images are all open to interpretation, so Crawford understands why fans would see newlywed couple Shane (Jake Lacy) and Rachel (Alexandra Daddario) as the wallpaper's monkey and honeycreeper since they are housed in the Palm Suite. The main titles, however, do not necessarily stick with the show's rooming assignments.

"When the titles come up, it's Jennifer Coolidge's name with the monkey on the smaller card," said Crawford. "These are loose references, but they're sort of fun."

Bashore added, "It seemed to fit her character pretty well. It's funny with the flower [behind her] ear, and we watched the show and one of the one of the episodes she's wearing this giant monkey dress."

The Hibiscus Suite 

The White Lotus; Wallpaper
"The White Lotus" wallpaper – Jake Lacy title card (HBO)

In the series, Coolidge's character Tanya has the Hibiscus Suite. While the flower itself is native to Hawaii, the animals seen in that wallpaper (seen in the story's main photo) are not. 

"Leopards obviously are not Hawaiian, but we were sort of playing with that idea of the introduction of things and colonization [on the show], so that sort of felt OK to do," said Crawford. 

While the main titles were subject to artistic colonization, an actual invasive species present in Hawaii is featured when Jake Lacy's title card comes up.

"It's a Jackson's chameleon, and they were I think imported in the '70s from Africa," said Crawford. "So they're an invasive thing and basically, they were released from the pet trade. They show up on some of the islands and they're a little bit destructive, and they're gorgeous.

"We had a lot of fun playing with them [in the main titles]. When the chameleon changes color, that's Jake Lacy's card." 

Perhaps we should ask Rachel if she thinks Shane has changed his colors.

The Pineapple Suite

The White Lotus; Wallpaper
"The White Lotus" main titles – Steve Zahn title card (HBO)

The pineapple wallpaper is filled with tropical fruit and looks fairly straightforward, until the solo title cards come up. Eagle-eyed viewers have noted the poisonous monarch caterpillars wreaking havoc on some leaves. Plus, Crawford points out that when the title card for Sydney Sweeney (who plays Olivia) pops up, a yellow and black snake flicks its tongue subtly.

However, the honor for the cheekiest Easter egg in the main titles belongs to Steve Zahn, who plays Mark. On the show, the Mossbacher patriarch has a health crisis in which he believes his rather swollen testicles could be a sign of cancer. 

"That's the twin papayas. They're like twin kind of very swollen papayas," said Crawford. 

"They aren't doing very well on the vine," said Bashore.

The Tradewinds Suite

The White Lotus; Wallpaper
"The White Lotus" main titles – Tradewinds Suite fish (HBO)

In "The White Lotus," the Mossbacher family is given the Tradewinds Suite, and art of an outrigger boat is seen on their wall. Son Quinn (Fred Hechinger) also finds that he enjoys paddling out with the locals on their outrigger.

Bashore noted, "The grand [wallpaper] is the Tradewinds one because it's really got more hidden stories in it." As in the Mossbacher's suite, this final wallpaper includes repeating patterns of an outrigger canoe paddled by islanders alongside jellyfish and their trailing tentacles.

"There's this idea of sort of an undertow to paradise. We almost depicted it literally in a sequence with a boat that's in harm's way, and then an ocean with no boat on it," said Bashore. "Viewers can make up their mind what happened to that boat. For a minute we discussed, 'Should the boat actually be kind of tipped over in the water?' So we're always kind of holding back."

Although that boat may have been saved from a dark fate, one fish is not so lucky. When the titles close in on one of the jellyfish, a sad, upturned fish can be seen caught in its tentacles. 

"It's giving up the fight," Crawford confirmed.

"When we go underwater we wanted to depict death in a way that still kind of maybe makes you smile," said Bashore. "If we can get people to almost feel sorry for this poor little fish that none of us actually know, we've kind of done our job because there's sorrow there. But it's also cute and it's funny. It captures the whole show, right? And it's nothing like an upside-down fish to let you know that that probably wouldn't actually exist in paradise or in wallpaper."

The White Lotus

The White Lotus; Wallpaper
"The White Lotus" main titles  – Portal (HBO)

The final title card for "The White Lotus" itself is not treated as a wallpaper. There's no repetition, but there is an archway.

"We like this idea of a portal of like, you're about to enter the show," said Crawford, "but it's also reflected in the pond, And so it's like, 'Where's the reality?' That just felt like a good reference for the show of like, whose reality is the real reality and how we can reflect and mirror each other? And there's the tension between isolation and being in a community."

Bashore spoke to the different artistic treatment of this title card to create a more visceral experience for the viewer. 

"We also have moved completely out of the wallpaper world by then," he said. "We do this thing where we slice up the layers of the illustration, and as the camera pulls out, the layers are moving. It's called parallax. The foreground layers are moving at a different rate than the background.

"So you can feel like it's a world – there's a sky and mountains back there and the water is shimmering. There's actually steam rising off the pond. It feels steamy, and it's got a darkness to it. You hear animal sounds in the music track [by composer Cristobal Tapia de Veer]. And it feels quite haunting to me."

The scene is beautiful, but there's still a sense of unease there. Part of that could be the inclusion of the many-holed lotus seed pods that inspire dread in those who experience trypopohobia. (Although Bashore denies this intention, he thinks it's a bonus interpretation.)

"It's kind of got this shrine vibe to it," he added. "Maybe that we depicted a boat disappearing, a fish upside-down and then there's this sort of beautiful, swampy shrine – but it felt like the right way to really end grandly in this world. 

Fans have been discussing and requesting "The White Lotus" main title wallpapers online. ("We're sending them to the illustrator.") For now, the Plains of Yonder crew is enjoying the response to their work, which has long mixed world-building and the natural world. 

"The White Lotus" has been renewed for a second season as an anthology series that follows a new group of vacationers at another White Lotus property elsewhere in the world. Although Plains of Yonder hasn't been asked to make those opening credits yet, they're open to making more wallpaper or whatever else would be appropriate for the new installment.

"We haven't heard anything, but any chance to work with Mike White and his crew would be most welcome. We love the show," said Crawford.

"The White Lotus" airs its season finale on Sunday, Aug. 15 at 9 p.m. on HBO. 

Wildfires ignite mental health concerns

Alaska’s Swan Lake fire started with a lightning strike on June 5, 2019 in Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness. Drought and unusually hot temperatures fanned the flames as the fire moved toward communities, growing to 170,000 acres over nearly four months.

During that time, residents of the Kenai Peninsula and nearby Anchorage battled suffocating smoke. Roads and trails were closed. And some communities were told to prepare for evacuations.

That extended period of multiple stressors — over many months — took a toll on people’s long-term mental health, according to preliminary results from the Southcentral Wildfire Study, which examined the community’s experience of the Swan Lake fire.

As dozens of major wildfires burn across the American West, Siberia and other parts of the globe, we spoke with study coauthor Micah Hahn, an assistant professor of environmental health in University of Alaska Anchorage’s Institute for Circumpolar Health Studies, about why there’s much more that communities can do than just prepare physically for wildfires in their communities.

Why did you decide to study wildfires and mental health?

I’m an epidemiologist and I try to understand more about how climate change is impacting the health of communities — particularly in Alaska, where I’m a professor. Previously I’ve done work looking at the cardiorespiratory impacts from wildfire smoke. That’s one of the very typical health impacts that we think about with wildfires.

But through a colleague I got connected with my collaborators at Johns Hopkins University and McGill University, who come from a background in mental health research and disaster response. Together we honed in on wildfires in Alaska and thought about the mental health impacts because it overlapped with our areas of expertise and was a super understudied area.

We’re working on a literature review of wildfires and mental health to see what else is out there. And most of the other research is a little bit older and has come from Australia. There’s very little in the United States.

There’s been a pickup of research around mental health and climate change more broadly, including by a researcher in Canada who’s been working on climate change and ecological grief. But that’s not focused so much on a specific disaster or an acute event, but more on the concept of climate change itself and people having this feeling in their core about what’s going on. That’s been the main thread of climate and mental health work so far.

What were some of the top things you heard from people in your study?

One of the things people talked about was feeling trapped. They were feeling closed in and having feelings of isolation or claustrophobia. For some that was from the smoke, but for those that were in Kenai, there’s basically one road through there that accesses all of those communities. And when the wildfire was right next to the road and was even jumping it at times, that caused huge issues with traffic control and whether people were allowed to evacuate or not evacuate.

Many people were feeling really pinned in — like they couldn’t go anywhere.

They also felt prolonged stress. This fire was going on all summer. It was over three months long. And even people who weren’t stressed at the beginning were really stressed by the end.

Something else we heard a lot about was grief after the fire was over [because of the change in the forest]. We have a lot of wildfires in Alaska, but there’s also a lot of wild space so there aren’t very many wildfires that are as close to communities as this one was.

If you drove down to this area and you saw what the landscape looked like afterwards, it was like black toothpicks. If this was something that a person saw from their house every day or was an area where they spent a lot of time with their family and they have memories from that region, it was really sad.

Many people wondered whether it would ever look the same again. We heard a lot about feelings of loss and helplessness.

Another thing folks talked about was what they were calling “returning ghosts.” I won’t label it PTSD, but it’s a similar idea. The feeling that we’ve done this before. We have a lot of natural disasters in Alaska — wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis. And so people were just dealing with the reoccurrence of [trauma] and the uncertainty of all this, and being worried about what might be coming down the road.

Is climate change also a personal concern for Alaskans?

I feel like we talk about climate change every day. I think that’s for a few reasons. Climate change is happening faster here, compared to the lower 48, because we’re closer to the poles. And Alaskans generally are very close to the land — it’s a big part of people’s daily lives. There’s a lot of outdoorsy people, but a lot of Alaskans also harvest wild berries or hunt or harvest salmon to fill their freezers for the winter.

You’re just sort of in tune with what’s going on outside. When we see the salmon don’t return or there’s a huge die-off event because the water’s too warm, it doesn’t take a lot to impact people very directly.

Were there any solutions or changes that the residents thought could help in the future with wildfires?

Yes, an issue that came up was communication. People wanted to see one centralized place to find information and more thinking about specific demographic groups, like “end of the road people” — those who move to rural Alaska because they like to be away from people, but that also makes them hard to contact in an emergency.

