Trump was “doing his best Mussolini impression” after his COVID diagnosis, niece writes in new book

Donald Trump was “doing his best Mussolini impression” when he took off his mask to greet a crowd while battling the coronavirus, his estranged niece Mary Trump writes in her forthcoming book.

In the new book, excerpted by The Guardian, Trump posits that despite Trump’s “display of invulnerability,” the former president was in fact “biting back anger or clamping down on her pain.”

“I have asthma,” she wrote. “So I am acutely aware of what it looks like when somebody is struggling to breathe. He was in pain, he was afraid, but he would never admit that to anybody – not even himself. Because, as always, the consequences of admitting vulnerability were much more frightening to him than being honest.”

Last October, Donald Trump was shortly admitted to Walter Reed Medical Center in D.C. after the White House announced that he’d been infected with COVID-19. Three days later, the former president was discharged from the hospital, after which he greeted a crowd celebrating the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barret, took off his mask and told supporters: “You’re going to beat it [coronavirus] … As your leader, I had to do that. I knew there’s danger to it, but I had to do it. I stood out front, and led.”

Dr. James Phillips, an attending physician at the hospital, later criticized Trump’s behavior, calling his appearance “insanity” – a comment for which he was fired. “Every single person…in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential “drive-by” just now has to be quarantined for 14 days,” Phillips wrote in a since-deleted tweet. “They might get sick. They may die. For political theater. Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater.”

A number of outlets reported that Trump appeared to be struggling to breathe at the time. Later in February, The Guardian revealed that the former president had downplayed the severity of his illness, as Trump had actually experienced “extremely depressed blood oxygen levels.” A number of officials were reportedly concerned that the former president would need to be put on a ventilator. Despite these reports, Dr. Sean Conley, who was serving as Trump’s personal physician at the time, claimed that Trump was “doing very well” and raised “no cause for concern”.

The latest round of revelations stem from Mary Trump’s upcoming book “The Reckoning: Our nation’s trauma and finding a way to heal.” Trump argues that the nation is currently experiencing a form of post-traumatic stress in the wake of Trump’s presidency.

Last week, she revealed that the former president had used the phrase “it is what it is” in reference to the surge in the coronavirus death toll last year, according to Insider. “That was a popular expression in my family, and hearing it sent a chill down my spine,” she wrote. “Whenever my grandfather, my aunt, or one of my uncles had said it, it was always with a cruel indifference to somebody else in despair.”

“Donald had said it to me at my grandparents’ house in Queens when I’d asked him why my grandfather insisted that my father’s ashes were to be buried in the family plot instead of scattered off the coast of Montauk, as he’d wanted,” she wrote.

She then added that her uncle quipped: “It is what it is, honeybunch.”

Sourdough baps are the ultimate burger buns (yes, we said it!)

The Perfect Loaf is a column from software engineer-turned-bread expert (and Food52’s Resident Bread Baker), Maurizio Leo. Maurizio is here to show us all things naturally leavened, enriched, yeast-risen, you name it — basically, every vehicle to slather on a lot of butter. Today, an explainer on baps, a bun you’ll want to use to house sausage, eggs, and burgers alike.

* * *

Baps are soft, leavened rolls, typically eaten for breakfast in the United Kingdom — but I find they also serve as a pretty stellar hamburger or egg sandwich bun. The distinction between a bap and bun you’d typically use for a burger seems to primarily revolve around the fat used in the recipe, with some claiming a true bap must be made with lard.

I choose to take a different stance. Baps and American-style hamburger buns are long-lost siblings: Both are less like a roll (which is typically much softer and serve as an accompaniment to a meal) and more like a sturdy vehicle for sandwiching fillings, essentially becoming a main dish when combined. But where baps are typically lighter in color, not excessively buttery, and topped with a dusting of flour, buns are usually darker, glossy, and sometimes topped with seeds.

The terminology and distinction between buns, rolls, baps, and so many more bready things shaped like a log or sphere are blurred, and usually steeped in tradition or culture. I think that’s awesome! Depending on your location, the definition of each varies and they’re all different interpretations of a soft, leavened piece of dough that’s baked and meant to be sliced. To me, a bun — and bap! — is something that is meant to hold another piece of food when eating, whereas a roll is usually eaten as an accompaniment.

However, regardless of whether you call your bun a bun or your bun a bap (or, dare I say, it’s important they’re soft, but not too soft, so that they can serve as sturdy support for sandwiches and burgers of all varieties, and most importantly, that they’re delicious.

Let’s look at a few different types of buns, how they compare to baps, and the characteristics of each.

Baps vs. Brioche Buns

To be characterized as “brioche,” a recipe typically contains at least 30% — and usually 50% or more — butter to total flour weight, plus a good measure of egg. The increased butter percentage, and its property which inhibits gluten strengthening, in brioche dough is what leads to its extremely tender and “shreddy” texture. This ensures the dough never gets overly strong, even after many minutes of mixing. The more butter you work into a dough, the softer and richer it will become.

A bap, by contrast, can have butter or lard added to the dough, but it’s commonly in a smaller percentage. The goal for a bap is less about that buttery richness and more about that soft-but-not-too-soft texture. The reduction in richness makes them lighter overall, less decadent, yet more utilitarian. To me, this makes the bap a much more versatile bun for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

Baps vs. Potato Buns

Another common bun style involves our starchy tuber friend, the potato. Adding cooked and mashed potato is one of my favorite ways to bring a high level of softness to a bun. Using potato flour is one approach, but my preferred method is to simply bake or microwave a potato, mash the flesh, then work that into the dough during the end of mixing.

The starches in a potato bring a luxuriously silky texture to the final bun, one that’s different from adding fat such as butter or oil. Potato starch does act similarly to fat in that it inhibits gluten development, but it’s also able to hang on to high levels of water. These starches then pull double duty to bring softness and moisture to the final bun.

Texturally, I also find potato buns to be much more filling than a bap. The added starch from the potato, while increasing softness, also increases the density of the bun. A potato bun with a hefty hamburger patty sandwiched between two halves typically imposes a one hamburger cap per person, and who wants to be limited like that?

At the heart of it, the difference between baps and potato buns is simply the fact that baps do not traditionally include any potato in the dough. While both are wonderfully soft and supple in their own way, once you introduce mashed potato into a dough you exit bap territory and firmly enter potato bun territory. Still, while many potato buns are topped with sesame seeds, in some recipes, you’ll find the buns are dusted with flour just before baking, similar to how baps are prepared.

Since we’re on the topic, let’s talk about toppings and milk and egg washes.

Washes and toppings

We can’t talk about buns and baps without addressing what is one of the most striking differences for me between a bun and a bap: Baps are traditionally dusted with white flour before baking. This dusting somehow enhances their soft and pillowy nature.

In addition to the flour topping, baps are usually a shade, or more, lighter than usual hamburger buns — and this is due to the wash used before baking, if there is one.

Photo by Maurizio Leo

In the image above you can see the results of my tests with various washes when developing a sourdough bap recipe. The two baps at the far left have no wash, the middle has only a whole milk wash, and the far-right have whole milk and whole egg wash. As expected, the gradient is evident, going from dullest at the left, to shiniest at the far right. But the goal for these baps isn’t to have a glistening surface, we actually want a duller appearance. In the end, I preferred going with the middle ground: I brushed the baps with whole milk before dusting them with flour to give them a little extra color, but not too much, though you can go with whichever is most appealing to you.

In the end, I think buns, baps, rolls, flatbreads, and so many other small carb-based treats, stem from the common desire to have a piece of bread at the dinner table. The differences between them are nuanced, but that’s commonly the case with baked goods, because they’ve arisen through time and are steeped in myriad cultures. Personally, I’m happy to have a bap or a bun at every meal — regardless of what they’re called.

***

Recipe: Sourdough Baps

Prep time: 25 minutes
Cook time: 35 minutes
Makes: 8 baps

Ingredients

Levain

57 grams bread flour
57 grams water
23 grams ripe sourdough starter (100% hydration)
11 grams caster or superfine sugar

Dough

518 grams bread flour, plus more for dusting
310 grams water
64 grams vegetable or canola oil
42 grams caster or superfine sugar (or granulated sugar if that’s all you have)
11 grams fine sea salt
1/4 cup whole milk, or 1 large egg and 1 tablespoon milk, for wash (optional)

Directions

Make the levain (9:00 p.m.)
In the evening, when your sourdough starter is ripe (when you’d typically give it a refreshment), make the levain. In a large-size jar (this levain will rise relatively high, so be sure to give it plenty of headspace), combine 57 grams bread flour, 57 grams water, 23 grams ripe sourdough starter, and 11 grams caster sugar. Cover the jar loosely and let the levain ripen overnight at warm room temperature (I keep mine around 74 to 76°F/23 to 24°C).
Mix the dough (9:00 a.m.)
To the bowl of a stand mixer fitted with the dough hook attachment, on low speed, mix the 518 grams flour, 310 grams water, 42 grams caster sugar, 11 grams salt, and the ripe levain until combined and no dry bits of flour remain. Increase the mixer speed to medium-low and mix for 3 to 5 minutes, until the dough clumps around the dough hook. This is a firm dough at this point until we begin to add the oil after a rest.

Let the dough rest for 10 minutes in the mixing bowl, uncovered.

It will take several minutes to mix in all the oil for these baps. Turn the mixer on to low speed and begin to add the vegetable oil, about a teaspoon at a time, while the mixer is running. Patiently add more oil only as the previous addition has been absorbed. While mixing, continue adding all the oil until the dough smooths out and holds together in a cohesive mass.

Transfer the dough to another large bowl or container for bulk fermentation.
Bulk ferment the dough (9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
Cover the dough with a reusable airtight cover and let it rise at warm room temperature (76°F/24°C) for a total of 3½ hours. During this time, you’ll give the dough three sets of “stretches and folds” (see next step for explanation) to give it additional strength. The first set is performed 30 minutes after the start of bulk fermentation, and subsequent sets at 30-minute intervals, then the dough will rest for the remaining 2 hours. Set a timer for 30 minutes and let the dough rest, covered. After 30 minutes, give the dough its first set of stretches and folds.

For each set of stretches and folds: With wet hands, grab the north side (the side farthest from you) of the dough and stretch it up and over to the south side. Then, in the same way, fold the south side up to the north. Then, perform two more folds, one from east to west, and one west to east.

After performing the three sets of stretches and folds, let the dough rest, covered with the same airtight cover, in the bulk fermentation container for the remainder of bulk fermentation.
Shape the dough (1:00 p.m.)
This dough can be proofed on a parchment or silicone-lined full sheet pan (18×26-inches) or two half-sheet pans (13×18-inches). Uncover the bulk fermentation container and lightly flour the top of the dough. Using a bowl scraper, gently scrape the dough out to your work surface. Then, using a bench scraper, divide the dough into eight equal portions (each weighing about 125 grams). Using the bench scraper in one hand, shape each portion into a very tight ball with a seam on the bottom. I like to use my bench scraper at a 45° angle to the work surface to push the dough against the surface, creating tension along the sides and top of the piece of dough. Once shaped, transfer the piece to the prepared sheet pan.
Proof the shaped dough (1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
Cover the sheet pan with a large reusable piece of plastic or bag and seal shut. Proof the dough at a warm temperature (74 to 76°F/23 to 24°C is ideal) for about 2 hours. The dough is ready to bake when it has puffed up, feels light and airy, and a gentle poke springs back very slowly. If there is any resistance felt in the dough when poked, let it proof for another 15 minutes and check again.
Bake the baps (3:30 p.m.)
Position a rack in the middle of the oven; heat the oven to 425°F (220°C).
Pour the 1/4 cup of whole milk (or whisk the egg and 1 tablespoon whole milk) into a small bowl and gather a pastry brush. Additionally, gather a small amount of bread flour and a fine sieve to dust flour on the top of the rounds.
Once the oven is preheated, use the pastry brush to brush on a thin layer of milk or egg wash onto each round. Then, use the sieve to tap out a light dusting of flour onto the round. Alternatively, skip the wash and simply dust the baps with flour.

Bake for 20 minutes. After 20 minutes, rotate the pan back to front, reduce the oven temperature to 350°F (175°C), and bake for an additional 15 to 20 minutes, until the baps are golden.

Once the baps are baked, remove them from the oven and transfer them to a cooling rack. Let them rest for 30 minutes before slicing.

How Trump blew his chance to steal the election: The clock was ticking; he was tweeting

The months leading up to Nov. 3, 2020, were for Donald Trump almost a carbon copy of what he had done going into the presidential election four years previously: He thumbed tweets, whined at his rallies and complained to anyone who would listen that the election had been “rigged” by Democrats. Of course, after election eve in 2016, we never heard another peep out of him about the dastardly Democrats and the wily ways they had rigged the election against him, because he won.