They also wanted to see enhanced early communications and community-based preparedness programs. People who live in the communities near wildfire zones wanted to be more integrated into the planning and evacuation process before a wildfire. They wanted to see something that was a little bit more from the bottom up, rather than someone helicoptering in during an intense situation saying, “do this.”

Another thing was establishing formal or informal mutual support groups. We talked a lot about having a buddy system when you’re doing evacuation planning — doing the same thing for mental health during a wildfire, especially a prolonged event, so people have a preset group they can talk with.

And specifically, they were also wanting a video series showing people what to expect during a wildfire as a way of helping people to prepare mentally for what might be happening to them.

How can this research help other areas?

Obviously this work was done in Alaska, but I think that many of these things could apply in other places where we’re seeing wildfires. One of the things that people brought up was, in thinking about the context of Alaska, people here are pretty self-reliant and like to think of themselves as prepared. So one suggestion for interventions was to build on that preparedness and do the same thing that we do for physical fire preparedness, but instead focus on mental health.

How can you mentally prepare and get your family ready for these types of things before the event happens?

In public health it’s called a “strength-based approach,” which means starting from the strengths of the community and designing interventions using community-based approaches.

For people in California or Oregon or whatever town you live in, [find] what’s strong in your community that can be built on to help people prepare.

Behavioral science won’t fix the climate crisis

This summer has brought another onslaught of unprecedented climate change news. From wildfires in the American West to deadly floods in Germany, it feels as though we are receiving daily reminders about the existential threat of climate change.

For the most part, humanity has accepted that we will have to change our ways to survive this environmental crisis. Behavioral science, the interdisciplinary field concerned with scientific study of behavior, is often presented as one of the main means of defeating climate change. In this paradigm, it is possible to “nudge” people living in industrial societies towards different behaviors that are less carbon-intensive and pollutive. Indeed, the idea of behavioral science as a solution to climate change has become a staple of policy making, the advertising industry and Silicon Valley companies alike.

The goal of behavioral science is to understand why people behave the way they do and what needs to change to make them behave differently. At first sight, this might seem key to dealing with climate change. If we want to move away from lifestyles that generate a lot of pollution, we have to change how we behave. For example, we can use insights from behavioral science to increase the number of people using public transportation, which is generally much less resource-intensive than using private vehicles.

But an over-reliance on behavioral science can lead us down the wrong path — because solving climate change is about much more than modifying our behavior.

As the philosopher Hannah Arendt explained, there is a profound difference between “behavior” and “action.” While the former is predictable and flows out of our existing social and cultural trends, the latter starts something new, something different and unexpected. Behavioral science doesn’t teach us about how to make action happen. It merely shows us the way to replace one predictable pattern of behavior with another.

Predetermined behavior patterns are one of the main reasons we got into this mess in the first place. Advertising — which is essentially a behavior modification tool designed to get us to buy more and more products — has helped spread consumerism across the world. It has been a key factor in suppressing the common sense that allowed many indigenous groups and civilizations of the past to sustain themselves by being aware of the limits of their natural environments. Instead, we now live in a world built on the absurd idea of infinite growth within a finite territory — the very definition of unsustainability.

Hence, the environmental crisis is a crisis of culture and politics. Climate change is a consequence of our civilization’s core ideas, including extractivism (the belief that the Earth is ours to exploit), speciesism (discrimination against other species), and infinite growth. Encouraging “environmentally-friendly” behaviors such as recycling, using public transportation or drinking tap water is not going to alter these fundamental flaws in our society, helpful as these efforts might be.


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


Changing the culture and politics of a civilization takes action, not behavior. History teaches us that big, unexpected steps taken by those willing to step outside their society’s patterns of expected behaviors are needed in moments of cultural and political crisis. We can hardly expect behavioral “nudging” to generate the kind of action Rosa Parks took when she refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus in 1955.

What we need are bold, imaginative solutions addressing the flaws of our culture and politics that don’t come out of the predictability of behavior change but from the novelty of action. Rather than being nudged from being one wheel to another within the machine of infinite growth, we need to escape the machine altogether.

When we accept this, some of the ideas and solutions to the climate crisis that currently appear utopian—such as legal systems rooted in ideas of intergenerational justice or stable-state economic systems that recognise the limits of the natural environment—will be suddenly within our reach.

And with them, our survival.

Summer salad ideas perfect for your farmers’ market haul

There are many reasons summer is the salad season, but just to name a few: It’s peak produce season, when fruits and vegetables are brimming with so much flavor, you don’t need to waste time and energy cooking them. On the hottest days, nobody wants to cook anyway, and cool, crisp salads are a godsend. Tomatoescucumbercorngreen beanspeacheswatermeloncherries — there are so, so many summer fruits and vegetables meant to salad. And yes, when we’re talking about summer produce, “salad” is a verb.

Emily Nunn, who started her substack newsletter The Department of Salad in October 2020, as a paean to salads, likens summer salads to a drug. “Since I live in North Carolina, where the tomatoes and peaches and berries and other produce are luxurious and inexpensive and glorious, so were my salads,” she writes in one of her first substack posts, waxing poetic on the gorgeous salads she made during last year’s bitter pandemic summer. “It seemed that no matter how I arranged them, they were dazzling and delicious, like bouquets of flowers that you could eat. I layered fruits and vegetables and cheeses and herbs — and rather than making dressings I just sprinkled them with salt and olive oil and citrus juice. And these salads always made me happy.”

Inspired by those perfect summer salads, Nunn went on, through her writing in the fall, winter, spring and now into summer again, putting “some concentrated thought” into making sure she always has a good salad. She’s covered bean salad with bean aficionado Steve Sandocitrus salad in the dead of winter, and a creamy pimento cheese dressing, a delicious blessing and addictive curse for any fellow pimento cheese fans out there, showing that it’s possible to make a good salad all year long.

Rethinking salads

According to Julia Sherman, visual artist and author of the cookbook “Salad for President,” salad making is “a practice of putting disparate materials together.” Speaking on the podcast Food Seen, she continues, “It’s about comparing and contrasting, it’s about juxtaposition, it’s about complementary materials. I think there is something intuitive about salad making for artists and for a lot of people because they feel like they know that it’s about arrangement and presentation more than it is about technique necessarily.”

In “Salad for President” Sherman spotlights the recipes of artists, architects and musicians, so the emphasis on presentation is no surprise. But this description, of a salad being a combination of varying parts, can be just as true for a home cook reaching for a ripe summer tomato or a chef at a restaurant.

At The Culinary Vegetable Institute in Milan, Ohio, the wedge salad (recipe below) looks far from the classic chunk of romaine. With splashes and swirls of colors, it instead calls to mind a piece by Jackson Pollock. “Generally we’ll have a baked component, a dried component, a frozen component, an emulsion, maybe two dressings, and a lot of different vegetables, flowers and herbs, all from the farm from that day,” says Chef Jamie Simpson, who heads up the Institute’s kitchen and developed the recipes in their new cookbook, “The Chef’s Garden.”

Each day the ingredients for their wedge salad may change, depending on what’s available on the Institute’s farm, but Simpson’s team always follows the same mix of components. A recent early summer wedge salad featured lettuces, shaved green zucchini, asparagus and rhubarb, sweet English peas, celery leaves, chives, a rhubarb vinaigrette and frozen red onion granite.

Wedge Salad from “From The Chef’s Garden: A Modern Guide to Common and Unusual Vegetables” by Lee Jones.  Image by Yossey Arefi. 

Thinking about salad components

While Simpson’s wedge salad, with its emulsions and double dressing, might sound fancy, there are some good take-aways for the home cook when thinking about salad composition. Even for his home salads, Simpson pulls out the mandoline to shave his vegetables down to the same size. “I can bring carrots [and other ingredients] down to the width of a leaf of lettuce, and the way that eats on a fork is great,” he says. “It’s significant. There’s no disruptive textures in there that really take additional energy or even distract you from the texture of the [lettuce] leaves.”

When you think about salad as a mix of components, it can be the ultimate base recipe for waste free cooking. What can’t you put into a salad? I once had a coworker lament that he paid $17 at the salad chain Sweetgreen for something nearly identical to the homemade use-up-my-leftovers salads I brought in for lunch. Think about having one of each component: something roasted, something crunchy, a tart element, a little sweetness, a few shaved vegetables like Simpson does, and something creamy. Toss leftover roasted vegetables, the last handful of toasted nuts, some goat cheese and a few fresh cherries into the greens, and my coworker could have done it too, also saving some money and food from being thrown away.

For Maria Zizka, author of the new cookbook “One Bowl Meals“, thinking about salads via their components just makes things easier. As a new mom, Zizka is glad to have pre-prepped items to reach for. “A great thing about salads and the other one-bowl meals in my cookbook is that you can prepare the components ahead of time and store them in the fridge, ready to go when you need them,” she recently told us via email. “Leafy greens can be washed and dried, dressings can be made, nuts and seeds can be toasted, and eggs can be soft-boiled.”

Fresh and easy summer salads

Summer salads make things particularly easy for this type of thinking, since many of the fruits and vegetables are so flavorful they don’t even need to be cooked. I just got back from a trip to New Orleans, where I ate as many raw Creole tomatoes — an early summer specialty in Southern Louisiana — as I could find. A heirloom varietal, they are just the thing to use in the watermelon and tomato salad (recipe below) from Matthew Raiford’s new cookbook, “Bress ‘n’ Nyam: Gullah Geechee Recipes from a Sixth-Generation Farmer.”

Raiford’s recipes are inspired by his experiences growing up on his family’s farm, living off the bountiful South Carolina land, where food is so fresh it doesn’t need too much to bring out its best. As he shows, simple recipes can be full of flavor. He grills the watermelon to add smoky undertones, adds microgreens for a peppery bite, and dresses the salad with a sangria vinaigrette for tang.

No matter how simple or complicated, a good salad is really all about balance. Simpson balances the wedge salad with contrasting temperatures and textures. Raiford balances the sweetness of his tomatoes and watermelon with a tangy vinaigrette. Zizka suggests using herbs, such as a combination of purple basil, cilantro, and mint dressed with lemon or lime juice, oil and salt, to brighten up heavier salads. “Herb salad makes a beautiful addition to rice bowls, grain salads, and more,” she wrote to us.