But from the moment that his network of pet poodles at Fox News called Arizona for Joe Biden in November of 2020, causing a series of eruptions in the private quarters at the White House, culminated in a call to Fox executives to demand that the network reverse its Arizona projection, Trump understood that this time it would be different. He would lose.

Trump turned immediately to the courts, filing more than 60 federal lawsuits in the battleground states he lost claiming that the election had been “stolen” from him. But as one case after another went down to defeat or outright dismissal, he turned to loyalist loons like former general Michael Flynn, online conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka, My Pillow guy Mike Lindell and — wait for it — the Proud Boys to push his obsession that he hadn’t lost, and that the election had been rigged by nefarious forces.

See if this doesn’t sound familiar. On Dec. 12, several thousand pro-Trump demonstrators showed up in Washington for at least two rallies, one on the Mall and the other on the steps of the Supreme Court, to protest its decision the previous day to throw out a lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Texas seeking to bar the states of Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania from casting their electoral ballots for Biden. The court issued a brief unsigned order on Dec. 11 saying that Texas had no “interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections” and dismissed the lawsuit. A few days earlier, the court had dismissed another suit filed by Pennsylvania Republicans seeking to throw out that state’s Biden electors, thus disenfranchising millions of voters.

Trump was watching closely. With Proud Boys marching through downtown Washington in mock-military formations shouting “Move out!” and “1776!” Trump tweeted “Wow! Thousands of people forming in Washington (D.C.) for Stop the Steal. Didn’t know about this, but I’ll be seeing them! #MAGA.” A bit later, he tweeted, “WE HAVE JUST BEGUN TO FIGHT!!!”

He must have liked what he saw on the streets of the nation’s capital that Saturday, because seven days later, on Dec. 19, Trump was tweeting “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” The next week, on Dec. 26, he tweeted “The ‘Justice’ Department and the FBI have done nothing about the 2020 Presidential Election Voter Fraud, the biggest SCAM in our nation’s history, despite overwhelming evidence. They should be ashamed. History will remember. Never give up. See everyone in D.C. on January 6th.”

After seven hours of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Saturday by former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, and five hours of testimony before the same committee on Friday by Rosen’s former acting deputy, Richard Donoghue, we now know that behind the scenes, Trump was very busy.

On Dec. 15, the day after Bill Barr announced that he would be leaving his post as attorney general, Trump summoned Rosen to the Oval Office and told him he wanted the DOJ to file legal briefs supporting the lawsuits he had not yet lost challenging election results in battleground states. He demanded that Rosen appoint special counsels to investigate Dominion Voting Systems, which had provided voting machines in multiple states. Rosen demurred, citing what Barr had already reported to Trump, which was that the DOJ had investigated his charges and had found no evidence of widespread or significant voter fraud.

Rosen told the Judiciary Committee that Trump called him almost daily trying to get him to have the Department of Justice declare that the presidential election was “corrupt” and announce that the department was initiating investigations of “election irregularities” in multiple states, including Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — all states Trump had lost narrowly to Biden.

Rosen continued to defer and delay on the phone, and Trump started talking with the acting head of the DOJ’s civil division, Jeffrey Clark, who was more amenable to Trump’s conspiracies. Rosen described to the Judiciary Committee five separate “encounters” with Clark over his plotting behind Rosen’s back with Trump, all of which took place between Dec. 23 and Jan. 3.

Trump became fixated on his narrow defeat in Georgia, placed a now-famous phone call to Gov. Brian Kemp on Dec. 5, trying to get him to pressure the state legislature to overturn Biden’s victory in the state. Kemp deflected, telling him that he had no power to call for investigations into signatures on absentee ballots or any of the other things Trump was urging him to do.

On Dec. 27, at Trump’s urging, Clark produced a letter dated the following day he wanted Rosen and Donoghue to sign. Aware that the governor of Georgia had rejected Trump’s entreaties, Clark’s letter amounted to a DOJ legal analysis that the state legislature could call itself into session without the governor’s authority, reject the electors pledged to Joe Biden and appoint its own slate of Trump electors. “Time is of the essence,” the Clark letter pleaded, because Congress would convene in joint session to certify the election on Jan. 6.

Rosen and Donoghue refused to sign the letter, telling Clark “this is not even within the realm of possibility.”

That didn’t end it. Clark apparently demanded a meeting with Rosen and Donohue, which took place at the DOJ on New Year’s Eve. Clark told them Trump was planning on firing Rosen and replacing him with Clark so he could carry out his plan to manipulate the Georgia legislature into appointing a new slate of Trump electors. Clark told his two bosses that he was meeting with Trump the next week to carry this out.

Instead, Clark met with Trump a day later and showed him the letter, discussing their plan for a Trumpian “Saturday Night Massacre.” Rosen and Donoghue demanded a meeting with Trump, at which they planned on telling him that the entire senior leadership of the Justice Department would resign en masse if Trump appointed Clark as acting attorney general.

Before that meeting took place, news emerged that Trump had placed a lengthy call to the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, demanding that the latter “find” enough votes to overturn the election results in his state. “I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump said, according to a tape of the call obtained by the Washington Post.

The Oval Office meeting between Trump, Rosen, Donoghue and Clark went on the next evening, attended by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who advised the president not to fire Rosen because such a move would trigger congressional investigations and distract from Trump’s attempts to overturn the election. After three hours, the meeting broke up, with Rosen and Donoghue still in their jobs.

Rosen and Donoghue told the Senate Judiciary Committee that with only 17 days remaining until the presidential inauguration, they believed they had avoided a constitutional crisis. But we all know what happened three days later, on Jan. 6, when a violent mob of Trump supporters breached the Capitol building and delayed for several hours the certification of the electoral ballots which made Joe Biden president.

Between the early hours of Nov. 4, when Trump first realized he had lost the election, and Jan. 6, when the assault on the Capitol dominated every news cycle until the inauguration (and beyond), Trump was all over the place in his attempts to overturn the election. He was consumed with the lawsuits being filed around the country on his behalf — but was losing them, one after another. He was obsessed with following conspiracy theories about Biden ballots being carried by Special Forces soldiers from Germany and stuffed into ballot boxes in battleground states, about mysterious computers and satellites controlled by Italy switching Biden votes for Trump votes in battleground states, and multiple other outlandish conspiracies.

But beginning on Dec. 12, with the Proud Boys march through Washington and the demonstrations on the Mall and at the Supreme Court, Trump became fixated on holding a rally on Jan. 6 that he believed could prevent the certification of electoral ballots taking place that day. Two days later, he began his campaign to get the Department of Justice to join his plan to pressure state legislatures in a handful of states he had lost to throw out Biden electors and appoint their own slates of Trump electors.

He tweeted on Dec. 19, 26, 27 and 30, all dates coinciding with his pressure on Rosen and Donoghue to use the Department of Justice to help him overturn the election. On Jan. 1, the day he met with Jeffrey Clark to discuss firing Rosen, he tweeted “The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C. will take place at 11:00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!” On Jan. 4, Trump traveled to Georgia to hold a rally, nominally in support of the two Republican candidates in the U.S. Senate runoff election, but really to put pressure on Georgia legislators to overturn the election.

Practically every move Trump made in December and January in advance of Jan. 6 was a crime. Pressuring Jeffrey Rosen to misuse the Department of Justice to support his private lawsuits was a crime. Conspiring with Jeffrey Clark to fire Rosen so Clark could send the letter to the Georgia legislature was a crime. Calling Brad Raffensperger and Brian Kemp and pressuring them to “find” votes and use the legislature to overturn the election was a crime. Meeting with his own White House staff and outside advisers to plan the rally on the Ellipse at which he would incite the assault on the Capitol was a crime.

Trump’s problem, to put it frankly, was that he didn’t start committing crimes early enough. The crimes he committed in December and January were largely impulsive, not carefully planned or focused. He exploded with tweets and phone calls and meetings and rallies.

In short, Trump was Trump, as incompetent a criminal conspirator as he was a president. The only question left to be answered at this point is whether Merrick Garland and the Biden Department of Justice will have the courage to charge him and his co-conspirators with the felonies they committed: defrauding the United States by attempting to illegally influence the outcome of the 2020 election.

If that crime sounds familiar, that is because it is the same one special counsel Robert Mueller charged 24 Russian nationals with committing in 2016, when they illegally hacked into Democratic National Committee servers, stole campaign emails and set up fake accounts to influence voters on American social media platforms. With Donald Trump, nothing is ever new. Just watch him. He’s out there right now raising $100 million to do it all over again in 2024. And the entire Republican Party is right there with him.

A common biopsy is putting lives at risk. It’s time to retire it

In late 2010, I underwent a biopsy without much of a thought. My internist had recommended the procedure after suspecting, based on blood tests, that I was at elevated risk for prostate cancer. Off I went to my neighborhood urologist, who had me change into a robe, hop on an exam table, and lie on my side as he delivered numbing local anesthetic in my prostate gland, the walnut-sized organ situated between the bladder and the penis. Over the next 10 minutes, he propelled a hollow needle from a biopsy gun through my rectum 12 times, collecting minuscule samples of my prostate with each plunge.

The procedure, known as a transrectal biopsy, has been considered the gold standard for diagnosing prostate cancer, a condition that affects roughly one in eight American men during their lifetimes. But transrectal biopsies are also risky: They can cause infections and, on rare occasions, a life-threatening condition known as sepsis. I started writing about these risks in 2018 after a friend, a facial plastic surgeon, nearly died from a transrectal procedure at the hands of his urologist.

Concerns over these risks have led a growing number of physicians around the world to abandon the procedure, in favor of safer methods. But in the United States, most doctors still cling to the transrectal biopsy, despite the potential dangers. This must change. There are far too many lives at stake.

Nearly 250,000 men this year will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in the U.S., according to the American Cancer Society. Because prostate cancer is typically slow growing — and practically inevitable in men who live long enough — more than a third of patients diagnosed with the condition don’t undergo surgery or radiation therapy but are instead placed on active surveillance, a regimen of blood tests, digital exams, MRIs, and biopsies aimed at tracking the cancer’s growth and providing an early warning should the cancer advance.

Compared with surgery, a transrectal biopsy may seem like a harmless option. It isn’t. The rectal lining is ridden with potentially infectious bacteria, and 5 to 7 percent of patients who undergo prostate biopsies — the vast majority of which are transrectal — develop infections, according to the American Urological Association, or AUA. In up to 3 percent of transrectal biopsy cases, the infections trigger potentially life-threatening and disabling sepsis.

No one knows for sure how many people die from transrectal biopsies. But in 2019, Truls E. Bjerklund Johansen, a consultant urologist and professor emeritus at the University of Oslo, and Per‑Henrik Zahl, a senior scientist at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo, looked into the question after one of Bjerklund Johansen’s biopsy patients died from a brain clot, likely triggered by sepsis. The researchers concluded, based on a national patient registry, that one in every 1,000 Norwegian men who underwent a transrectal biopsy died within 30 days of the procedure. Assuming a similar trend holds in the U.S., that would translate to roughly 2,000 deaths each year, or roughly five per day, Bjerklund Johansen said.

Transrectal biopsy patients are commonly given powerful antibiotics in preemptive attempts to ward off infection, but such protections aren’t foolproof, and they are likely contributing to a rising plague of antibiotic resistant infections, which claim an estimated 35,000 lives annually in the U.S. alone.

Bjerklund Johansen is among a growing contingent of doctors who have decided that the safest way to collect prostate tissue is not through the rectum but through the perineum, the skin between the testicles and anus. Unlike the rectum, the perineum can be easily disinfected, and also has another major advantage: It can provide a clearer pathway to the anterior prostate, a region that is harder to reach with transrectal biopsies. The anterior section, the “ceiling” of the organ, is the site of 20 to 35 percent of prostate cancers.

If the transperineal biopsy is so great, why don’t all urologists switch?

One reason may be urologists underestimating the risk of transrectal biopsies. An old maxim holds that doctors bury their mistakes, and in the case of transrectal biopsies, mistakes may be hidden behind a misleading cause of death listed on death certificates. Urologists might not link a death from septic shock to transrectal biopsy, even if a biopsy was performed just days earlier. When individual doctors acknowledge the risk of post-biopsy infection, they may believe that infection rates among their own patients are low.

Perhaps more crucially, there’s little financial incentive for urologists to make the switch in the U.S. To adopt the technique, they may need to invest large sums of money in new equipment and will need to undergo training to learn a procedure that — at least initially — will be slightly more time-consuming to perform than its transrectal counterpart. Yet the reimbursements doctors receive from insurers for transperineal biopsies may be about the same as they would get for transrectal procedures.

Some research also shows the transperineal technique is slightly more painful than the traditional transrectal biopsy. Richard Szabo, an associate clinical professor in the department of urology at the University of California, Irvine, performed a literature review on the subject and found that transperineal pain scores averaged 3.17 on a 10-point scale — with 10 being the most severe pain — while transrectal pain scores averaged 2.5. But, anecdotally, men I know who have had both procedures say the pain levels are about the same.

Although the relative merits of the transperineal biopsy continue to be debated, momentum for the procedure has been growing in Europe, China, Australia, and elsewhere. In Australia, the national health plan now offers a higher reimbursement amount for transperineal procedures in an effort to make them the new standard of care. In 2017, Guy’s Hospital, a National Health Service facility in London, stopped doing transrectal biopsies altogether. By March 2019, all six of the hospitals in the South East London Cancer Network had followed suit. In January 2021, the European Association of Urology stated in a position paper that “available evidence highlights that it is time for the urological community to switch from a transrectal to a transperineal [prostate biopsy] approach despite any possible logistical challenges.”

Bjerklund Johansen said that transrectal procedures have been abandoned in most of Norway.

The U.S. has been slower to come around. Bjerklund Johansen said U.S. urologists were skeptical of his research when he presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the AUA. Matthew Allaway, a urologist who invented a device used to position the biopsy needle in transperineal procedures, estimates that only 5 percent of prostate biopsies in the U.S. are performed transperineally, though that number may be even lower. Anecdotally, he estimates that about 60 percent of urologists have switched to the transperineal approach in Britain, and that anywhere from 5 to 30 percent of them have abandoned the transrectal approach across the European Union.

The winds of change, however, may be blowing. A few American urologists — including Szabo and Allaway — have joined with like-minded experts from Europe and Australia on a campaign they describe as “TRexit,” short for transrectal exit (and a tongue-in-cheek reference to “Brexit,” the popular shorthand for Britain’s exit from the European Union). The group’s bold goal is for urologists worldwide to abandon transrectal biopsies by the end of 2022. There’s a long way to go.

What about me?

My case is a bit unusual. Although I have undergone six biopsies, all of them transrectal, doctors have detected cancerous cells only once, nearly 11 years ago. My blood tests and MRIs have come back clean.

I recognize that not everyone is so fortunate, and this year I started an underground network of sorts, that helps connect prostate cancer patients with practitioners who offer transperineal biopsies. In some cases, patients have been willing to drive more than 1,000 miles and cross state lines to avoid subjecting themselves to the unnecessary risk of a transrectal procedure.

It is time for the AUA to get its act together and join organizations like the European Association of Urology in recommending transperineal biopsies as a safer alternative to transrectal biopsies. (An AUA spokeswoman said the organization is in the early stage of developing a clinical guideline on detecting prostate cancer and is currently reviewing the benefits and harms of transrectal and transperineal biopsies as part of the guideline. The issue will be debated at the AUA’s annual meeting in Las Vegas this September.)

I told my own doctor four years ago that urologists will face a patient revolution if they don’t start addressing this issue. He said that his job was to surveil, and defended his office’s use of transrectal biopsies as a relatively low-risk method of monitoring prostate cancer.

Today, that same doctor has joined the TRexit and is planning to offer transperineal biopsies in his suburban Chicago office.

The revolution may, at last, be underway.

* * *

Howard Wolinsky is a Chicago-based freelance medical writer. He worked as a medical and science reporter for The Chicago Sun-Times and writes the “A Patient’s Journey” blog for MedPageToday.com.

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

A California bill would limit protests at vaccination sites. Does it violate the First Amendment?

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A proposal sailing through the California legislature that aims to stop people from getting harassed outside of vaccination sites is raising alarms among some First Amendment experts.

If it becomes law, SB 742 would make it punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a maximum fine of $1,000 to intimidate, threaten, harass or prevent people from getting a covid-19 — or any other — vaccine on their way to a vaccination site.

The measure was introduced after protesters briefly shut down a mass vaccination clinic at Los Angeles’ Dodger Stadium in January. Now that mass vaccination clinics have mostly folded up, lawmakers worry that vaccination sites with less security than Dodger Stadium — like pharmacies and mobile clinics in parks or fast-food parking lots — are vulnerable.

It’s a sign of how toxic the issue of vaccination has become in a state with a long history of intense and divisive vaccine wars.

State Sen. Richard Pan (D-Sacramento), a pediatrician who administers vaccines to his patients, wrote the bill. He has been the target of anti-vaccination harassment since writing and championing laws that made it harder for parents to refuse routine vaccines for their children by eliminating personal belief exemptions and tightening rules around medical ones.

He was shoved by someone who opposed the medical exemption bill in 2019, the same year in which an anti-vaccine protester threw menstrual blood onto the state Senate floor.

Pan was also among the lawmakers threatened at a committee hearing earlier this year.

Last month, Pan volunteered at a vaccination clinic at a Sacramento park that he said was disrupted by anti-vaccine protesters with a bullhorn who made it hard for medical personnel to converse with patients and answer their questions.

And while he said he can handle threats, ordinary citizens “shouldn’t have to run a gauntlet to get vaccinated.” That includes walking through a group likely made up of unvaccinated protesters and possibly getting exposed to covid to get protected, he said.

His measure prohibits obstructing, injuring, harassing, intimidating or interfering with people “in connection with any vaccination services.” The bill passed the state Senate with just four no votes and faces one more committee hurdle before it heads to the Assembly floor.

The bill defines harassment as getting within 30 feet of someone to hand them a leaflet, display a sign, participate in any kind of verbal protesting like singing or chanting, or conduct any education or counseling with that person.

Blocking someone or impeding them from getting a vaccine is an obvious problem, and it’s good that the proposal would try to stop that, said Glen Smith, litigation director for the First Amendment Coalition, a California-based nonprofit that promotes the First Amendment, which guarantees rights such as free speech and assembly. But he thinks the proposal goes too far with its definition of harassment.

“To say you can’t get within 30 feet of them just to hand them a pamphlet or ask them a question? That seems to be overkill for me,” Smith said.

It’s worse than overkill, said Eugene Volokh, a professor of First Amendment law at the UCLA School of Law.

“That law is clearly unconstitutional,” Volokh said.

He has two primary concerns with the proposal:

First, though it’s modeled on similar laws that create zones around abortion clinics to protect patients from harassment, this bill goes beyond what courts have upheld in the past, he said. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Colorado law that created an 8-foot “bubble zone” around a person entering or exiting an abortion clinic, but in 2014 the high court struck down a Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot “buffer zone” around clinics.

A 30-foot zone around a person getting a vaccine is bigger than the court would allow, Volokh believes.

His second concern is that the bill specifically prohibits someone from leafletting or talking to someone only about vaccines.

That violates the First Amendment, Volokh said, because it targets certain content. Someone could hand out an anti-war or anti-fur leaflet and not run afoul of the law, he said.

“I think it’s pretty shocking that a state legislature would try to enact this kind of restriction on fully protected speech this way,” Volokh said.

In fact, anti-abortion groups that initially opposed the bill are now on board because it targets only speech in connection with vaccines.

Elisabeth Beall, media coordinator for the Right to Life League, said a previous version of the measure didn’t specify that the restrictions would apply only to speech about vaccination.

“This limits the negative impact of the bill on pro-life activities,” like anti-abortion sidewalk counseling outside Planned Parenthood clinics, which provide abortions and vaccines, Beall wrote in a statement.

Not all free speech advocates share Volokh’s interpretation of the bill. The American Civil Liberties Union said it has no issues with it as written.

“It’s not necessarily the case that the freedom to express our views is unrestricted,” said Kevin Baker, director of governmental relations at ACLU California Action. “They can be balanced with important governmental objectives” like letting people get vaccinated in peace.

Part of that objective is stopping disinformation about vaccines, which Pan said is the primary reason people are not getting the shots.

“Frankly, any gains we make to try to get more people vaccinated are going to be incremental because of disinformation,” Pan said. And when protesters show up claiming they’re there to educate patients, “they’re talking about disinformation.”

Joshua Coleman, co-founder of the group V is for Vaccine, which advocates for informed consent before vaccinations and says vaccines carry risk, said he brought the bullhorn to Pan’s clinic to “educate those coming to receive the vaccine on important facts they deserve to know” and object to Pan’s bill.

“The intent in attending Senator Pan’s vaccination clinic was to protest the censorship of important information and his egregious and erroneous attack on free speech,” he said via email.

Pan said his bill was “carefully crafted” to stop the “obstruction, harassment and intimidation” of people seeking vaccines, and is confident that it is well within the bounds of the First Amendment.

“There’s precedent for saying you can protest. This law doesn’t say you can’t protest. There’s certain rules around the protest,” Pan said. “Especially as we’re trying to deal with this pandemic, we need to do what we can to be sure people feel safe getting themselves vaccinated.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

The absolute best way to make jam, according to so many tests

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

* * *

Jam is perhaps summer’s greatest spoil, if you, like me, don’t love a pool party and get a stomachache from Mr. Frosty.

Put in a way that doesn’t center my lactose intolerance, “The luxury of the best fruit, still pulsing with life, warm from the field, is in my mind the same sort of miracle as a baby being born.” That’s how April McGreger, who is both an award-winning maker of preserves and a person who speaks about jam in a way that makes me blush, described it when I reached out to discuss my latest Absolute Best Test trials.

McGreger, whose book “The Complete Guide to Canning & Preserving” comes out in spring 2022, told me that during the summer months, she often imagines herself “buried under a mountain of strawberries, which I claw my way out of, ending with perfect order sparkling on the shelf.”

Her preferred method for strawberry jam is to first macerate in sugar, which she says should be added in a weight proportionate to 60 to 65% of the weight of the berries, because of their high water content and fragility. Then, she cooks the mixture in as small a batch as possible on the stove. (She likes the wider surface area of a skillet for quicker evaporation, but notes that if you are using a large saucepan or stockpot, it’s best to cook no more than 3 pounds of berries at a time, for optimal flavor and color.)

And while she never did comment on whether or not pool parties are awkward, her advice to me was indispensable as I set forth on my noble mission to test six methods of making jam:

Err on the side of undercooking. (“Overcooked jam is trash,” she said. “And undercooked just means you spoon it instead of spread it.”)
Add plenty of lemon juice to preserve color and brighten flavor.
Stay away from super-ripe strawberries.

Speaking of which . . .

* * *

Controls, fine print and berry-picking

Yes, in news that may shock and disturb you, the best strawberries for jam-making are not ripe ones.

“Since strawberries are already low in pectin, they need to be firm, a quarter of them even slightly underripe. I throw in a small portion with green tips for a pectin boost,” said McGreger. “Those perfectly ripe, juicy berries from the farmers market that are perfect for eating by the handful are usually too ripe for making into jam.”

Accordingly, for each jam trial, I used berries that presented some resistance when poked and were a few shades less vibrant than their riper counterparts. For each batch:

1 heaping cup (165 grams) hulled, quartered strawberries
1/2 cup (99 grams) granulated sugar
1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice
1 big pinch Diamond Crystal kosher salt

The exceptions to this were in the no-cook chia trial, for which I used maple instead of sugar, and in the no-cook freezer trial, for which I added pectin as called for in the recipe. Any of the recipes below can be scaled by simply doubling or tripling them.

A note on preservation

McGreger told me that historically, many jams were made with an equal weight of fruit and sugar, since sugar lowers water activity, and that much sugar renders vacuum-sealing and canning unnecessary.

But for a less cloying flavor, McGreger said you can use 60-ish% sugar by weight and still keep jam for 2 to 4 weeks in the fridge after opening, if you store it in smaller jars and wait to crack each one until you’re ready to use the jam.

“Mold is generally what causes small, moderately sweetened batches of jams to spoil, and mold needs oxygen to grow,” she said. “If you put it in one larger jar that you are constantly opening, exposing it to contamination through human hands and air, for the whole second half of its life in the fridge, the percentage of empty space and air at the top of the jar just gets larger and larger.”

She recommends canning when your jam objective is to preserve the local harvest for future months.

* * *

Jam Recipes

Stovetop Only

Adapted from Food52.

In a heavy saucepan, combine 1 heaping cup of quartered, hulled strawberries with 1/2 cup of granulated sugar, 1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice, and a big pinch of kosher salt.
Set the pan over low heat and cook — stirring every minute or so and smashing the berries with a wooden spoon — until the mixture begins to bubble, and the sugar granules are no longer visible, 4 to 5 minutes. Taste: Too tart? Add a little more sugar. Not quite pert enough? Add a little more lemon juice. Too sweet? Another pinch of salt.
Continue to simmer over low heat for about 30 minutes, stirring occasionally, until when you dip a frozen spoon into the mixture, let the jam cool on the spoon, then run your finger through the cooled jam, it leaves a clear trail.
Turn off the heat, let cool, and transfer to a jar. Refrigerate for up to 1 month.