If you follow Sherman’s definition of a salad as putting disparate materials together, thinking about how each component plays together, you’ll succeed. Putting the “concentrated thought” into salad making that Nunn encourages, the best salad is the one that hits every beat.

“Recently on Instagram Live, my friend Phyllis (aka @dashandbella) taught me to make a roasted apricot salad with shaved Parmigiano cheese, mustard greens, and kalamata olives,” Zizka said. “The fruit brings just enough sweetness to the party. I adore fruit in a salad, but you need to make sure that it doesn’t overwhelm the other elements. Phyllis’s salad nails the balance of salty, crunchy, and toasty.”

***

Watermelon Steak Salad with Heirloom Tomatoes and Sangria Vinaigrette from “Bress ‘n’ Nyam: Gullah Geechee Recipes from a Sixth-Generation Farmer.” by Matthew Raiford and Amy Paige Condon. Photography © 2021 by Siobhán Egan.

Recipe: Watermelon Steak Salad with Heirloom Tomatoes and Sangria Vinaigrette

Matthew Raiford and Amy Paige Condon, “Bress ‘n’ Nyam: Gullah Geechee Recipes from a Sixth-Generation Farmer.”

Yield: Serves 4 to 6

I grew up eating Georgia Rattlesnake watermelons — that’s really what they’re called, because the dark green stripes resemble a diamondback rattlesnake. These heirloom varietals, which can grow up to 40 pounds, have a deep reddish pink flesh that is sweeter than sweet. Folks started growing them around here in the 1830s. When I was a kid, we’d throw them in the back of the truck and take them to market. Because they are harder to come by now, and because people have grown accustomed to seedless watermelons, I created this recipe to accommodate either. But I absolutely prefer a rattlesnake watermelon, which we grow at Gilliard Farms.

Ingredients:

For the salad
1 to 1 1/2 pounds freshly mixed salad greens or microgreens
1 pound heirloom tomatoes of varying sizes and colors, such as Cherokee Purple, Yellow Brandywine, black and yellow cherry tomatoes
1/4 medium seedless watermelon (5 to 10 pounds)
Olive oil for brushing

For the vinaigrette
1 cup traditional red sangria, either homemade or store-bought
1/2 cup olive oil
Freshly cracked black pepper
Sea salt

Method:

  1. Prepare your grill for medium-high direct heat, 375° to 450°F.
  2. While the grill comes up to temperature, wash and dry the salad greens, then divide the greens among four to six serving plates. Wash and dry your tomatoes. Slice the whole tomatoes into 1/2-inch rounds and halve the cherry tomatoes. Divide and arrange the tomato slices evenly among the plates. Set the plates in the refrigerator to chill while you finish the dish.
  3. Slice the watermelon into 3/4-to-1-inch-thick “steaks,” then quarter the steaks into wedges. Brush each side of the watermelon with a little olive oil, then set the wedges on the grill for approximately 3 minutes per side, until you get grill marks. The longer you leave the wedges on, the sweeter they’ll get. Remove the watermelon from the grill and arrange evenly among the salad plates.
  4. Pour the sangria into a large measuring cup with a pouring spout, then whisk the olive oil into the sangria until it makes a nice, loose vinaigrette. Generously dress the salads. Sprinkle the salads with pepper and salt to your liking, then serve.

Excerpted from Bress ‘n’ Nyam: Gullah Geechee Recipes from a Sixth-Generation Farmer. Copyright © 2021 CheFarmer Matthew Raiford and Amy Paige Condon. Photography © 2021 by Siobhán Egan. Reproduced by permission of The Countryman Press, a Division of W.W. Norton & Company. All rights reserved.

***

Recipe: Our Wedge Salad

Lee Jones, “From The Chef’s Garden: A Modern Guide to Common and Unusual Vegetables”

Yield: Serves 4

We’ve had a lot of fun exploring the fundamentals of a classic wedge salad. You know the one: iceberg lettuce dressed with blue cheese dressing and topped with chopped bacon and black pepper. If you’re lucky, you might even get half a cherry tomato.

Our wedge salad changes daily and represents a walk through the farm. We take a split young head of Merlot romaine (other dense, rigid heads of lettuce work fine) and garnish it with an assortment of shaved vegetables, flowers, and leaves we pick a mere few hours before serving. We encourage you to experiment with the combination of vegetables based on what you find that day. To finish, we dress the lettuce with an herb emulsion, which provides some creaminess, and a kombucha-based granita, for brightness. Crunchy, deeply flavored seed crackers finish the dish. These crackers are easy to make at home and have a long shelf life, but you can often buy similar seedy crackers at cheese shops and specialty markets.

Ingredients:

1 cup (240 ml) Herb Kombucha (page 609) or store-bought
2 cups (300g) shaved vegetables, such as carrots, asparagus, radishes, cucumbers, rhubarb, sunchokes, beets, or others
2 young heads sturdy lettuce, such as Merlot romaine, halved lengthwise
11/4 cups (300 ml) Herb Emulsion (page 607)
Flowers and herbs, for garnish
Seedy Crackers

Method:

  1. Pour the kombucha into a shallow baking pan, loaf pan, or ice cube trays. Freeze for at least 4 hours, until firm. Submerge all the shaved vegetables in ice water.
  2. Arrange the lettuce halves on a rack set over a rimmed baking sheet lined with parchment paper and dress with some of the herb emulsion. Season with salt.
  3. When ready to serve, use a fork to grate the kombucha into the baking pan (or process the ice cubes in a pre-chilled food processor fitted with the chilled grating disk, and store in the freezer until ready to serve.).
  4. Arrange the dressed lettuce halves on four plates. Divide the shaved vegetables among the plates. Pick a few blooms and herb leaves, and arrange them on the plates. Set a spoonful of the grated kombucha on top of each. Break a few pieces of the seed crackers into bite-sized pieces and add them to the salads. Serve immediately with more of the emulsion alongside.

***

Recipe: Herb or Vegetable-Top Emulsion

Lee Jones, “From The Chef’s Garden: A Modern Guide to Common and Unusual Vegetables”

Yield: Makes about 3 cups

Whether it’s squash leaves, bean leaves, carrot tops, excess herbs, or another leafy green, this emulsion allows you to turn those leaves that might otherwise get discarded into a smooth sauce. This basic emulsion serves as one of our mother sauces at the Culinary Vegetable Institute; we use it in salads, seafood dishes, and hot grains or warm vegetable appetizers. If you have a ton of herbs, you can make an herb oil first as a substitute for the sunflower oil, further fortifying the emulsion with flavor.

Ingredients:

8 ounces (225 g) herbs or vegetable tops, including stems
1 tablespoon plus 1 teaspoon
(20 ml) Dijon mustard
1/2 cup (120 ml) ice water
1 tablespoon (15 g) kosher salt, plus more to taste
2 cups (480 ml) sunflower oil

Method:

  1. Set a bowl of some ice water near the stove. In a pot of boiling salted water, blanch the herb leaves for about 20 seconds, until wilted. Transfer to the ice bath and let cool. Remove the herbs from the ice bath and squeeze out all excess water, then roughly chop.
  2. In a blender, combine the mustard, ice water, salt, and wilted leaves and blend on high speed until smooth. Scrape down the sides of the pitcher, then blend again until smooth. Ensure the puree doesn’t get hot. With the blender now on medium speed, gradually add the oil. If the spinning slows or stops, increase the speed slightly to get it going again.
  3. Strain the emulsion through a fine-mesh strainer into a storage container. Taste and season with more salt, if desired. The emulsion will keep, refrigerated, for up to 1 week.

NOTE: Just before serving, you can brighten the flavor of the emulsion with a splash of citrus juice or vinegar, or some chopped pickles. Don’t add the acidity too far in because it turns the emulsion brown over time.

From The Chef’s Garden: A Modern Guide to Common and Unusual Vegetables–with Recipes by  Farmer Lee Jones; with Kristin Donnelly, published by Avery, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2021 by The Chef’s Garden, Inc.

Afghan president flees country as Taliban takes control of Kabul

According to The New York Times, the president of Afghanistan has fled the country as the Taliban takes over Kabul.

The report states that President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani Ahmadza has departed, with Reuters reporting he is headed to Tajikistan.

Elsewhere, Afghanistan’s warlords vowed defiantly to defend their strongholds from the Taliban and crush the insurgents. But, like the government’s forces, they too gave up with surprising ease.

As the insurgents swept through the north in a surprise offensive targeting Afghanistan’s anti-Taliban bastion, President Ashraf Ghani called for a national mobilization of militia forces.

Despite Ghani’s chequered history with the country’s warlords, the beleaguered president was hoping they could help turn the tide.

In the besieged northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, Ghani was looking to longtime strongman Atta Mohammad Noor and ethnic Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum.

Both were known for their dogged defense against the Taliban in the 1990s, and had remained influential figures during the past two decades of war.

In the days leading up to their defeat, the greying commanders appeared to be the fearsome figures from their younger years.

“The Taliban never learn from the past,” Dostum told reporters last week after flying back to Mazar-i-Sharif, while offering a not-so-subtle reference to the alleged massacre of the insurgents by his fighters in 2001.

“The Taliban have come to the north several times but they were always trapped. It is not easy for them to get out.”

Noor took to social media to issue his own warnings, posting graphic pictures of Taliban killed by his troops while promising to fight to the death.

“I prefer dying in dignity than dying in despair,” wrote Noor on Twitter, alongside other defiant posts vowing to “defend the nation”.

In a video posted to Facebook on Saturday, Noor spoke calmly to camera dressed in military fatigues while rifle fire could be heard close by.

‘Cowardly plot’

Ultimately, bravado did not beat back the insurgents.

Late Saturday, both men’s militias were routed after the Afghan military units they were supporting surrendered to the Taliban.

Dostum and Noor fled across the nearby Uzbek border.

Noor claimed they had been the victims of deep-seated betrayal, saying on Twitter their resistance came to an end “as a result of a big organised & cowardly plot”.

He offered no other details.

Video posted on pro-Taliban social media accounts, meanwhile, showed a group of young Taliban fighters combing through Dostum’s gaudy residence, digging through cabinets and testing out overstuffed furniture.