I am an openly lazy cook, so I was most excited about this method, which requires little more than 5 minutes of chopping and the sort of spoon–helicopter parenting (Jamrenting? Kill me in my sleep) that calms me anyway.

The resulting jam was excellent — somehow a bit sweeter than the sheet pan batch, despite the same ingredient proportions, with a flavor more like IHOP strawberry syrup, in the best possible way. A spoonful of it was like eating the tail-end of June whole.

The smashed berry pieces dissolved toward the end of cooking to produce a smooth texture that set up into a thick, spreadable jam in the refrigerator.

Macerate + Stovetop

Adapted from Food52.

In a heavy saucepan, combine 1 heaping cup of quartered, hulled strawberries with 1/2 cup of granulated sugar. Let macerate for about 30 minutes, or up to 3 hours.
Set saucepan over medium heat and bring to a boil, stirring every 30 seconds or so and smashing the berries with a wooden spoon. Continue to cook, scraping the bottom as you stir, for another 15 to 20 minutes, until the mixture is jammy and thick.
Add 1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice and a big pinch of kosher salt and reduce the heat to medium-low, then cook for another 10 minutes, stirring often. Taste: Too tart? Add a little more sugar. Not quite pert enough? Add a little more lemon juice. Too sweet? Another pinch of salt.
Cook over medium-low heat for another minute or so, until when you dip a frozen spoon into the mixture, let the jam cool on the spoon, then run your finger through the cooled jam, it leaves a clear trail.
Turn off the heat, let cool, and transfer to a jar. Refrigerate for up to 1 month.

There were two main differences between the outcome of this batch and the stovetop-only batch.

The first was flavor. The macerated + stovetop jam was somehow fuller: The sugars tasted more caramelized, and the strawberry juice more concentrated. It was also slightly less sweet than the stovetop-only jam.

The second was texture. I conducted the same amount of spoon-mashing between both batches, but the macerated + stovetop jam ended up a bit chunkier than the stovetop only jam. (This would have been easily rectified if I had taken a fork to it.)

Since the added time with this method was completely hands-off, unless I were in a rush, I don’t see why I wouldn’t macerate to get the flavor boost in the future.

No-Cook Chia

Adapted from Food52.

In a medium bowl, use a fork or potato masher to smash 1 heaping cup of hulled, diced strawberries. Add 4 teaspoons of chia seeds, 1 heaping tablespoon of maple syrup or agave syrup, 2 teaspoons freshly squeezed lemon juice, and a big pinch of kosher salt. Stir.
Cover with plastic wrap, foil wrap, or a cloth, and refrigerate for at least 2 hours or until thick. Taste: Too tart? Add a little more maple or agave. Not quite pert enough? Add a little more lemon juice. Too sweet? Another pinch of salt. When you’re satisfied, transfer to a jar. Refrigerate for up to 1 week.

No-cook chia jam is truly no-cook — you can and should make this in your bedroom, bathroom, or on an airplane flying high over the sea as you ferret away many jewels after an outlandish and cinematic heist. It requires no heat source, stirring, or skills. It does, however, take a while to set in the refrigerator, so if you’re in a rush to fucking guzzle a truckload of jam ASAP, you might be better off with another method.

That said, the chia jam was extremely pleasant, with a lighter flavor than any other batch. Perhaps because it was never heated, the lemon juice shone through much more brightly, for a jam that reminded me of a SweeTart on a sunny day. The addition of maple and lack of granulated sugar (since there was never any opportunity to dissolve) also allowed the strawberry flavor to take center stage.

It would be excellent in a parfait with vanilla yogurt, or spooned over a flourless chocolate cake to cut the sweetness and complement the blunt edges of cocoa.

No-Cook Freezer

Adapted from Pioneer Woman.

In a large bowl, use a fork or potato masher to crush 1 heaping cup of quartered, hulled strawberries. Add 1/2 cup of granulated sugar, 1 tablespoon freshly squeezed lemon juice, and a big pinch of kosher salt. Let sit for 10 minutes, stirring midway through.
Taste: Too tart? Add a little more sugar. Not quite pert enough? Add a little more lemon juice. Too sweet? Another pinch of salt.
In a small saucepan, combine 6 tablespoons of room-temperature water and 1 ounce of fruit pectin (I used Sure-Jell). Bring to a boil over high heat while stirring. Let boil for 1 minute, then remove from heat. Pour over the berry-sugar mixture. Stir until sugar granules are no longer visible.
Transfer to a jar, cover with a lid, and let sit at room temperature for 24 hours.
Use immediately, or store in the freezer for up to 2 months and thaw in the fridge before using.

Freezer jam is something of a misnomer, because you only put it in the freezer if, unlike me, you don’t immediately eat the entire batch with a spoon.

It would be more accurate to call it “countertop jam,” which is maybe less sexy, although, I would rather have sex on a countertop than in a freezer. Anyway, you make freezer jam by mashing strawberries with sugar, lemon juice, and salt, and then letting the mixture sit while you dissolve some pectin and bring it to a boil. You stir the liquid pectin over the berries and cover the fruit, and let it all sit at room temperature until it has set into jam.

This method produced a batch with a bright, brilliant hue. Because the berries were never cooked, the flavor was pert and raw, reminiscent of strawberry shortcake. The texture wasn’t my favorite of the bunch — more gelatinous than loose — but after a jaunt in the refrigerator (for the jam, not me, haha, is anyone still reading this), I hardly noticed, and it spread on toast like a dream. Because the berries remain uncooked, freezer jam is a great opportunity to showcase the delightful flavors of an in-season strawb.

Sheet Pan

Adapted from Food52.

Heat the oven to 375°F.
On a sheet pan, toss together 2 heaping cups of hulled, diced strawberries, 1 cup of granulated sugar, 2 tablespoons of freshly squeezed lemon juice, and a big pinch of kosher salt. Let macerate while the oven heats.
Transfer the sheet pan to the oven and roast about 15 to 20 minutes, stirring midway through, until the strawberries are easily mashed with a fork, and the accumulated juices around the edges of the pan have thickened and begun to darken.
Remove the sheet pan from the oven, and mash the strawberries with a fork or potato masher. Once smooth, taste: Too tart? Add a little more sugar. Not quite pert enough? Add a little more lemon juice. Too sweet? Another pinch of salt.
Let cool, then transfer to a jar. Refrigerate for up to 1 month.

“Sheet pan jam” is incredibly fun to say, so this trial got off to a great start. Things did plateau when some of the macerated strawberry–sugar liquid began to caramelize too quickly around the edges, but got back on track when I used a silicone spatula to drag the juices from the corners of the sheet pan into the center of Berry City.

The flavor of sheet pan jam was like nothing I’ve tasted: roasted and vegetal, and distantly pumpkin-y(!). It was much more holiday pie than it was field trip PB&J, and it would have been excellent with some fresh basil.

Of all of the trials, the sheet pan method produced the most rustic, loose jam, which made it perfect for spooning over whipped cream and biscuits, though I imagine it would have spurted right out of a sandwich.

Instant Pot

Adapted from Food52.

Combine 2 heaping cups of diced, hulled strawberries, 1 cup granulated sugar, 5 teaspoons of freshly squeezed lemon juice, and ½ teaspoon kosher salt in an Instant Pot.
Select SAUTÉ and adjust to NORMAL. Bring mixture to a boil for about 8 minutes, stirring frequently. Press CANCEL.
Then, secure the lid on the pot and make sure the pressure-release valve is closed. Select MANUAL and cook at high pressure for 8 minutes.
Use natural release to release the pressure. Remove the lid and use a large fork or potato masher to mash berries until smooth. Once smooth, taste: Too tart? Add a little more sugar. Not quite pert enough? Add a little more lemon juice. Too sweet? Another pinch of salt.
Select SAUTÉ again and boil for another 5 to 7 minutes, until when you dip a frozen spoon into the mixture, let the jam cool on the spoon, then run your finger through the cooled jam, it leaves a clear trail. Press CANCEL.
Let cool, then transfer to a jar. Refrigerate for up to 1 month.

Here’s something that may seem obvious: If you set your Instant Pot to vent immediately after using it to make strawberry jam, it absolutely will spray little bits of sticky goo all over everything you’ve ever owned, including your great-grandma’s antique copper pepper grinder that you had to prize from your father’s grip with promises to keep it safe, always and always.

Other than that, Instant Pot jam was pretty straightforward to make. For reasons that eluded me, the hue of the jam was materially darker than any other batch, and for reasons that did not elude me (pressure cooking), the resulting spread retained quite a bit of liquid.

After giving it another sauté to evaporate the extra juices, its flavor was deep and plummy, and it became quick thick, like Smuckers. I would use this method again if I was craving a more wintery flavor, and I wanted to make a lot of jam fairly quickly.

* * *

Please don’t make me rank the jams

I finally understand that thing parents say about loving all of their children equally, even though until I tried to force-rank jam, it seemed like bullshit. I loved all of my jams! They were each unique, with vastly different use cases. If I had to line them up on a stage made out of sourdough toast and hand out ribbons . . .

Stovetop Only: Most Efficient (aka Best for When You Want to Fucking Guzzle a Truckload of Jam ASAP)
Macerate + Stovetop: Best Flavor
No-Cook Freezer: Excellent for Showcasing Naturally Delicious Berries
No-Cook Chia: Truly Easy, a Tiny Baby Could Make It
Instant Pot: Good for Large Batches and Cooked Flavors
Sheet Pan: Most Fun to Say & Best If Your Stovetop’s Taken

In major flub of political history, Fox News host claims Karl Marx is the author of “Mein Kampf”

On Fox News Tuesday, anchor Bill Hemmer made a major mix-up of political history when he appeared to credit philosopher Karl Marx with writing “Mein Kampf.”

“I remember 20 years old going to Trier, Germany and trying to find the home of Karl Marx cuz, y’know, 1848 — he wrote ‘Mein Kampf’,” said Hemmer during the segment. “I want to know what it’s all about.”

Marx and Friedrich Engels were the authors of “The Communist Manifesto,” which was published in 1848. “Mein Kampf” (“My Struggle”) was written by Adolf Hitler, the Nazi dictator who was instrumental to developing fascism, and published in 1925.

A few moments later in the piece, Hemmer noted the mistake and corrected it.

You can watch the video below via Twitter:

Apparently, Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer thinks Karl Marx wrote Mein Kampf.

"I remember 20 years old going to Trier, Germany and trying to find the home of Karl Marx cuz, y'know, 1848 — he wrote Mein Kampf. I want to know what it's all about." pic.twitter.com/9sa6inGqpi

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) August 10, 2021

If Mike Lindell’s claims were correct (they’re not), he likely broke wiretapping laws

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, with his long-time-coming South Dakota “cyber symposium” finally upon us, is still promising data that will serve as “absolute proof” that agents of the Chinese government stole the 2020 election from Donald Trump. There is no reason to believe any of the pillow king’s information is legitimate. In fact, if it were, Lindell could face “very severe” consequences for violating federal wiretapping laws, one expert tells Salon.

Lindell’s so-called data has already been described as highly questionable by experts who spoke to CNN. One can only wonder, however, why Lindell would claim he obtained the data in a blatantly illegal fashion.

A source with 20-plus years of expertise in the cyber-security and technology arena told Salon on Monday that Lindell and his band of “white hat hackers” could face criminal charges if they have anything resembling the kind of data Lindell has claimed.

“Number one is, how did they acquire this data?” the expert asked. “You can’t just pull this kind of information from a remote, you have to have a physical device sitting there that is providing this information.” In other words, the only way Lindell could have acquired the kind of data he claims is by inserting a physical device that can “watch information that is going in and out of a network,” the literal definition of wiretapping and a clear violation of federal law.

This is not some minor technical violation, the expert added, but a “very serious offense.” The expert said that even being in possession of that data, no matter who acquired it, is potentially illegal.

Reached for comment by Salon on Monday afternoon as he prepared to launch his Sioux Falls event, Lindell said his supposed hackers had acquired “a bunch of stuff that escaped from China.” He did not respond to the specific concerns of the expert quoted in this story. “I can’t worry about you doing a hit job today, Zach,” the MyPillow CEO added before hanging up. “Let’s try it tomorrow.”

Lindell’s fortunes have taken a beating in recent days, following his decision to drop MyPillow ads from Fox News in retribution for the network’s refusal to cover his “absolute proof” event. That decision has reportedly meant losses of $1 million a week for his previously lucrative bedding and pillow company.

Lindell’s big event in South Dakota appears to have been slightly delayed. If it goes off the rails entirely, almost no one except Lindell himself would be surprised. It wouldn’t be the first time the man who has brought restful sleep to millions has been duped by self-proclaimed cyber and internet experts, spending millions with little to show for it.

As of Tuesday evening, at his event in Sioux Falls, Lindell had yet to show any evidence of widespread election fraud.

Vaccine disinformation and partisan politics are killing us — literally

More than 615,000 Americans have died during this life-changing pandemic. In recent weeks, the delta variant of the coronavirus has led to a dramatic increase in infections, hospitalizations and deaths. Even with the widespread availability of vaccines, we have not been smart enough, determined enough or strong enough to finally defeat this public emergency. If we could successfully put a man on the moon 50 years ago, surely we can figure out how to eradicate this virus. But we have not.

The first vaccine was rolled out last December. Two more were available soon thereafter. Yet just 50% of all Americans are fully vaccinated as of now. This fact is both alarming and tragic. It is alarming because Americans do not seem to understand the importance of immunization in defeating the coronavirus. It is tragic because this painful and sorrowful pandemic will not be stamped out soon at this rate.

Vaccines are the safest and most effective way to end the pandemic. This is not opinion. This is a scientific, medical fact — a certainty. But it will take reaching herd immunity to accomplish this goal. And, according to public health experts, upward of 90% of Americans will have to be fully vaccinated before COVID-19 in all its variant forms is effectively expunged.

Two major roadblocks have interfered with our ability to win this pandemic war.

First, the pandemic and the vaccines have been politicized from the very beginning. Responses to both have been a litmus test for devotion to a particular political party. Republicans, as a group, have downplayed the pandemic, have undervalued the need for mitigation measures and have been reluctant to get vaccinated. Democrats, by contrast, have acknowledged the severity of the pandemic, have utilized mitigation measures and have eagerly been vaccinated. The best predictor of whether a person has been vaccinated is his or her political affiliation. That is the essence of politicization.

Second, misinformation about the pandemic and vaccines has been counterproductive to our national response. Millions of Americans still believe the pandemic is overblown. Millions of anti-vaxxers hold the belief that our vaccines are untested, unsafe or ineffective. Misinformation has been largely promulgated by Republican elected officials and by right-wing news outlets. Social media platforms, such as Facebook, have also allowed dangerous misinformation to spread. Science and medicine have been cast aside. Public health experts have been ignored.

That combination of politicization and misinformation has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, a wrecked economy, widespread anxiety and depression and a lack of accurate understanding of the usefulness of vaccines. We now have an undefeated pandemic and a coronavirus variant that is spreading like wildfire among the unvaccinated. If we do not reach herd immunity soon, vaccine-resistant variants are all too likely to emerge and kill millions more. The lambda variant, for example, may be vaccine-resistant.

We are calling for a coordinated effort by political and medical leaders to address these two problematic influences in our country. All political leaders need to make clear in their words and deeds that vaccinations are not a partisan issue. Elected Republican officials need to encourage their supporters to be vaccinated as soon as possible. Medical experts need to continue to inform the public about the safety and effectiveness of our vaccines. Herd immunity is a concept poorly understood by many Americans — but it’s absolutely crucial, because we must reach that level of nationwide immunization that will finally end this pandemic. That is an achievable goal. But to achieve that goal in the shortest amount of time, vaccination mandates in our states, cities, schools, colleges and businesses are almost certainly necessary.

Our country has an illustrious history of vaccinations, and we shouldn’t forget that. Over the decades we have successfully eradicated smallpox, diphtheria, polio, measles and mumps. They have effectively been wiped out. We were only able to get rid of these diseases because the American people accepted vaccines and were immunized in sufficient numbers to reach herd immunity. Vaccines were not an instrument of partisan politics, and not surrounded by so much disruptive information.

What we know is that 615,000 deaths and counting is unacceptable in a powerful and prosperous country. It is inconceivable that we continue to witness this kind of death and destruction. It is absolutely within our grasp to turn the tide and defeat this pandemic. But doing that requires eliminating partisan politics and deliberate misinformation from our national strategy. Our attitudes and behaviors must be guided by science and medicine. If that seems a daunting challenge at the moment, we must recognize that nothing short of that will work.

As legal fees mount, Rudy Giuliani signs up for Cameo’s celebrity messaging service

Faced with mounting legal bills and a defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems, Rudy Giuliani is turning to the personal message site Cameo where users can pay for personal messages from public figures, Newsweek reports.

Giuliani joining Cameo comes on the heels of a string of setbacks, including the suspension of his D.C. law license and his suspension from practicing law in New York state due to “demonstrably false and misleading” statements regarding the 2020 election.

“Good news: I want to connect with YOU on Cameo – now taking all Cameo requests!” Giuliani tweeted on Tuesday.

Good news: I want to connect with YOU on Cameo — Now taking all Cameo requests! https://t.co/c5I1EUiuts pic.twitter.com/55SgNqv7Sj

— Rudy W. Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) August 10, 2021

With his tweet, Giuliani included a link to a video where he beckons users to request a message.

“Hi I’m Rudy Giuliani and I’m on Cameo. If there is an issue you want to discuss or a story you’d like to hear or share with me, or a greeting that I can bring to someone that would bring happiness to their day, I would be delighted to do it,” he says. “It can be arranged, we can talk through the magic of Cameo.”

Daniel Hale is a true American hero — and was punished for it

According to British Army Capt. John Montresor, among the Revolutionary War spy and early patriot Nathan Hale’s final words before his hanging were: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” Joseph Addison’s play “Cato,” a popular drama among America’s revolutionary elite at the time, contained similar sentiments, so it’s not hard to imagine the young Hale uttering the words. Certainly the dangerous mission he had undertaken spoke to his courageous credentials in that regard. Hanging was the inevitable endgame should he be apprehended — and Hale knew it.

Much has changed since those heady days of our nascent republic. Still, figures like Edward Snowden, Tom Drake, Chelsea Manning, John Kiriakou and a host of other whistleblowers loom large today above a world full of mostly sycophantic, cowardly and selfish adherents to the “rules.”-Such truth tellers actually better represent the traditional nonconformist American ideal than any of their rule-of-the-road, stick-to-the-script fellow citizens. This is “patriotic dissent,” according to combat veteran and author Danny Sjursen — and he’s dead-on correct. After more than 20 years of hugely expensive, largely nonsensical, military contractor-enriching, people-murdering wars, one must ponder deeply and long the very sanity of our nation. I imagine the latest Hale did, and is doing, just that — as he pays the price for exposing the indecency and arbitrariness of America’s death-from-above drone campaign.

I’m referring to Daniel Hale, America’s latest patriotic dissenter. A former member of the Air Force, Hale entered a plea of guilty in that bastion of faux liberty and equally faux justice, the Alexandria, Virginia, courtroom of Judge Liam O’Grady. Hale pled guilty to avoid the possible 11-year sentence he could have faced had he fought the charges and subsequently been convicted. But Hale readily admitted he was guilty — guilty of trying to save human life rather than destroy it. Guilty of thinking that maybe, just maybe, if he exposed the nature of America’s monstrous actions, citizens who still cared might be sufficiently aroused that they would take action to reclaim their republic and stop the obscenity done in their names. Oh ye naive young man!

In the courtroom, Hale exclaimed: “I am here because I stole something that was never mine to take — precious human life.”

But in that he was mistaken. He was in the courtroom because his powerful desire to prevent further murder such as his so overwhelmed him that he felt he had to expose it. By doing so, he put himself in jeopardy, at the mercy of the court.

There the judge had the audacity to argue that Daniel should have registered his complaints through the normal chain of command. O’Grady said that Hale was “not being prosecuted for speaking out about the drone program killing innocent people;” that in fact he “could have been a whistleblower … and not [taken] any of these documents” — supposedly the specific “crime” for which he was tried, taking classified government documents.

Not a “Daniel come to judgment,” this O’Grady fellow. The chain of command, the inspector general process, all the rules to shield and protect so-called whistleblowers are so much a sham, a complete and utter sham. None of them work; indeed, all of them funnel any conscientious individual inevitably to one of two destinations:

Absolutely no positive action and very possibly punishment for having tried, or;
If one’s conscience still prevails after experiencing option one, going the route that Daniel Hale and almost every effective whistleblower winds up ultimately traveling — the “illegal” route of public dissemination of their knowledge.

Tom Mueller’s must-read book, “Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud,” documents this inevitable process so dramatically and disturbingly that one struggles not to wet a few pages with his or her own tears — or rip a few out in pure rage. Perhaps a copy should be shipped Judge O’Grady’s way…

Hale will serve his time with dignity, like others of his stature who came before, and are serving sentences with him. Then he will emerge again into the light and hopefully continue his quest for justice. Not for himself, but for his lamentable nation.

Real justice would mean an end to the murders, an end to the profits of warmongers and their disciples and supporters, and an end to the bestial and brutal imperial writ America has assumed.

Real justice would see Daniel Hale receiving recognition in the gallery during a State of the Union Address — rather than a Rush Limbaugh.

Real justice would turn America’s empire upside down.

Real justice would place patriotic dissent at the very pinnacle of our society’s most esteemed qualities.

Like his namesake Nathan, Daniel Hale would be seen as the hero he truly is.

Cruz slammed infrastructure plan as “reckless” after trying to include his own highway project in it

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tx., has been vehemently critical of the bipartisan infrastructure bill proposed in the U.S. Senate, slamming it as “reckless.” But according to Houston Chronicle reporter J.R. Jordan, that didn’t stop the far-right GOP senator from trying to include his own highway project in it.

Cruz said of the $1.2 trillion plan, “This is reckless, and it’s unprecedented . . . This is a trap.”

Jordan, however, reports that Cruz “worked with Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock on an amendment that would make the future Interstate 14 a high-priority project within the INVEST In America Act, an infrastructure bill making its way through Congress.”

Journalist Sanford Nowlin, in the San Antonio Current, reports that “the famously partisan Cruz even worked across the aisle with Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., to add the expansion as an amendment.”

Nowlin explains, “The cynical among us might take the view that money has something to do with the second part of Cruz’s seemingly contradictory stance. After all, the expanded highway would connect Texas’ oil-rich Permian Basin with the Port of Savannah, the third-largest U.S. port. Plus, Cruz is one of the Senate’s top recipients of cash from the oil and gas industry.”

Nowlin also notes that the Texas senator’s “single biggest donor from 2015 through 2020, Houston’s Doggett Industries, is a construction equipment company active in the Permian Basin.”

The $1.2 trillion plan is one of two infrastructure bills being considered in the U.S. Senate. The other is a budget reconciliation bill that many Republicans, including those who signed on to the bipartisan deal, are highly critical of — and centrist Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona has come out against that bill.

“Jeopardy!” officially selects Mike Richards and Mayim Bialik as new joint hosts

After almost a full year of searching and auditioning guest hosts, “Jeopardy!” has selected its new hosts in Mike Richards, the show’s executive producer and frontrunner in the search, and Mayim Bialik, who was a guest host on the show and is best known for her work in “The Big Bang Theory,” reports Deadline. Richards and Bialik will split hosting duties, with Richards to host the long-running daily syndicated program and Bialik to host primetime and spin-off specials of the famed quiz show.

“IT’S TRUE!!! Been waiting a long time to tell you all,” Bialik tweeted of the news early Tuesday. The “Big Bang” fan-favorite notably didn’t just play a genius on the show — she also holds a PhD in neuroscience in real life. “Really really honored and astounded and excited for this – it’s beyond anything I ever imagined could happen.”

“I am deeply honored to have the opportunity to host the syndicated version of ‘Jeopardy!,'” Richards said in a statement. “Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined being chosen to step into a role of this magnitude. Alex believed the game itself and the contestants are the most important aspects of the show. I was fortunate to witness his professionalism, intensity and kindness up close and that will serve as the ultimate blueprint as we continue to produce the show we love.”

Ravi Ahuja, Chairman of Global Television Studios and Corporate Development for Sony Pictures, also issued a statement on the announcement. “We took this decision incredibly seriously. A tremendous amount of work and deliberation has gone into it, perhaps more than has ever gone into the selection of hosts for a show – deservedly so because it’s ‘Jeopardy!’ and we are following the incomparable Alex Trebek,” Ahuja said. “A senior group of Sony Pictures Television executives pored over footage from every episode, reviewed research from multiple panels and focus groups, and got valuable input from our key partners and ‘Jeopardy!’ viewers.”

The announcement comes on the heels of a storm of controversy surrounding Richards. Shortly after news broke that he was the frontrunner to succeed the late, beloved Trebek, lawsuits and allegations of mistreatment against Richards from his previous workplace at “The Price is Right” from the 2010s began to resurface.

In an internal message to “Jeopardy!” staff sent Monday morning, Richards confirmed that he’d been offered the host role, though he said “no final decisions have been made” at that time. He also defended himself against recent unearthing of a past lawsuit against him, including from a woman named Brandi Cochran who says Richard retaliated against her when she told him she was pregnant with twins.