Their rout came days after fellow strongman Ismail Khan was captured by Taliban fighters in the western city of Herat.

Khan had in the lead-up to his defeat sounded like the same powerful figure who had ruled his fiefdom with such authority for decades that he earned the nickname “Lion of Herat.”

“We demand all the remaining security forces resist with courage,” Khan said last month.

But with a look of resignation, Khan was on Friday forced to pose for pictures with Taliban fighters and give an interview to an insurgent media outlet.

After all the hefty promises and chest thumping, it was a humiliating end.

(with AFP)

The crisis of neoliberalism: America arrives at one of history’s great crossroads

The Democratic Party is having an internal battle over the “small” and “large” infrastructure bills, but what’s really at stake is the future of neoliberalism within the party. The smaller “bipartisan” bill represents the neoliberal worldview, including public-private partnerships and huge subsidies to for-profit companies, whereas the larger “reconciliation” Democratic Party-only bill hearkens back to the FDR/LBJ classic progressive way of doing things. 

Milton Friedman began selling neoliberalism to America in the 1950s, and we fully bought into it in the 1980s. Most Americans had no idea, really, what this new political/economic ideology meant; they just knew it involved free trade, economic austerity, tax cuts, deregulation and privatization. 

The free trade part, we were told, would bring about the end of great-power wars because countries that were economically interdependent wouldn’t dare ruin their own economies by going to war with a significant trading partner.  

The “McDonald’s Theory” hatched by Thomas Friedman was argued on TV and in the newspapers: No two nations that had McDonald’s fast food restaurants, we were told (falsely), had ever gone to war with each other. 

Free trade was also going to eliminate poverty in the world by giving every country an “even playing field” to compete for manufacturing jobs.  

High-wage countries like the U.S. and the U.K. would have to stop protecting their laborers with unions, whose wage and benefit demands were merely “drags on the economy” and prevented the “magic of markets” from working. 

Low-wage countries would pick up much of that work, but over time their people would rise into the middle class too, and everything would even out.  

And indeed, trillions of dollars of wealth were sucked out of the American working class as union membership plunged from around a third of workers to about 6% in the private marketplace today, all while China saw the fastest and strongest rise of a middle class in the history of the world. There are now more middle-class Chinese than the entire population of the U.S., as the American middle class sank below half our population for the first time since the postwar era got seriously underway. 


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


Austerity was supposed to end ghettoes, crime and poverty in America by withdrawing the supports “lazy” people used to get by without having to work.  

In the neoliberal story, Black people weren’t isolated in their neighborhoods by redlining and racist designs for highways, power plants and other polluting industries; they lived in “public housing” on “welfare” and made more and more money, the neoliberal story went, as they had more and more babies out of wedlock. 

Reagan told the story of the “strapping young buck” in line at the supermarket upsetting all the hard-working white people when he whipped out his food stamps to pay for his steak and beer; it was the male complement to Reagan’s Black “welfare queen” myth. Cut off his food stamps, the logic went, and he’ll be forced to look for gainful employment…even if there were no jobs within miles and white employers wouldn’t then hire Black people.  

The occasional Black rags-to-riches stories, like Herman Cain or Ben Carson, were celebrated and held up as examples of how neoliberal austerity policies would “transform the ‘hood” and bring about both racial and economic integration nationwide. Meanwhile, harsh prison sentences, mandatory minimums and three-strikes laws would end the scourge of “super-predators” on our streets. 

And neoliberalism’s tax cuts for the morbidly rich would incentivize them to start new businesses and “create jobs.” Everybody would win!

Deregulation, we were told, would enable all this “free market magic” to happen quickly, because businesses were more nimble and knew better what they needed to do to make their products than did “government bureaucrats.” 

Even regulations that most people agreed with, like pollution controls, were unnecessary, the neoliberalism advocates told us, because businesses that polluted would be “shamed in the marketplace.” 

If they refused to clean things up and their pollution was harming people, we were told, they’d be “held accountable in the courts” by the families of the people they’d damaged or killed. 

Deregulation would also end economic depressions, because no banker or stockbroker in his right mind would take such big chances that a misstep could wipe out large sectors of the nation’s economy. 

Republican Sen. Phil Gramm made this very point on the floor of the Senate in 1999 when selling the end of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that prevented checkbook banks from using their depositors’ money to gamble in the stock, bond and real estate markets.  

Everybody applauded and banksters started gambling and became billionaires. And, of course, it led us straight to the Bush Crash of 2008 when the entire system seized up and you and I bailed out Wall Street with trillions of dollars, hundreds of billions of which the banksters simply pocketed.

Privatization was a subset of deregulation, moving control over essential services like water, power and schools out of the public and governmental arena and into the hands of the rich and their allies. Privatization was supposed to make water cleaner, electricity cheaper and schools better. 

Tragically, as Americans are now realizing as we wake up from our neoliberal dream, all were lies. 

Flint, Michigan, was a disastrous water privatization scheme pushed by the Republican administration of that state that has destroyed the lives of thousands of now-brain-damaged children. 

California and Texas suffer from regular blackouts while the stockholders and executives of their power companies stash billions in their money bins. 

Public schools around the country have been kneecapped as their resources are reallocated to corporate, for-profit charter schools.

Reagan installs neoliberalism

From the 1930s to 1981, a period of time spanning more than two full generations, the American political and economic system was run under a “well-regulated capitalism” system conceived by economist John Maynard Keynes and put into place in 1933 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  

A top income tax bracket of 91% that kicked in at around $3 million a year in today’s money guaranteed that nobody became obscenely rich, while strong protections for workers and their right to unionize ensured that a good chunk of corporate profits went to the workers who created that revenue.  

Antitrust laws were so vigorously enforced that in the 1962 case of Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court blocked the merger of Brown and GR Kinney, two shoe manufacturers, because the combination of the two would have captured about 5 percent of the U.S. shoe market. (For comparison, Nike today has 18 percent of the U.S. shoe market.)

Throughout that period America became steadily safer and cleaner as worker protections became law (and got their own agency with OSHA), pollution and dangerous products were regulated (and the EPA was created), and government stepped in proactively to reforest America (with the Civilian Conservation Corps) and provide American families with low-cost clean electricity (the Hoover and Bonneville Dams and the Tennessee Valley Authority, among others). 

But starting in a big way in the 1950s, a number of front men for big money industries and dynastic fortunes stepped forward to argue that all this regulation and taxation was not a benefit or economic stabilizer but instead a certain road to economic doom and social perdition.  

Milton Friedman argued (in his book “Capitalism and Freedom“) that high wages, taxes and regulation were stifling the economy in a way that would surely lead to hyperinflation and ruin, predicting a disaster far worse even than the Black Tuesday stock market crash and ensuing Republican Great Depression that Herbert Hoover kicked off in 1929.  

Russell Kirk argued (in “The Conservative Mind“) that if the American working class became sufficiently wealthy then minorities would rise up, wives would want to have careers and young people would become libertines, flouting the rules of society.

The result, Kirk predicted in 1951, would be a civil rights movement that could overthrow white control of America, a women’s movement that would sweep away socially-stabilizing patriarchy and a student movement that defied authority, law and the draft, all leading to social chaos and our inability to fight wars.

Inflation gives neoliberals the lever they needed

Inflation had always been the thing that Friedman and his acolytes most loudly warned against, but when it came to America its cause wasn’t what Friedman had predicted.  

In 1973 several Arab states went to war with Israel and the U.S. openly took Israel’s side in the conflict. Enraged, the oil-rich states — led by Saudi Arabia — cut off the supply of oil to America in what is now known as the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973-1974. 

There are two main ways inflation happens: A country debases its currency (as happened in Germany in the 1920s and Zimbabwe in this century) or a commodity that’s at the core of an economy becomes scarce. (In the case of Zimbabwe it was both: Food became scarce at the same time the government went on a money-printing binge.)

The U.S. has never had a serious problem with debasing our currency (although that’s what Friedman was hysterically warning against), but everything in our economy — from manufactured goods to travel to food production and distribution — runs on oil. 

The oil shock so shook our economy that Richard Nixon, no fan of government intervention in markets, resorted to wage and price controls while people formed mile-long lines to get gas on the odd- or even-days they could do so, based on the last digit of their license plate.  

The result of that oil shortage was a subsequent shortage of pretty much everything else, and when things are scarce their prices get bid up. Inflation hit 12% in 1974 and stayed high while oil slowly worked its way back through the economy, until 1981 when it dropped down to a “mere” 8.9%

Friedman, Reagan and the wealthy funders of the Republican Party saw this inflation, which was devastating the Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter one-term presidencies, as a political gift. To a man, they insisted it was caused by FDR’s and LBJ’s “welfare state” policies and the “big spending” associated with them, even though that was a complete lie.

Reagan was sworn into office just as inflation was beginning to abate (it dropped to 3.8% in 1982) and he told America that we needed to embrace an entirely new economic theory if we were to avoid another era of 15% mortgage rates and wage-eroding price increases. 

America, shaken by that decade of seemingly intractable inflation, bought his sales pitch and Reaganomics — aka neoliberalism — became the operational economic and political system of America in 1981. Everything from trickle-down to busting unions to “ending welfare as we know it” and “tough on crime” policing fell under this single rubric. 

Democrats buy into neoliberalism

As the oil shock wore off and the American economy entered a period of strong rebound in 1982, it seemed that Reaganomics/neoliberalism was working.  

Expanding on the idea, Reagan and George Bush the Elder negotiated what Bush called a “New World Order” of “free trade.” While people would still be constrained by national borders, there would no longer be borders or barriers for the flow of money and corporate goods.

They rolled out the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which later birthed the World Trade Organization (WTO) and negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was later signed by Bill Clinton.  

Clinton had become a believer, in part because it was good politics; Reaganomics was getting credit for the end of the oil-shock-caused inflation and subsequent hard times and was popular. 

Reagan’s destruction of American unions had also dried up the Democratic Party’s main revenue source, so by 1992 jumping into bed with giant corporations and the super-rich had become a political survival strategy for Democrats.  

Embracing multinational corporations that wanted to move their expensive-labor manufacturing facilities overseas meant overflowing campaign coffers for the newly-neoliberal Democratic Party and Clinton’s political arm, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). 

It was time, Clinton told us, to consign the policies of Roosevelt and Keynes to the dustbin of history. There was a “New Democrat” Party (there’s still a “New Democrat Caucus” in Congress for neoliberal hangers-on) and a new, young, vigorous president was taking the reins of government. 

It worked for a while. But by the early 2000s Americans were starting to see through the entire neoliberal façade, as more than 50,000 factories had moved from the U.S. to Mexico, China and other developing countries while wages in the U.S. had collapsed. The middle class was going backward, or staying flat at best, and discontent roiled the country.  

After a brief feel-good period of punitive war after 9/11, Americans were again ready to shake things up; they did so in an historic move by electing our country’s first Black president, Barack Obama. 

While Obama, like Clinton, had campaigned on themes that made it seem he was rejecting neoliberalism, in fact he was as deeply in its camp as were Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.

By the time of his presidency neoliberalism was simply conventional wisdom in political circles, having been adopted in the U.K. in 1978 by Margaret Thatcher and in large part adopted by much of the rest of Europe in the 1990s and early 2000s. Onward to Davos to party with the neoliberal billionaires! 

But still, as noble and soaring as Obama’s rhetoric was, and as good and decent a man as he was (in contrast to the war criminal and torturer Bush, the horny Clinton or the evil Nixon), neoliberalism still wasn’t working for anybody except America’s biggest corporations and richest individuals. And American workers knew it. 

Enter Donald Trump, the political equivalent of the Little Boy Who Said the Emperor Has No Clothes. Trump attacked the neoliberal policies of both parties, although never directly using the word.  

Free trade, he said, had been a disaster for American workers. And voters knew he was right.

Rich people were gaming the tax system — he knew that, he told us, because he did it, too — and he was going to put an end to that.  Americans wanted tax fairness, and when Trump said his rich friends “will hate me” because he was going to raise their taxes so much, voters believed him.

Austerity had not only not ended crime but was driving working-class people into the poorhouse. Nobody, Trump proclaimed, would be a better friend to Social Security, Medicare, housing supports and other entitlement programs that supported the poor and middle class alike than him.

Most of his solutions were lies, of course, but the American people wanted to believe that this reality TV star and billionaire was just the savior America needed.  

To top it off, Trump spoke what many white people considered “politically incorrect truths” about race and immigration.  “They” were stealing your job and threatening to rape your wives and daughters, Trump told white Americans, and he was just the guy tough enough to deal with “them.” 

Outside of tearing a few thousand brown-skinned children away from their parents and symbolic tariffs on Chinese products that backfired badly, Trump couldn’t pull any of it off. He was as much a follower of neoliberal ideology as any American president since Reagan, his rhetoric aside.  

So Americans, still wanting to get rid of neoliberalism, decided to try the Democrats again in 2020, giving that party control of the House, Senate and White House. Joe Biden, a canny politician sensing the mood of the country, openly denounced many of the tenets of neoliberalism and, in the first six months of his presidency, accomplished Keynesian stimulus programs that would have left Clinton, Bush or Obama in shock. 

Now the Democrats and the Biden administration face a choice.  

Do they finish the job and end neoliberalism altogether, bringing our manufacturing back home, rebuilding the power of organized labor and raising taxes and regulations?  Or do they declare “mission accomplished” and revert back to neoliberal policies?  

Turning back neoliberalism would be an accomplishment for the ages, something impossible even five years ago.  

Bringing American manufacturing back home, raising top income tax rates to the above-50% level that stabilizes the explosion of great wealth, and building a 21st-century social safety net with free college and Medicare for All would guarantee that the Democratic Party — as it did from the 1930s to 1980 — would control most of the U.S. government for generations. 

It would also strengthen democracy itself in America, leading us towards the multiracial, multiethnic all-in society promised in our founding documents but not yet fully realized.

However, there are powerful forces arrayed in defense of neoliberalism, including the Supreme Court, massive transnational corporations and an activist billionaire class the court empowered with rulings like Citizens United.  

If the neoliberals win and Biden and the Democrats back down, it’s unlikely America will simply slide back into a “friendly neoliberalism” like we had before the Trump presidency.  

Instead, we will almost certainly follow the path that Russia and Hungary have trod, embracing Friedman’s economic policies and the authoritarian strongman politics of oligarchy necessary to enforce them. It will be the end of the largest and most noble parts of the American experiment.

America has arrived at one of history’s great crossroads. 

Pelosi shoots down conservative Dem revolt, saying Congress backs “totality” of Biden’s vision

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday responded to a revolt by conservative Democrats in message praising Social Security.

“A group of nine moderate House Democrats told Speaker Nancy Pelosi that they will not vote for a $3.5 trillion budget blueprint until a Senate-approved infrastructure bill clears the chamber, a posture that underscored significant divisions within the party that could undermine President Biden’s economic agenda,” The Washington Post reported Friday.

“The demand on Friday threatened to leave the House in a new political deadlock, roughly two weeks before lawmakers are set to return to the Capitol to begin debate. Liberal Democrats have demanded the opposite timeline, leaving Pelosi (D-CA) in a tough bind given that Democrats have a narrow majority and few votes to spare,” the newspaper explained.

In a statement honoring the 86th anniversary of Social Security, Pelosi said that the House of Representatives was committed to passing both the bipartisan infrastructure framework and using the budget reconciliation process to pass the second, larger infrastructure bill.

Pelosi said Democrats are “fighting to enact our Build Back Better agenda, which will deliver more jobs, greater tax cuts and lower health costs for working families.”

“As Congress advances infrastructure and reconciliation legislation, the House remains committed to realizing the totality of President Biden’s vision, including the essential initiatives that will help us secure a cleaner, stronger, fairer future for all. Today, and every day, let us renew our vow to not only protect Social Security for every generation, but to strengthen the economic security for every family for decades to come,” Pelosi explained.

On “FBoy Island,” the feminist “Mansplain” puts an end to “bros before hoes”

HBO Max’s “FBoy Island,” the fan-favorite dating show starring Nikki Glaser and three women seeking connection among an even split of fboys and nice guys, has wrapped in a blaze of drama, steamy overnight dates, and, of course, snitching. What would any reality dating show be without snitching, really? 

While “FBoy Island” has paved a path of its own in the tired dating show genre, driven by humor and all the cynicism of the dating-app-world we live in, it also draws obvious inspiration from previous dating shows like “The Bachelor.” Among the most famous “Bachelor” and “Bachelorette” segments are the special “Men Tell All” or “Women Tell All” episodes close to the season finale, when all contestants from the season return to dish, confront each other, and spill the tea.

In its penultimate episode, “FBoy Island” puts a cheeky twist on the “Men Tell All,” with an unforgettable segment called the “Mansplain.” The “Mansplain” may follow a similar format to the “Men Tell All,” but with a number of crucial, spicy twists. First of all, each of the women — Nakia Renee, CJ Franco, and Sarah Emig — and their two ultimate suitors are present at the event and sit in hot seats before the entire cast, upping the tension and drama exponentially. 

The other key difference is, rather than focus on booted contestants’ often relatively generic self-reflections, the “Mansplain” is quite literally all about snitching. Petty? Yes. Messy? Absolutely. Subversively feminist? That too. “FBoy Island” is far from the only dating show that’s seen men snitch on each other for a chance at love and fame, and on “The Bachelor,” male contestants telling the lead that so-and-so isn’t here for “the right reasons” are a nightly routine.

But the “Mansplain” of “FBoy Island,” delightfully named, for starters, is different. The final decision between the two men has not been made yet, and thus the actual snitching has weight and can affect the outcome.

As a reminder, the show doesn’t just consist of one woman for whom all 24 men compete. It has three leads, and most of the cast split up early on to focus on vying for one specific woman. Beyond the female lead whom they set their romantic sights on, and this means that some men cultivate a friendship with the women they aren’t pursuing, yet another refreshing feature of the show.

By the “Mansplain” in Episode 9, many men seem loyal enough to their friendships with the women they hadn’t even been romantically pursuing, that they’re willing to tell them the truth about the finalists and try to protect them from malicious suitors, without benefit to themselves. This might not seem like a big deal, but ultimately, it’s a significant step toward dismantling the toxic “bros before hoes” culture that’s long dominated dating norms and male friendships, and protected abusive, disrespectful or just toxic, harmful men from accountability. 

Arguably one of the most alarming revelations of the #MeToo movement has been the lengths men go to keep each other’s secrets, in many cases regarding harming women, or at least privately joking about truly awful behaviors at women’s expense, behind women’s backs. Enter: the “Mansplain,” which seeks to put an end to this.

The flood of spilled tea from contestants past is immediate and shocking. Matthew, a former contestant, claims Garrett, one of Sarah’s finalists, had privately disparaged her body and said he would have to “buy her a pair of fake boobs” if he were to be seen out with her in Los Angeles. Matthew also reports that after Garrett’s first date with Sarah, he returned and said Sarah “wanted to use him for his money to start a business, insinuating [Sarah was] a gold-digger.” Collin, who at no point romantically pursued Sarah, weighs in that Garrett simply “isn’t a genuine guy” and will hurt Sarah — which, as those who watched the finale know, is a little on the nose.

When it comes time for the men to address CJ’s finalists, the drama reaches a fever pitch. Right off the bat, Chris, a contestant who had romantically pursued Sarah, tells CJ with Casey sitting right next to her, “CJ, according to Casey, you’re a glorified escort. Also, he said he can’t wait to get that money to teach you a lesson.” Shocked at being confronted by what he allegedly said, Casey simply gets up and leaves, and has to be convinced by a producer to go back, participate in the show, and respond. 

It really was a spectacle, even for a contestant who had previously stood before the entire cast and declared CJ didn’t deserve any one of the men because she’d hurt his feelings. At the “Mansplain,” it was painfully clear he’d never been confronted about his words and behaviors before, and had no experience being called on to justify or explain himself. 

But finally, when pressed for answers about the truth of the accusation, Casey not only confesses to have made some variation of the “escort” remark behind CJ’s back, but also confesses that Garrett — his best friend — was the one who suggested this to him. “OK, there’s something wrong with being an escort, but you two can ‘F’ us for money?” CJ retorts.