Per Cochran’s suit, filed in 2010, “Cochran revealed that she was carrying twins,” and Richards “put his face in his hands. He asked her twice, in an annoyed tone, ‘Twins? Are you serious? . . . You’re serious?’ After that, Cochran was booked to work less often and was repeatedly taken out of acts she would have appeared in before.” The lawsuit was settled in 2016.

Another former “Price is Right” worker, model Lanisha Cole, also filed a suit in 2011, in which she alleged she was “wrongfully terminated, constantly humiliated and berated in front of her peers by Richards and an additional producer.”

Pregnancy discrimination and workplace abuse of women have long been rampant in the entertainment industry, and only recently begun to be addressed by the rise of #MeToo a few years ago. Still, in Richards’ Monday email, he told “Jeopardy!” staff he denied these claims:

I want you all to know that the way in which my comments and actions have been characterized in these complaints does not reflect the reality of who I am or how we worked together on ‘The Price is Right.’ I know firsthand how special it is to be a parent. It is the most important thing in the world to me. I would not say anything to disrespect anyone’s pregnancy and have always supported my colleagues on their parenting journeys.

Over the past few weeks, as if news about Richards as the likely next host of “Jeopardy!” hadn’t already been met with a lukewarm reception, the resurfacing of the allegation from Richards’ past have been particularly disappointing. After all, Trebek himself had suggested back in 2018 that he’d like to be replaced by Laura Coates, a Black woman.

While fans have campaigned for LeVar Burton’s permanent installment at the “Jeopardy!” podium, even circulating a well-publicized petition, Richards had inspired the opposite reaction. In a Change.org petition started a week ago that has amassed over 1,000 signatures, the message is clear: “‘Jeopardy!’ fans everywhere, our future is on the line. This is not a job, it’s a tenure, and Mike Richards is reportedly the front runner to be the new permanent host of ‘Jeopardy!’ This is the entertainment equivalent of insider trading. In short, it’s a crime.”

Through the months-long guest-hosting runs on “Jeopardy!” since Trebek’s death last November, while mourning Trebek’s absence, many fans were excited about the opportunity to embrace more diversity on the show and someone who embodies its spirit of intellectualism and curiosity. Some of its most notable guest hosts have included Burton, Robin Roberts, even CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Fox Sports host Joe Buck will host this week.

Through it all, Burton, who has been open about his interest in being named Trebek’s successor, has been a decisive fan-favorite, and it’s not difficult to see why. Last week, shortly after news that Richards would likely be the next host, Burton tweeted his gratitude to fans and the show: “I have said many times over these past weeks that no matter the outcome, I’ve won,” he wrote. “The outpouring of love and support from family, friends, and fans alike has been incredible! If love is the ultimate blessing and I believe that it is, I am truly blessed beyond measure.”

Richards and Bialik will assume their full-time hosting duties on the show’s forthcoming 38th season, as “Jeopardy!” closes out its 37th season this week.

“The road keeps going”: Christina Applegate shares multiple sclerosis diagnosis

Widely beloved actress Christina Applegate took to Twitter Monday to share her diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

“Hi friends,” Applegate tweeted. “A few months ago I was diagnosed with MS. It’s been a strange journey. But I have been so supported by people that I know who also have this condition. It’s been a tough road. But as we all know, the road keeps going. Unless some a**hole blocks it.”

In a follow-up tweet, she added, “As one of my friends that has MS said ‘we wake up and take the indicated action.’ And that’s what I do. So now I ask for privacy. As I go through this thing. Thank you xo.”

Applegate, known for roles in “Married . . . with Children,” “Samantha Who?” and most recently, “Dead to Me” on Netflix, as well as her movies “Anchorman,” “Hall Pass,” and “Bad Moms,” has shared health struggles with the public before. In 2008, she discussed her experience with breast cancer, having a double mastectomy, and having her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed.

Netflix and CBS Studios, which distribute and produce Applegate’s “Dead To Me” as the show enters its third season, have since expressed their support for the actress in a joint statement to The Hollywood Reporter, writing, “We love and support Christina and respect her privacy as she takes the time and space she needs in this moment.”

According to the trade, production on the third season of “Dead To Me” has been temporarily halted.

Multiple sclerosis is a disease in which the immune system eats away at the protective covering of nerves that can result in pain and fatigue. Applegate is one of an estimated 2.3 million people with the disease, which disproportionately affects adult women compared with men, worldwide. While the disease is relatively rare, before Applegate, stars like her co-star Selma Blair on “The Sweetest Thing,” and “Sopranos” actress Jamie Lynn Sigler have also shared their MS diagnoses.

The tired “Bachelor” franchise needs to step up or step aside for the likes of “FBoy Island”

Surprise-surprise! Monday’s season finale of “The Bachelorette” starring the charmingly sex-positive Katie Thurston — dubbed “vibrator girl” — ended in dramatic fashion, which isn’t terribly surprising for the long-running reality juggernaut. However, the particular circumstances of this latest melodrama highlight just how played out the franchise is – especially now that it’s contrasted with HBO Max’s refreshing, much buzzed about dating show alternative, “FBoy Island.”

In case you missed it: First of all, you really didn’t miss much, and second of all, here’s what happened. While Katie is ultimately charmed by Blake’s romantic confession of undying love, which leads to an engagement, it’s the guy who got away who overshadows the narrative. You see, in the penultimate episode, Blake’s notorious rival Greg had, like, “really, actually fallen in love,” and since Katie could not fully reciprocate his feelings (it wasn’t the finale yet!), he couldn’t handle the competition and bailed.

Their highly anticipated reunion for the “After the Final Rose” special results in an enjoyable dialogue in which Katie unapologetically unleashes her rage at Greg, distinguishing this finale from the peacemaking likes of its many, many predecessors. Still, one can’t help but feel like we’ve seen it all before from the Gregs of the franchise who can no longer abide by the conventions of a reality dating show and exit with the same recycled speeches about how “real” all of this was for them.

The fact that contestants like Greg are supposedly so caught off guard by actually catching real feelings on a dating show that they have no choice but to leave, arguably says everything we need to know about the authenticity of their intentions when joining — and the authenticity of the “Bachelor” franchise, overall.

That said, for those of us who have tired of the soliloquies of the Gregs of “Bachelor” nation, new, rival dating shows for the social media age like HBO Max’s “FBoy Island” make for a compelling alternative.

Why so serious?

Perhaps the biggest “Bachelor” franchise problem is that it puts marriage – marriage – at stake for the contestants. Arguably one of the most important decisions one has to make, it’s gamified and then forced to meet a predetermined deadline. It’s engagment or bust on “The Bachelor,” which doesn’t put pressure on the contestants at all to make choices under heightened, fantasy circumstances. Yes, the show draws a devoted audience, but how many of those who enjoy the dramatic journey are just as prepared for the couples to break up a few months down the line?

In contrast, “FBoy Island,” is purposefully anything but serious. Even its premise – three women looking for love among a mix of self-identified nice guys and self-identified fboys, who are shamelessly on the show for clout and a chance at $100,000 – understands that the real draw is in trying to sniff out deception. It’s up to the women and host Nikki Glaser, armed with her usual, irreverent feminist dating humor, to scope out who’s who, and possibly teach an fboy a lesson along the way.

Shows like “FBoy Island,” made by a “Bachelor” producing alum who wanted to create a dating show that reflects the realities of the age of Tinder, speak to a critical truth that’s emerged since the first episode of “The Bachelor” aired in 2002: No audience member is taking dating shows seriously anymore.

Look, it’s 2021. All we have to do to know who these contestants are and that they’re on our television screens for publicity is scroll through their social media feeds. They’re on the show to bring enough attention to their Instagram accounts, sell some diet teas, possibly land a fashion collaboration with boohoo or some other Instagram boutique. The goal is to rack up sponsorships, eventually slap their name on some uninspired app start-up, maybe even wind up on a “Bachelor” spin-off or land an equally ambitious, equally attractive social media influencer as a romantic and business partner.

By continuing to take itself seriously, the “Bachelor” franchise is unintentionally, embarrassingly funny – kind of like your outdated elders referring to Facebook as “The Facebook.” In contrast, realism, dating app-savy instincts, and social media sleuthing are baked into the deliberate, relatable and deeply self-aware humor of “FBoy Island.”

In the show’s first episode, Glaser jokes, “Do good guys really deserve to always finish last? And do fboys always have to finish . . . on our face?” Chris Harrison, the recently departed, near 20-year host of “The Bachelor,” could never.

Casting, casting, casting

Speaking of Harrison, the story of his departure is pretty interesting — arguably more interesting than most of the show’s recent seasons. Harrison left the show earlier this year after a storm of controversy when he defended a previous contestant’s past, racist behavior attending a plantation-themed frat party in 2018. Rachel Kirkconnell, the contestant in question and winner of former “Bachelor” lead Matt James’ season, herself, had apologized and called for no one to defend her. Nevertheless, Harrison answered that silent call. His tone-deaf, patronizing rant, which felt awfully callous about the horrors of slavery and ongoing white supremacy, was directed at a Black woman — former “Bachelorette” lead Rachel Lindsey — who had been trying to educate him.

In any case, the entire debacle — like many previous debacles involving contestants outed for racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted and abusive histories — might have been avoided entirely with some more thoughtful or cautious vetting from the casting directors and producers. The list of “Bachelor” offenders past, including former, now notably single “Bachelorette” lead Becca Kufrin’s pick Garrett Yrigoyen, who “liked” social media posts mocking the Parkland students and trans people, is long. Like, really long.

But other than being caught waving Blue Lives Matter flags and all, other contestants have been outed for having significant others while on the show. In one particularly egregious case in 2019, “Bachelorette” lead Hannah Brown for some reason chose struggling musician Jed Wyatt as her No. 1 — only for the pair to be broken up by the “After the Final Rose” segment, several weeks after fans and reporters exposed Wyatt for having a girlfriend while the show was still airing.

Sure, Jed was the villain — but he wasn’t the only villain. Had the show’s producers lifted a finger or performed even slightly-below-the-surface inquiry into Jed’s motives for going on the show, Hannah’s heartbreak and embarrassment could have been wholly avoided.

Which brings us back to “FBoy Island.” While infuriating revelations about the contestants’ politics could still surface on social media at any moment, so far, at least in terms of handling non-single contestants, “FBoy Island” has already done significantly better than its traditional predecessor, for a simple reason: Inquiring after and determining the real, self-admitted motives of the contestants is a central feature of the casting process of “FBoy Island.”

The show looks into both contestants’ and leads’ dating histories and their range of experiences being or dating fboys, respectively, creator Elan Gale had told Salon. This makes sense, seeing as it’s a literal dating show, and dating history can give essential insight into someone’s present-day dating approach. It’s shocking the “Bachelor” franchise doesn’t seem to have considered this.

In the most recent episode of “FBoy Island,” the three female leads are allowed to scroll through each of the remaining contestants’ social media feeds. When Sarah, one of the show’s leads, discovers a suspiciously recent post of her top pick, Garrett, cozying up with someone who appears to be his girlfriend, what follows is a dramatic, edge-of-your-seat FaceTime call between her, Garrett, and the other woman.

Just think of how differently Hannah Brown’s “Bachelorette” season might have ended, had a producer just handed her a phone.

What are the “right reasons,” actually?

“[INSERT CONTESTANT NAME] isn’t here for the right reasons.” How many more times will we, as a society, have to cringe through these redundant, endless cycles of scripted, staged “Bachelor” witch hunts? You, sir, are willingly on a televised reality dating show to meet someone you probably just as easily could have met at your local bar or on Hinge. Are any of you really here for the “right reasons”?

On “FBoy Island,” the prototypical dating show “right reasons”-witch hunt is utterly, refreshingly cast aside, because the fact that many of them are there for the wrong reasons is acknowledged and as a feature of the show. Audience members feel relief to be able to shed their forced, long years of dating show suspension of disbelief and take what they see in “FBoy Island” as what it is.

Now, all of this momentarily brings us back to Greg, the man who wound up spurning Katie last week after she didn’t reciprocate his confession of love to the extent he needed from her. That’s all well and good, but he doesn’t seem to realize the hypocrisy of his accusation that she was “playing the ‘Bachelorette’ role with me instead of just being Katie,” and his claim that he “just wanted something real, at the end of the day.” This is a reality show, Greg — you knew that from the start! Despite his insinuation that Katie was the fake one, the fact that Greg went into this clearly not prepared to actually fall in love speaks volumes about how “real” he was.

At the end of the day, reality TV dating shows probably weren’t made to be dissected and over-analyzed to the extent that they are in this piece. Nope, they were made for fun! And there’s almost nothing less fun than a reality show that takes itself seriously, and expects us to, as well. If future seasons of “The Bachelor” want to compete with the likes of “FBoy Island,” they’ve got to get with the times.