Aside from the obvious fact that, as CJ suggests, being likened to a professional escort shouldn’t be an insult, here, we witness the real, subversive power of the “Mansplain.” Despite Casey’s ultimate, half-hearted honesty, there’s little to give him credit for. Credit is instead owed to the extreme, pressure-cooker environment of the “Mansplain” that demands men either own up to their awfulness and try to make amends, or, as Casey briefly did, simply leave. And frankly, that should be how it is, not just on televised dating shows, but in life!

The “Mansplain” is a perfect reflection of the potential for change in men’s treatment of women, even change in patriarchal society at large, when men stop protecting, enabling and hiding behind each other, and instead confront and pressure each other to do better, to own up to their toxicity — and not just when winning over a woman for themselves is on the line. Say what you will about indefensible, abusive men, or sleazy, real-life fboys who take pride in using, manipulating and deceiving women — but there’s also plenty to say about the men who may not be abusers or fboys, but remain silent about their friends who are. 

Women have put in enough work trying to protect ourselves, each other, and fight for meaningful cultural change to be treated with dignity and respect. Now, as the dramatic “Mansplain” on “FBoy Island” shows us, it’s time for men to do their share of the work, and gather and hold each other accountable.

NASA slightly improves the odds that asteroid Bennu hits Earth. Humanity will be ready regardless

If the thought of an extinction event–level asteroid hitting Earth keeps you up at night, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has relatively good news for you: the chances of asteroid Bennu striking Earth are higher than previously thought, but probably not high enough to lose sleep over. That’s partly because we are getting better at spotting and calculating asteroid trajectories, but also because NASA is soon to test technology that could divert a threatening asteroid decades in advance of impact.

This week, scientists published an updated estimate related to the trajectory of this particular asteroid of concern, Bennu, in the journal Icarus. Bennu’s estimated chance of hitting Earth prior to the year 2300 is now 1 in 1,750 — slightly greater than the previous probability of 1 in 2,700, but still quite low. NASA discovered Bennu, a carbonaceous asteroid about 500 meters in diameter, in 1999, and has been keeping track of it ever since. In fact, it is one of the two most hazardous known asteroids in our solar system, though its likelihood of hitting Earth is still pretty slim.

Yet the news about the updated estimate isn’t of note due to the revised probability, but because the technology used to calculate it is believed to be the most precise estimate of an asteroid’s future trajectory ever calculated.

Using NASA’s Deep Space Network and state-of-the-art computer models, researchers were able to further minimize any uncertainties about Bennu thanks to the observations made by NASA’s OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which is now en route to return to Earth after studying Bennu up close.

“We carry out this endeavor through continuing astronomical surveys that collect data to discover previously unknown objects and refine our orbital models for them,” said Kelly Fast, program manager for the Near-Earth Object Observations Program at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The OSIRIS-REx mission has provided an extraordinary opportunity to refine and test these models, helping us better predict where Bennu will be when it makes its close approach to Earth more than a century from now.”

As Salon previously reported, the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft also made headlines for collecting samples on Bennu, which scientists believe may have had water on its surface earlier in its history. This is all part of NASA’s Planetary Defense group, whose sole purpose is to discover and monitor asteroids and comets that might pose a risk to Earth.

Data collected by OSIRIS-REx gave researchers an opportunity to test their models and calculate when Bennu would be most likely to hit Earth. Indeed, the data from OSIRIS-REx allows researchers to “test the limits of our models and calculate the future trajectory of Bennu to a very high degree of certainty through 2135,” said study lead Davide Farnocchia, of the Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS), in a statement. “We’ve never modeled an asteroid’s trajectory to this precision before.”

Specifically, researchers estimate that Sept. 24, 2182, will be the most significant single date in terms of a potential impact, with an impact probability of 0.037 percent. Even though the odds are low and no one today will be alive then, Dr. Ed Lu, Executive Director of the Asteroid Institute, said Bennu isn’t a threat to Earth precisely because of our careful tracking of it. Lu is more concerned about are asteroids that aren’t on NASA’s radar.

“Most of the asteroids in our solar system that could do great damage should they hit the Earth are untracked,” Lu said. “Those asteroids are large enough to destroy a city should they hit, but 99% roughly, of those, are untracked — zero data.”


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


Lu compared tracking Bennu to tracking a hurricane, as the models are somewhat similar given the constant variability. ​​Just as weather forecasting has come a long way, astronomy advancements over the last several years — including new telescopes and relevant missions, like the Japanese Space Agency’s probe currently exploring the Ryugu asteroid — are preparing the world for more precise measurements when it comes to asteroid tracking. In general, asteroids have been notoriously hard to track.

“They are difficult to track because they’re orbiting the sun just like the Earth . . . their distances can be quite far from the Earth, and they are small and dark,” said Lu. “But the issue behind tracking is both not just seeing them, but seeing them often enough so that you can accurately determine the trajectory.”

Scientists are already testing technology that would essentially nudge a potentially dangerous asteroid away from Earth. One mission, the Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) spacecraft, is expected to launch sometime after November 24, 2021, from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Once in space, the spacecraft — a joint project of NASA and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory — will travel for ten months to reach the Didymos asteroid system. The spacecraft will then literally ram into Didymos’ smaller asteroid moonlet, Dimorphos, to change its orbital path.

“DART will change the orbit speed of Dimorphos by a little bit less than a millimeter per second,” said Andy Rivkin, DART investigation team co-lead at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (APL). “That may not seem like a huge change, but it will be easily measurable compared to Dimorphos’ average speed around Didymos.”

Rivkin said in the case of a real life emergency in the future, scientists would possibly “change the speeds of asteroids a bit more.”

“But our best information favors doing a gentle tap applied decades ahead of time to avert an Earth impact when possible, rather than a forceful shove applied at the last minute,” Rivkin told Salon.

Later, the European Space Agency’s HERA mission will conduct follow-up observations to survey DART’s collision, and turn this experiment into a repeatable planetary defense strategy.

“Together these missions allow us to better understand how we can protect humanity from future asteroid impacts,” said Danica Remy, President of the B612 Foundation, a nonprofit whose goal is to protect Earth from asteroid impacts.

But what about those pesky, unidentified asteroids that have escaped observations? 

“The best thing the public can do right now is to advocate for increasing asteroid discovery rates and to provide funding for asteroid discovery and deflecting programs,” Remy added.

Donald Milton on aerosol transmission of COVID

One of the reasons Covid-19 spread so quickly, infecting so many people across the globe, is that researchers initially struggled to understand exactly how it was transmitted. Eventually they concluded that it can be spread via the inhalation of tiny droplets, known as aerosols, exhaled by those infected with the virus. But even with that knowledge, there was the additional challenge of getting various health authorities, including the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to communicate the risks to the population at large, and for governments to establish public health policies accordingly.

Donald Milton, an aerosol expert at the University of Maryland School of Public Health, has been on the front lines of this struggle. Last summer, he co-authored an open letter to the “medical community and to the relevant national and international bodies,” including the WHO, published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, that was signed by 239 health professionals from 32 countries. The letter hammered home the point that Covid-19 was spread not only by macroscopic droplets — the kind produced by coughing, sneezing, talking, or singing in close proximity, and which fall to the ground quickly — but by microscopic droplets that could hang in the air for extended periods of time and travel further. Only by understanding this mechanism of transmission could proper steps be taken to slow the spread of the disease, Milton and his colleagues argued.

In a recent Zoom conversation and email exchange, Milton discussed his research into the aerosol transmission of respiratory viruses, his early campaign to warn health agencies that Covid-19 is airborne and its repercussions, and what we might do to better prepare for the next pandemic. Our interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Undark: It was just over a year ago that you co-authored that commentary article in Clinical Infectious Diseases arguing that the danger of airborne transmission of Covid-19 was being underestimated. What led you to take that course of action?

Donald Milton: It had been a concern right from the beginning, that inhalation of aerosol could be important in this respiratory virus. The pandemic had raged through a first wave, and it was clear there were going to be future waves. Our research showed that there’s a lot you can do to limit the spread, if you take it on head first. But you’ve got to acknowledge it, you’ve got to confront it. And that wasn’t happening — at the WHO especially. And the CDC was sort of saying “well, maybe” and urging caution; but they weren’t sending a clear message either.

UD: Did the article have the effect that you had hoped for?

DM: Well, eventually, I guess. The CDC and the WHO have more recently, in the last couple of months, made much more strong statements about the role of inhalation exposure. But it’s taken a long time; it didn’t happen overnight. The CDC was never in denial; it just took a while to put [recognition of the airborne transmission risk of Covid-19] on the top of the list. Once the work gets into textbooks over the next few years and is taught in medical schools and the older generation retires, it will become part of the general toolbox of practitioners. 

UD: Many health authorities seemed to focus on the 6-foot (2-meter) rule as though it offered a kind of absolute protection. Was this a mistake?

DM: It goes back to this droplets-versus-aerosols paradigm. There was a belief that everything that wasn’t TB [tuberculosis] had to be droplet-spray; and that the spray doesn’t go very far. Not understanding that it’s inhalation, and that there’s plenty of things bigger than respirable aerosols that can deposit in your nose, and in your large airways; and if there are susceptible cells there, it can cause infection; and can still hang in the air. It was that paradigm that really needed to go away.

UD: During the first few months of the pandemic, a lot of emphasis was placed on disinfecting surfaces. We heard that grocery stores were wiping their shelves, carts, and baskets and that New York was scrubbing down its subway cars. But at the same time, the messaging over masks was often confusing.

DM: In the beginning, it was very prudent to think about all routes of transmission. The CDC recommended both surface decontamination and staying back 6 feet, and recommended the wearing of N95 masks when you’re dealing with Covid patients. And they were right; their problem was, they said, ”If you don’t have N95 masks, you can do other things” — basically giving a pass to hospital administrators who had not been prepared.

UD: Initially, there was a lot of debate over the issue of how much protection masks do, or do not, provide. What has your own research shown?

DM: I’ve been looking at this since 2007. We developed a device to measure how much virus was being shed by people wearing masks, and by people who weren’t wearing masks. We published a paper [in 2013] that showed that masks cut down quite a bit on what people shed — but they didn’t eliminate it, because masks are often loose-fitting, and fine-particle aerosols can still get out. But it cuts down on fine-particle aerosols by a bit more than 50 percent, and it cuts down the large droplets, and the coarse aerosols, even more.