“FBoy Island” concludes its run by releasing four episodes on Thursday, Aug. 12 on HBO Max.

Rand Paul calls for civil disobedience over vaccines: “They can’t arrest all of us”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., created a stir on Sunday when he encouraged sympathetic Americans to “resist” the Centers for Disease Control’s public health guidance amid a recent surge in COVID-19 cases – even in his own home state.

“No-one should follow the CDC’s anti-science mask mandates,” Paul pleaded in a video posted to Twitter. “They can’t arrest all of us. They can’t keep all of your kids home from school. They can’t keep every government building closed – although I’ve got a long list of ones they might keep closed, or might oughta (sic) keep closed.”

He continued: “We don’t have to accept the mandates, lockdowns, and harmful policies of the petty tyrants and feckless bureaucrats. We can simply say no, not again.”

Paul also made a number of unsubstantiated claims about the virus – one of which being that children are less vulnerable to getting COVID than they are the seasonal flu. In fact, a Johns Hopkins and University of Washington symposium found that children are more likely to die by COVID than the flu.

“If a school system attempts to keep children from full-time in-person school,” Paul capped off in his video. “I will hold up every bill with two amendments: One to defund them, and another to allow parents the choice of where the money goes for their child’s education.”

Despite Paul’s claims about child immunity in his video, an increasing number of children are becoming infected with the virus. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, around 4.3 million children have tested positive for the coronavirus since its discovery, with about 94,000 cases added just this past week.

The Kentucky lawmaker’s comments drew fire from a number of critics online who objected to Paul’s logic amid a resurgence of the coronavirus cases throughout the nation.

“Why the f**k is Rand Paul telling parents to ignore the CDC after children’s Covid hospitalisations just jumped 118% in Kentucky?” Democrat Jake Lobin tweeted.

Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, echoed Lobin, writing: “When I hear Sen. Rand Paul say he’s had COVID and ‘can’t get it again’ it’s an example of the kind of misinformation from irresponsible elected officials that has poisoned the atmosphere and confused young people about the dangers to which they are exposing themselves.”

“Rand Paul should at the very least be censured for this,” astronomer Phil Plait added.

Democratic Senate Malcolm Kenyatta joined in: “Rand Paul and the GOP know that the answer to this pandemic is to get vaccinated. That’s why they got their shot as soon as they could. For them to turn around and tell their supporters to reject live-saving shots is shameful and deadly. They know better, and they must do better.”

Paul’s video is just the latest in his apparent crusade against the CDC and leading epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Fauci.

In a congressional hearing last month, the conservative firebrand accused Fauci of lying to Congress by denying that the National Institute of Health funded research that may have led to an outbreak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Back in March of last year, Paul himself was diagnosed with COVID-19, and immediately after used the Senate gym and went to a number of Senate lunches. Paul has repeatedly claimed he will not get the vaccine, alleging that his antibodies will protect him from reinfection and that people with a natural immunity should opt out as well.

The Perseverance rover’s Martian rock samples just… disappeared. What happened?

The Perseverance rover is a rarity among space rovers for the sole reason that it is a sample-return mission — meaning that Perseverance will drill Martian rock and collect samples which will eventually be returned to Earth.

Of course, the sample return part of the mission becomes difficult if one’s sample suddenly and mysteriously disappears.

This Martian mystery story begins last week, when scientists took a big step in Perseverance’s historic mission by attempting to collect samples from the Red Planet and depositing them in one of the rover’s 43 collection tubes.

At first, everything appeared to be running smoothly. Perseverance selected a rock in Jezero Crater, a 28 mile-wide impact crater and former lake which, scientists believe, is an ideal place to look for evidence of ancient microbial life on Mars. The rover then drilled a tiny finger-size hole.

But despite the obvious hole in the rock, a later analysis revealed that there was no rock sample to be found in the tube.

“While this is not the ‘hole-in-one’ we hoped for, there is always risk with breaking new ground,” said Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington in a press release. “I’m confident we have the right team working on this, and we will persevere toward a solution to ensure future success.”

Sample return missions are extremely rare due to their expense. In fact, there has never been a sample return mission from another planet. Perseverance will be the first, and NASA scientists say that if all goes to plan we could have samples from Mars back on Earth by 2031.

So, what happened to the missing sample? Engineers are still searching for an answer — but they have a few clues.

Perseverance has a hollow coring bit and a percussive drill at the end of its seven-foot long robotic arm, which is meant to extract samples. According to NASA, data from the operation suggest that the sample was processed as intended, making the missing sample even more perplexing.

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

“The sampling process is autonomous from beginning to end,” said Jessica Samuels, the surface mission manager for Perseverance at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California. “One of the steps that occurs after placing a probe into the collection tube is to measure the volume of the sample. The probe did not encounter the expected resistance that would be there if a sample were inside the tube.”

In response, the Perseverance mission is assembling a response team to analyze the data in more detail. Part of this process will be to use the WATSON (Wide Angle Topographic Sensor for Operations and eNgineering) imager, which is located at the end of the robotic arm, to better understand what happened.

“The initial thinking is that the empty tube is more likely a result of the rock target not reacting the way we expected during coring, and less likely a hardware issue with the Sampling and Caching System,” said Jennifer Trosper, project manager for Perseverance at JPL. “Over the next few days, the team will be spending more time analyzing the data we have, and also acquiring some additional diagnostic data to support understanding the root cause for the empty tube.”

Apparently, this isn’t the first time scientists have struggled to drill holes and collect samples from Mars. In 2008, “sticky” and “icy” soil on Mars made it difficult for the Phoenix mission to move a sample to one of its onboard science instruments. Most recently, the heat probe on the InSight lander struggled to penetrate the surface of Mars as planned.

“I have been on every Mars rover mission since the beginning, and this planet is always teaching us what we don’t know about it,” said Trosper. “One thing I’ve found is, it’s not unusual to have complications during complex, first-time activities.”

“Being emotionally closer to stories isn’t weakness”: Inside WaPo reporter’s bombshell lawsuit

Felicia Sonmez, a national reporter at the Washington Post, filed a lawsuit in July in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, regarding a policy implemented by her employer that barred her from reporting on news involving sexual assault after Sonmez had disclosed that she was a survivor herself. The policy was purported to prevent bias in reporting, but it’s been applied inconsistently; notably, the Post’s policy didn’t ban reporters who had experienced medical emergencies from covering health care.

Instead the policy was specifically applied to an experience that is gendered and therefore seemingly rooted in the very same bias it claimed to extinguish. Now, all eyes are on Somnez’s suit, the results of which could pave the way for how bias is defined in reporting going forward, especially in regards to the personal experiences and identities of marginalized journalists.

The aforementioned policy had prohibited Sonmez from covering the 2018 confirmation process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who’d been accused of sexual assault. Earlier this year, the Post lifted the policy, but only after facing a wave of backlash when Sonmez spoke up about it in March. However, according to her legal complaint, the damage was already done.

Sonmez’s lawsuit – filed against the newspaper, former Post executive editor Marty Baron, managing editors Cameron Barr and Tracy Grant, national editor Steven Ginsberg and other Post newsroom leaders – alleges she experienced “economic loss, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress, and the deprivation of her rights to equal employment opportunities” as a result of the policy.

Sundeep Hora, a lawyer working on Sonmez’s case at Alderman, Devorsetz & Hora PLLC, told Salon he hopes this suit will set a precedent, and notes that “many journalists have been barred from covering certain stories based on perceived biases, or memberships in protected classes, in this case, being the victim of a sexual offense.”

Certainly, many journalists and people working in media have in some way or another faced the accusation that an aspect of their identity or lived experience somehow makes them unreliable or polarizing in their reporting. Yet Sonmez’s case has inspired such strong reaction and criticism because of the blatant hypocrisies of her workplace, and its biased conceptions of what constitutes bias.

Hora claims, “There’s another reporter at the Post that sent a pantless picture of his crotch to another journalist, and he’s allowed to still write about #MeToo stories and misconduct cases by men, but Ms. Sonmez wasn’t.” He’s referring to how Sonmez’s legal complaint alleges a fellow Post reporter sent an unsolicited lewd photo to another journalist and was then allowed to continue reporting without restriction after being accused of sexual misconduct.

While the Daily Beast pointed to journalist Simon Denyer as the one investigated, Washington Post management determined there was no wrongdoing on his part. Denyer told Salon, “I have never sent a suggestive or otherwise improper photograph of myself to anyone.”

Meanwhile, Sonmez’s suit alleges that after she came forward about her assault, her editors accused her of trying to make herself the “star” of her sexual assault story, and asked why she hadn’t reported it to the police. The suit also alleges Sonmez’s editor Lori Montgomery questioned why Sonmez hadn’t just said “no” to her alleged assailant.

“I was shocked by the level of interrogation she faced,” Hora said. “I thought it was well-known if you’re a victim of a sexual assault, many are not going to report it, or if they do report it, many report it months or years later.”

Carrie Goldberg, a victims’ rights lawyer and national leader in defending victims of sexual and gender-based violence, called the Post’s policy and treatment of Sonmez “abusive,” and a “scandal.”

“They’ve demonstrated they don’t want victims in the newsroom. Who in our society is most likely to be victims?” Goldberg told Salon in an email. “People of color, women, minorities, LGBTQ. So it leaves cis white men as the remaining journalists [the Post] would say are most qualified to report on abuse and sexual trauma.”

Who is — and isn’t — biased?

The jarring double standard of permitting a man accused of abuse to cover sexual violence news, while denying this right to someone who’s experienced it, speaks to a greater issue of how “objectivity” and “bias” are often defined by powerful legacy media outlets. There is often a fundamental one-sidedness in how we define these terms, and pin the term “bias” to any identity or experience that deviates from whiteness and maleness, without considering how whiteness and maleness are identities that come with their own biases. Because these identities are treated as the default, by traditional reporting convention, they’re seen as neutral and impartial.

Sonmez is by no means the only female reporter who’s experienced sexual violence, even if she’s one of few who’s spoken up publicly. “If you removed sexual assault survivors from newsrooms, how many women would actually remain?” Goldberg said. “That’s what’s so naïve about WaPo’s actions — they treat Ms. Sonmez as though surviving a sexual assault is rare, tainting, and that it replaces talent and competency.”

Just as surviving sexual violence — not to mention nearly routine sexual harassment — isn’t uncommon among female journalists, it’s worth noting plenty of male reporters are and have even been outed as perpetrators of sexual misconduct, themselves. Last year alone saw the New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin caught masturbating on a Zoom call — only to return to a contributor gig on CNN earlier this year — and before that, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was accused of sexual harassment by several women, notably after using his platform to defend sexual abusers.

Before them, Matt Lauer of NBC was one of the first powerful men in media ousted by #MeToo in 2017, accused of sexually assaulting several women in his office, after years of sexist media commentary. Yet, we see the credibility and reliability of women and victims of sexual misconduct questioned more often than we encounter this interrogation of male perpetrators in media.

A reporter whose life hasn’t been affected by sexual misconduct brings biases to their coverage of these matters — just as a reporter who hasn’t personally experienced the harms of systemic racism brings biases to their coverage of race. All journalists have their own perspectives, lived experiences, or “biases,” because they’re human beings; pretending they’re not, and punishing survivors in an attempt to conceal this reality, seem more dishonest than just acknowledging this. Sonmez’s lawsuit shines a light on just how harmful and dangerous this pursuit of the glossy veneer of “media objectivity” can be for marginalized journalists.

“Being emotionally closer to stories isn’t a weakness”

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) has a guide for reporters on covering sexual violence, including key facts and statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault, low reporting rates, how fear of blame and retaliation (including from employers like a national newspaper) stifle reporting, and how to avoid language that blames victims.

Megan Thomas, a communications specialist at NSVRC, tells Salon that Sonmez’s lawsuit immediately caught her attention because of the widespread nature of sexual violence since one in five women has experienced rape or attempted rape.

“Statistically, it’s very likely they’re already doing this work, but might not be open about their status as survivors like [Sonmez] is, and might be discouraged from coming forward because they fear being taken off stories,” Thomas said. “Being told your experience is incompatible with your career, that could be incredibly harmful.”

It’s important for survivors to feel comfortable and safe raising their experiences with sexual assault to supervisors or coworkers if they wish to, especially if they’re assigned “a story that would be triggering or retraumatizing for them.” Instead, Thomas says, “It’s really important there’s good communication within the newsroom, where there’s an opportunity for [survivors] to say, ‘Actually I don’t want to take this story, due to my personal experience.’ It comes back to having strong policies that are supporting employees and those who are survivors, rather than making assumptions.”

If survivors of sexual assault do wish to cover stories on the issue, as Sonmez does, newsrooms should recognize the power and importance of their perspective. “Just because journalists and survivors would be closer emotionally to stories about sexual assault, that isn’t necessarily a weakness for them — they could bring assets to those stories,” Thomas said.