UD: Should more emphasis have been placed on ventilation?

DM: If you’re not acknowledging aerosol inhalation as a route of transmission, you’re not going to think about ventilation at all. So it was very much overlooked. And that was part of the importance of our letter.

UD: Of course, getting the science right is just the first step. Can you say something about the challenge of communicating the science to the public — especially a public that may, in some cases, be distrustful of authority?

DM: One of the things that’s critical to say is: ”This is a developing situation, and we don’t know everything yet. This is our best understanding right now. Here’s the best thing we think you can do.” And tomorrow you say, ”We learned something new, and we’ve changed our recommendations.” But it’s really difficult to do that. I think in medicine, we tend to come across as, ”We know what’s going on; here’s what you should do.” But it can backfire if in fact you don’t really know yet. That’s why it’s so important to be frank about what you know and what you don’t know, what you’re learning, and what you’re doing to find out.

The problem of course is that being frank about what you don’t know is going to lead to some people not doing what you’re recommending. But I think in the long run, you’ll end with more people doing what they need to do, compared to if you sound confident and then your credibility is destroyed — and then nobody listens to you after that.

UD: How confident are you that the lessons of Covid-19 are being absorbed, and that the next pandemic will be handled better?

DM: I don’t know. I think there’s clear evidence that Taiwan and South Korea, and maybe Vietnam, learned the lessons from SARS: They understood the warning shot; they paid attention — and they did quite a bit better than most everywhere else. If [the next pandemic] comes within the next 10 to 15 years, I think there’s a good chance that living memory will serve us well.

UD: What can we do to be better prepared?

DM: I think we need to invest in two pieces of infrastructure, to make sure that we can respond better. The first is research infrastructure. There hasn’t been much in the way of clinical medicine studies, especially randomized control trials, of the route of transmission of respiratory viruses. We need that gold standard of evidence, to get everyone on the same page. And that is an investment not just in research studies, but also in research facilities.

And the second part is, we need to make our public spaces more resilient and more robust, and less permissive to transmission. Some of that comes down to ventilation, which can go a long way, especially early in a pandemic. If we had really effective air sanitization in schools and restaurants and other places where people gather, you could prevent most of the transmission. And then you wouldn’t have to shut down the economy when you had a pandemic virus. You just tell people to wear masks. … And stockpiles of respirators, for hospitals. I think the lessons are there to be learned, and a lot of people are learning them. … The question is, are we prepared to invest in the protection that we need. That’s always a question. My parents’ generation built the D.C. subway; in my generation, we can barely build a light rail line.

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

Starz’s “Heels” proves wrestling isn’t fake by creating a show about it that doesn’t feel genuine

“Heels” tests the theory that you don’t need to know or understand anything about a particular sport to enjoy a show set within it.  When the sport in question is wrestling you may understand why this is the case, since wrestling is not a sport in the purest sense of the term. It’s full-contact theater that incorporates athleticism and skill.  All outcomes, rivalries and moves are predetermined and choreographed. Everything is scripted. Rules, such as they are, might as well be breakaway prop furniture; the ever-changing question is who gets to do the smashing. Also: never call it fake.

Knowing this much is key to comprehending why a professional wrestling fan may see levels in “Heels” that I may not fully appreciate. The drama assumes most of its audience does not keep up with the WWE, explaining in its introductory title card that in professional wrestling, the heroes are called “faces” and the villains, “heels.”  

Even if you know next to nothing about wrestling, one can easily recognize shades of classic rivalries within its central plot about a financially strapped, family-run wrestling outfit defending its regional title from a flashier upstart out of, where else, Florida.

This is the main threat Jack Spade (Stephen Amell) must confront, but it’s not the only one.  As the eldest son of a long-gone local wrestling legend, Jack is intent upon keeping his father’s legacy alive by revitalizing his business, the Duffy Wrestling League.

Jack is convinced that the DWL is the soul of their small Georgia town. But the regional wrestling outfit, like its home, has seen better days. Director of Photography Larry Blanford drapes shots of the town in a dusty haze that communicates a sense of wear and tear along with resilience, and it accentuates the shabbiness of a repurposed warehouse where Jack and his team wrestle.

The DWL “dome” remains a source of pride, in which Jack pours good money after bad, much to the ire of his wife Staci (Alison Luff), whose understanding is running about as low as their bank balance.

Regardless of that, Jack gets a lot of mileage out of being a churchgoing family man while his younger brother Ace (Alexander Ludwig) seethes at being trapped in his shadow.

In the ring, Jack is the heel to Ace’s the hero, but around their small Georgia town their roles are reversed despite Jack insisting Ace play the part wherever he goes. That the show takes its name for the term used to refer to villains implies that anyone can make a heel turn.

It also reminds us that at the end of the day, this show, like wrestling, is basically a soap opera. It may run on premium cable, but it looks, sounds, and feels like a basic subscription-level exploit, albeit one that users heavier-duty expletives and is substantially dourer.

Those familiar with Amell from “Arrow” are likely to know this already. Don’t get me wrong; that was an exciting show in its heyday. Nobody tuned in to watch the man act. Charisma is his superpower, along an impressive set of abs. But a story like this requires its star to demonstrate some emotive variety. Amell’s range runs a scale that starts at brooding before moving through to scowling and unspecified intensity before landing at last in sadness.

Sometimes to mix it up a little, Amell brings forth a brooding scowl, or peppers a moment with a sad intensity. But that’s about the extent of what we see from him. Ludwig, an actor most people recognize from “The Hunger Games” and “Vikings,” is capable of greater versatility, the breadth of which does not emerge in this series.  

Kelli Berglund fares a bit better with her character Crystal Tyler, an underappreciated valet hungry to prove herself in the ring but largely ignored because she’s not a man. Berglund has a lot of fun with Crystal’s creative determination and frustration – enough that when her entirely predictable arc reaches its climax, it’s still satisfying to watch.

Starz gave “Heels” a straight-to-series order before its creator Michael Waldron became the head writer for “Loki” and penned the script for “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.” However, the opening pair of hours, which Waldron wrote, are obviously lesser works than anything Waldron created for Marvel. They are a spilled buffet of awkward exposition shoved into a small space, and it’s a lot to slog through to get to the first of many face-offs between the Spade boys in the ring.

That toxic sibling rivalry threatens to ruin more than a few family dinners. The DWL is a close-knit band of dreamers who work at day jobs to support wrestling avocations that might go nowhere, and the scenes that focus on those players as opposed to Ace and Jack are decent chasers to their harsh shots of antagonism. Most forgive Jack’s exhausting drive to succeed, but his business partner Willie Day (Mary McCormack) may be the most understanding and have the lowest tolerance for deviations from Jack’s plans.

But as familial tensions escalate, everyone starts wonder how long this weekly play can continue. You might too.

McCormack’s performance along with Chris Bauer’s liquor-soaked portrayal of Wild Bill Hancock, a local wrestler who made good and abandoned Duffy, compensate for the limited emotional resonance of the show’s top star. Coupled with the expansive personality Allen Maldonado pours into his tough-talking wrestler Rooster Robbins, they boost scenes that drag enough to keep episodes moving.

Mike O’Malley, operating here as both showrunner and the season’s biggest heel, Charles Gully, also has a good time with his portrayal. By channeling a blend of Vince McMahon and Joe Exotic into Gully he realizes exactly the kind of slimeball one envisions would create a gimmicky wrestling squad dedicated to destroying a classic show like Jake and Ace’s.

Still, when one recalls O’Malley’s consistently excellent series “Survivor’s Remorse,” “Heels” simply does not compare. This a drama that more often plods than leaps and never makes a case for its necessity. At the very least a wrestling story should feel genuinely exciting and light up a room, right? But if that what you’re looking for, you won’t find it in Duffy. Try pay-per-view, or “GLOW.”

“Heels” premieres Sunday, Aug.15 at 9 p.m. on Starz.

Trump or Obama: Whose legacy will reshape American politics for the years ahead?

Strange patterns emerge from history. George Santayana famously wrote that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” while Mark Twain supposedly  said that history “rhymes.” My favorite observation comes from George Lucas when he was describing not the past, but the plot structure of his “Star Wars” movies: “Every stanza kind of rhymes with the last one. Hopefully it’ll work.”

That observation — uttered in part about a hero’s journey that ended with the death of liberty — speaks to the current state of American democracy. There are obvious lessons for the present to be found in the past, but we can’t know for sure whether everything will work out. This is especially true now, with Donald Trump leading America’s first successful national fascist movement.

Our political history is defined by the personalities, policies and philosophies of a handful of presidents, the ones who form lasting coalitions, keeping their followers and ideas in power for decades after they themselves leave office. A generation of Americans winds up measuring political reality based on whether someone is for or against that president and everything they represent.

I would argue that during the first 200 years of the American presidency, seven men wound up causing such major realignments: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt (with an asterisk), Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Once you understand the underlying pattern, I think it becomes clear that America is in the midst of another major realignment. The central question is who the central figure in that realignment will be: Barack Obama or Donald Trump.

Washington was the most influential president for a self-evident reason: He was the first. A flawed man in many ways, Washington was wise and noble enough to avoid overt partisanship and rise above petty political squabbles. He also made a point of giving up power after the American people elected John Adams to replace him in the 1796 election, establishing a precedent for accepting the verdict of the voters that remained unbroken until 2020. Washington’s own tenure was itself quite successful, as indicated by the fact that Adams, his vice president, was widely viewed as the inheritor of Washington’s mantle. Adams’ election began a trend in which realigning presidents won unofficial “third terms” after their two terms were up. (Only one such president won an actual third term.)

While Adams’ Federalist Party won the battle to replace Washington, it lost the war when it came to shaping the young nation’s destiny. The 1800 election saw Thomas Jefferson beating Adams in a rematch of the 1796 showdown, and for more than a quarter-century every president hailed from what historians now call the Democratic-Republican Party: Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams. Until the trifecta of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama from 1993 to 2017, the first three presidents on that list were the only three to consecutively serve for eight years. Jeffersonians so thoroughly dominated national politics that the Federalist Party collapsed entirely, leading the Democratic-Republicans to splinter into factions.

The defining figure during and after that breakup was Andrew Jackson, supposedly Trump’s favorite president. After his controversial defeat by John Quincy Adams in the 1824 election, Jackson formed what would ultimately become the Democratic Party, which held the presidency for 24 of the 32 years after Jackson beat Adams in their 1828 rematch. Both the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian movements, although fundamentally racist, succeeded in large part because they expanded voting rights and democratic participation to new groups. Each man staked their appeal on the idea that governments should serve ordinary people, not elites, and created political and party structures to move non-patrician white men into power.

But the Democratic Party had no way to resolve or address America’s original sin, chattel slavery. In the 1850s, the Republican Party emerged from the ashes of various anti-Jacksonian movements to oppose the expansion of slavery into the newly-acquired Western territories. When Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election, the South seceded from the Union, leading to the Civil War. The Confederacy’s defeat took the Democrats of that era down as well. For the next 36 years, the Republican Party dominated national politics, pushing for a series of economic and social programs that would be considered liberal by modern standards: Infrastructure spending, assistance to the poor and even mixed or half-hearted attempts to provide citizenship rights to freed slaves. (That was canceled out when Republicans abandoned Reconstruction for victory in the 1876 presidential election.) The Republican coalition included businesses, Civil War veterans, northern regionalists and labor unions who supported protective tariffs. The only Democrat to serve as president during that entire period was Grover Cleveland, with his non-consecutive terms.

As the Civil War faded from memory, new issues emerged. Americans were concerned with big business eroding economic and political freedoms, political institutions controlled by elites, inadequate welfare policies and the sudden arrival of the U.S. as a major world power. The president who seized that moment would ultimately be Theodore Roosevelt, who wasn’t even on the ballot during the decisive presidential election. (Hence the asterisk above.)

That was the 1896 victory of Republican William McKinley over Democrat William Jennings Bryan. McKinley served just over one full term in office, but might be the most influential American president whose name isn’t a household word. After fulfilling his campaign promises on currency issues, he transformed America into an imperial power by waging the Spanish-American War and rebranded the Republican coalition with vital new ideas so it could be relevant in the new century. Beginning with his presidency, the GOP controlled the White House for 28 out of 36 years. Roosevelt became president after McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in 1901, and brought a larger-than-life persona to the role, along with more progressive policies. Roosevelt’s charismatic style — and his ability to play to the media and use his office as a bully pulpit — was just as influential as McKinley’s ideology. 

Democrats finally returned to the top-dog position in American politics with the next realignment, in 1932. Before that happened, we can observe was an interesting shift in the trends that had previously dictated American political life. Prior to 1932, any party that managed to hold the presidency for more than eight years through a “third term” triggered a realignment: The Democratic-Republicans after 1808, the Democrats after 1836, the Republicans after 1868 and the Republicans again after 1904. It appeared likely that after Woodrow Wilson’s failed presidency helped Republicans win a huge victory in the 1920 election, another realignment was due. They won three presidential elections in a row, hitting the unofficial “third term” rule with a victory in 1928 — and then the Great Depression hit.

Herbert Hoover, the Republican president at the time of that huge economic crash was widely (and perhaps unfairly) regarded as a failure. Franklin D. Roosevelt caused a major realignment after kicking Hoover to the curb in the 1932 election. FDR’s New Deal policies caused a political switchback, with the Democrats becoming America’s liberal party and Republicans gradually (and then rapidly) becoming more conservative. Democrats became associated with using government to help the poor, guaranteeing labor rights, consumer protection and regulation of business and industry. Roosevelt alone among realigning presidents won a literal third term — and then, in 1944, a fourth one. By the 1960s, the Democrats also became increasingly aligned with expanding civil rights, protecting the environment and a less bellicose foreign policy. FDR’s coalition — which included city-dwellers and unionized workers, intellectuals and people of color — proved so durable that it held the presidency for 32 of the following 48 years, culminating in the underrated presidency of Jimmy Carter.

Carter, however, was nearly as politically toxic for Democrats as Hoover had been for Republicans. His failure to boost the ailing economy and solve the Iran hostage crisis helped Republican candidate Ronald Reagan win by a massive landslide in 1980. Reagan merged the self-interested conservatism of America’s elites with the rising power of evangelical Christians and various reactionary streams of racism, anti-feminism, anti-LGBTQ prejudice and so on. His coalition of right-wingers and other reactionaries — predominantly white, male and affluent — controlled the presidency for 20 of the next 28 years, leading America through the final years of the Cold War and beyond. The Reagan coalition’s main legacy during this period was failing to address both climate change and worsening income inequality, not to mention laying the foundations for the overtly racist backlash movement that would soon arise against multiculturalism and multiracial democracy.

This brings us to the present era. Just as the elections in 1800, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932 and 1980 changed history, the one in 2008 also caused a major realignment. George W. Bush, was historically unpopular and had just led America into the Great Recession. The Democrats nominated a surprise candidate, Barack Obama, who captivated millions with his charisma, eloquence and idealism. As the first Black person to be a serious presidential candidate, Obama appeared to represent a new governing coalition that would be led by people from diverse cultural, racial, social, economic and sexual backgrounds. After he won re-election in 2012, many Republicans were convinced they needed to become inclusive to compete in a post-Obama era.

But Obama did not win an unofficial third term, as nearly every political observer expected, and a brand new realignment seemed to occur before the last one had even been consolidated. Donald Trump was an anomalous president for several reasons, openly soliciting foreign help to win an election and revealing that his party had become so corrupt that it was willing to do anything to push the Obama coalition out of power, whether the tactics were legal or not.

Trump’s 2016 election was in itself a result of restrictive anti-voting laws. Nearly half the states had passed laws after the 2010 election making it harder for Democratic-leaning groups to vote. Between that and partisan gerrymandering, Republicans had laid the foundations for undemocratically suppressing Obama’s coalition long before Trump entered the picture. We will likely never know how much the Obama movement shrunk with Hillary Clinton on the ballot because of Republicans’ anti-voting laws and social pressures. Trump himself was merely the beneficiary of this GOP scheming, whose obvious goal was to prevent Obama’s emerging coalition from permanently seizing power.

The 2020 election left that task unfinished, with Joe Biden winning the presidency on his third try. Obama’s former vice president, clearly viewed as his heir apparent, swept the Democratic primaries and earned more general election votes than any American candidate in any election. Biden had immense built-in goodwill from his years of being viewed as Obama’s amiable best friend, making him a welcome contrast for voters fatigued by Trump’s bullying theatrics and scandals. His candidacy was helped even more by Trump’s tragic failure to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden’s victory was no landslide, but his popular vote margin was roughly the same as McKinley’s over Bryan in the milestone 1896 election. Like Madison after Jefferson, Harry Truman after FDR or George H.W. Bush after Reagan, Biden’s victory marked the unofficial “third term” of a realigning president.

But it’a pointless at the moment to focus on the implications of the Obama triumph, since to this point the losers aren’t accepting their defeat with wisdom and grace. Instead, they’re refusing to admit they even lost and, under Trump’s “leadership,” are gaslighting America into thinking they really won, all in the name of further cheating.

First, Republicans are pushing a Big Lie that allows them to avoid the humiliation of their 2020 loss by claiming they were robbed. It doesn’t matter that they have no proof, that Trump is a lifelong sore loser or that his claims wouldn’t even rise to the Top 10 of worst American political injustices if they were true (which they are not). Like the Nazis before them, Republicans are bent on spinning falsehoods and depicting themselves as victims so they can justify an illegitimate seizure of power. They’ve also used the Big Lie and previously-debunked claims of voter fraud to pass more voter suppression laws, with the clear goal of making it harder for Democratic constituencies to vote and even of allowing Republicans to overturn unfavorable results. Biden’s victory sent the message that existing voter suppression tactics were inadequate.

It is hard to overstate the magnitude of this threat. If Republicans can prevent their opponents from voting and change election results when they lose, they will be able to stay in power for as long as they like. The natural ebb and flow of American democracy — marked by an electorate that evolves as more people are allowed to participate and fresh ideas are infused into the discourse — will be brought to an abrupt end. A future historian looking at the totality of American political history might see an organic process brutally cut short by a fascist counterattack, channeled through a narcissist’s delusions of grandeur. Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election, like Adolf Hitler’s fabrications about why Germany lost World War I, will be recalled as the pernicious fantasy that kicked the atrocities into overdrive.

Viewed in the context of presidential history, it appears that a realignment occurred in 2008 and was then met with an unprecedented backlash. The 2024 presidential election will almost certainly include a candidate associated with the Obama brand (either Biden himself or Vice President Kamala Harris, in all probability) against either Trump himself or someone else molded by his presidency, such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or Fox News host Tucker Carlson. The American people will have to decide which of those coalitions leads the nation into the future. It’s a momentous choice.

Teen accused of assisting GOP strategist with sex trafficking arrested in Florida: report

According to a report from the Daily Beast, a 19-year-old woman who has been accused of assisting a GOP strategist with sex trafficking of underage girls was taken into custody in Florida.

The report states that Gisela Castro Medina has had the same criminal charges filed against her — sex trafficking of a minor, attempt to commit sex trafficking, and obstruction of justice — as Anton Lazzaro, a wealthy GOP operative from Minnesota.

The Beast’s Joise Pagliery reports, “A photo posted to Instagram shows Castro Medina and Lazzaro together at an event in May, each with a different partner at their side. She describes herself publicly online as a student living in St. Paul, Minnesota who attends the Catholic University of St. Thomas and works at a property management company. She is the chair of the university’s chapter of Minnesota College Republicans, the group confirmed.”


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


On Wednesday the Beast reported that, “… court documents say that Lazzaro is accused of recruiting at least five underage victims for paid sex between May and December of 2020 and attempting to recruit a sixth. The indictment says he then ‘knowingly and intentionally interfered’ with the FBI’s investigation as he became aware of it.”

The Beast’s Pagliery adds, “Castro Medina’s name is still redacted in the public version of the indictment, but she is expected to soon appear in federal court in Minnesota. She did not respond to requests for comment on Saturday morning.”

You can read more here.