Policies like the Post’s aren’t just punitive toward those who have experienced sexual violence, implying that experiencing sexual harm makes one incompetent. Such restrictions could also be harmful for journalism broadly, as the profession benefits from diverse identities and experiences, and from those who understand the deep stakes of the issues they cover.

“There’s someone out there fighting for you”

According to Goldberg, Sonmez’s lawsuit makes a strong case pointing to the Washington Post’s mistreatment of her. “Felicia Sonmez was discriminated at the Washington Post on account of her status as a sexual assault crime victim. She never chose that status,” Goldberg said. “[She] was reduced to this one traumatic episode in her life which was not interfering with her ability to do her job.”

Sonmez’s story has been met with a wave of support from advocates and feminist thinkers, with many women following along and relating her experience to their own. Thomas notes that for survivors, “It can be very triggering to watch something like this happen on such a scale.” And if it’s nerve-racking for those watching, imagine being at the center of the suit.

On the professional level, Hora says he was deeply interested in Sonmez’s case “to advance justice.” But it wasn’t just that. “From a personal standpoint, she’s a very brave person, and I want to help her,” he said.

Ultimately, Hora sees Sonmez’s case as one with deep implications, beyond Sonmez alone. “The message it sends to journalists who are scared about their own personal experiences for fear of coverage bans, is that they shouldn’t be fearful — there’s someone out there fighting for them,” he said. “This lawsuit tells other institutions that the law will step in if they’re basing their decisions on discrimination.”

[CORRECTION: A previous version of this story did not include the Post’s determination of no wrongdoing by Denyer. This information has been added.]

The perfect pasta for hot summer nights stars fresh tomatoes and buttery brie

Sometimes, I wonder if the sticky heat of summer and the deliciousness of its produce are delightful co-conspirators in promoting laziness. Isn’t it wonderful that when you’re too sluggish for cooking, the most vibrant produce shows up, demanding little more than a few passes with a sharp knife, a drizzle of oil and a sprinkle of salt?

Of course, this tomato and brie pasta recipe — which I make every year as soon as summer’s first perfect tomatoes arrive — has the nerve to insist that you also cook spaghetti, paste garlic, chop basil and even cut up brie cheese (which is no easy feat, but I have a trick!). Even so, I promise that your indignant efforts will yield gratifying results.

The buttery brie melts into the hot pasta and lends milky richness to those juicy chopped tomatoes tinged with piquant garlic and sweet basil. Think of this dish as bruschetta in pasta form, best eaten on the deck in a shirt you’re not afraid of splattering with pinkish sauce.

Did I also mention that cleanup is minimal? After all, who can be bothered to do dishes in this damn heat?

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

***

Wait for peak-season tomatoes to make this (trust me!). Serve with an ice-cold glass of dry rosé.

Recipe: Maggie Hennessy’s Tomato and Brie Pasta

Serves 3

Ingredients:

2 1/4 cups fresh tomatoes (1/2-inch diced)*
8 ounces brie cheese
1 pound spaghetti
1/3 – 1/2 cup extra virgin olive oil
1/3 cup fresh basil leaves, divided
1 clove garlic, smashed and peeled
1/4 tsp red pepper flakes
Salt, as needed

*I enjoy a mix of heirlooms and ripe tomatoes on the vine.

Directions:

Before you start cooking, place the brie in the freezer for a good 30 minutes. (This will help you cube it up later.)

Finely mince the garlic, then arrange it into a pile and sprinkle it with a pinch of salt. Press the side of your chef’s knife into it and repeatedly smoosh it into the cutting board until it forms a paste. (You can also grate the garlic using a microplane, but I find the pasting technique very gratifying.)

Plunk the garlic paste into the bottom of a large prep bowl along with the chopped tomatoes (seeds and all because that’s your sauce!), red pepper flakes and a good pinch of salt; mix well. Chop about 3 Tbsp of the basil leaves (leaving the rest whole for garnish) and add to the tomatoes and garlic. Pour in about 1/3 cup olive oil and toss everything together. Taste — it should be sweet, bright and well-salted, with a lush roundness from the olive oil. Set this on the counter while you cook the pasta.

Tomato and Brie Pasta (Maggie Henessy)

Bring a large pot of generously salted water (it should taste like the sea!) to a boil. Cook the spaghetti according to package directions, until al dente. Meanwhile, cut the brie into 1/2-inch cubes, leaving on as much or as little of the rind as you like.

With a measuring cup, capture a bit of pasta water. Drain the pasta and dump it back into the pasta pot along with a splash of pasta water. Add half the brie, tossing constantly with tongs to start melting the cheese. Add the tomato-basil mixture and the rest of the brie, tossing with tongs until everything is well dispersed and the tomato liquid turns pink. Taste and adjust as desired with salt, red pepper flakes and olive oil.

Divide the pasta among 3 warmed* bowls, topping each with a few extra spoonfuls of the warm tomatoes. Finely chop the remaining basil and scatter over each dish. Finish with a squiggle of olive oil as well, if desired. Serve immediately — I mean it!

If you’re on the hunt for more pasta inspiration, don’t forget to check out My 10-year carbonara journey.

*Chef’s Note: For this and most pasta dishes I make, I like to warm the bowls beforehand by stacking them on the back burner of the stove (behind the pasta pot, off the heat) and rotating them every few minutes the whole time I’m cooking. If your bowls are oven-safe, you can also warm them on the lowest setting for a few minutes before dinner.

More by this author:

Can Andrew Cuomo still be impeached: What happens now that New York’s embattled governor’s resigned?

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, complained on Tuesday that he was unfairly maligned by accusers and investigators even as he announced that he would resign amid an impeachment investigation into sexual harassment allegations and his handling of the COVID pandemic.

“Given the circumstances, the best way I can help now is if I step aside and let government get back to government,” Cuomo said at a news conference, announcing that he would step down in 14 days. “And therefore that is what I’ll do, because I work for you, and doing the right thing, is doing the right thing for you.”

The announcement marked a stark reversal by the three-term governor, who vowed to stay in office and fight the charges against him after New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, released a 165-page report detailing sexual harassment and misconduct allegations from 11 women and accusing Cuomo of violating state and federal laws. President Joe Biden and just about every elected official in New York called on the governor to step down after the report.

“Today closes a sad chapter for all of New York,” James said in a statement, “but it’s an important step towards justice.”

Cuomo, the son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo who was elected after former Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned due to his own sex scandal, will be replaced by Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul, the first woman to lead the state. Though she ran on Cuomo’s ticket in 2014, Hochul has largely been shut out by the governor’s inner circle throughout her tenure and the pandemic.

“I agree with Governor Cuomo’s decision to step down. It is the right thing to do and in the best interest of New Yorkers,” Hochul said in a statement. “As someone who has served at all levels of government and is next in the line of succession, I am prepared to lead as New York State’s 57th Governor.”

The resignation could be an attempt to stave off impeachment by the state Assembly, which vowed to move forward quickly after James’ report. But it’s unclear if the assembly will now drop its impeachment plans, which would allow Cuomo to run for office again if he chooses. A growing number of Democrats had called for Cuomo to be convicted and barred from running again. Assemblymember Yuh-Line Niou, a sexual assault survivor, said the chamber should still move forward with impeachment.

Some political observers believe that Cuomo is trying to keep his hopes for a fourth term alive by stepping aside before a possible impeachment.

“I expect in my lifetime, Andrew Cuomo to run for office again,” said MSNBC host Chuck Todd. “What that office is? I don’t know, but that’s what this resignation tells me today. He wants to live to fight another day.”

Despite Cuomo’s announcement, much of Tuesday’s news conference focused on batting back the allegations. The conference began with a presentation from Cuomo’s lawyer Rita Glavin, who argued that James’ report “contains errors” and “omitted key evidence.”

“The report said I sexually harassed 11 women,” Cuomo said. “That was the headline people heard and saw. The reaction was outrage. It should have been. However, it was also false.”

Cuomo at the news conference apologized to a state trooper who accused him of unwanted touching and to the women he “truly offended” but argued that he did not think he did anything wrong.

“In my mind, I’ve never crossed the line with anyone,” he said, “but I didn’t realize the extent to which the line has been redrawn.”

Cuomo said the situation was a “highly political matter” with “many agendas,” arguing that the allegations were “politically motivated.”

“This situation and moment are not about the facts,” he insisted. “It’s not about the truth. It’s not about thoughtful analysis. It’s not about how do we make the system better. This is about politics and our political system today is too often driven by the extremes.” But “this situation by its current trajectory will generate months of political and legal controversy. It will consume government,” he added.

Cuomo, who became a national star in the early days of the pandemic with his PowerPoint presentations on the coronavirus response — which itself has come under scrutiny by investigators — used a similar tactic to defend against the allegations. And, like the early days of the pandemic, he addressed his three daughters at the news conference.

“Your dad made mistakes,” he said, “and he apologized and he learned from it and that is what life is all about.”

Niou called Cuomo’s comments “horrific” and accused him of trying to gaslight the “women he hurt.”

Karen Hinton, one of the women who accused Cuomo to harassing her, said she was not “celebrating” the resignation. “But I do celebrate power of women who came forward,” she said.

Mariann Wang, an attorney for Cuomo accusers Alyssa McGrath and Virginia Limmiatis, said her clients felt “vindicated” and “relieved” that the governor will “no longer be in a position of power over anyone” after accusing him of trying to “gaslight and attack the brave women who came forward.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., called the resignation “the right decision for the good people of New York.” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told reporters that “my view from the beginning was that after these numerous credible allegations came out that because the governor had lost the support of his governing partners that it was time for him to resign.”

“Make no mistake, this is the result of survivors bravely telling their stories. It was past time for Andrew Cuomo to resign and it’s for the good of all New York,” agreed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Cuomo’s announcement came shortly after his top aide, Melissa DeRosa, resigned after she was named dozens of times in the AG report. Attorney Roberta Kaplan resigned on Monday as the chairwoman of Time’s Up after the report said she advised DeRosa on a letter aimed at smearing his earliest accuser. The Human Rights Campaign has hired a law firm to investigate President Alphonso David’s involvement in helping Cuomo respond to the allegations after he was named in the report as well.

Cuomo still faces federal scrutiny over his handling of nursing home death data, a state investigation into whether he used state resources to write his book about his pandemic response, and about a half-dozen district attorneys are considering sexual harassment charges for alleged incidents that happened in their jurisdictions.

On Monday, Cuomo’s executive assistant Brittany Commisso described an incident in which the governor groped her breast and another at his governor’s mansion in Albany when he rubbed her butt.

“What he did to me was a crime,” she told CBS News. “He broke the law.”

Senate Republicans — including McConnell — break with Trump to back Biden’s infrastructure bill

It’s finally infrastructure week — and Donald Trump is mad.

Trump tried — but ultimately failed — to stop Senate Republicans from supporting the Democrats’ $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. His effort to shame Republicans out of voting in support of the measure was impotent, as the Senate passed the bipartisan bill on Tuesday.

The former president made his feelings known ahead of the vote when he ripped Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as “overrated.”

“Nobody will ever understand why Mitch McConnell allowed this non-infrastructure bill to be passed. He has given up all of his leverage for the big whopper of a bill that will follow,” Trump wrote in a statement.

“I have quietly said for years that Mitch McConnell is the most overrated man in politics—now I don’t have to be quiet anymore,” the former president said, adding: “He is working so hard to give Biden a victory, now they’ll go for the big one, including the biggest tax increases in the history of our Country.”

Despite Trump’s rhetoric, the Senate minority leader nevertheless remained steadfast in his support of the landmark measure, voting in support of the bill on Tuesday. Although he made clear that he will not back any Democratic-led effort at budget reconciliation, which would allow the Democrats to pass an additional $3.5 trillion bill intended to target education, health, childcare, and climate action in the coming months.

“We can’t wait to get Democrats on the record over many more trillions of dollars in reckless borrowing,” the Kentucky legislator said last week.

A number of key Senate Republicans have also moved in tandem with McConnell despite Trump’s fiery rhetoric, including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Bill Cassidy, R-La., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.

Senators like them “aren’t dependent on Trump for their political future,” Amanda Carpenter, the director of Republicans for Voting Rights, told The New York Times. “The people who are getting most animated about this are the ones who are most likely to do whatever Trump says, because they depend on his endorsement for their political futures,” she added.

On Sunday, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., generally a loyal Trump supporter who has thrown support behind the bill, openly challenged Trump in a Fox News interview, telling host Maria Bartiromo that the former president “didn’t give one reason why it’s a bad deal, other than it’s Joe Biden’s [bill].”

“I think he’s wrong on this issue,” the Republican senator said of Trump.

This past weekend, Sen. Cassidy went further, suggesting that the former president was being hypocritical in his condemnation of the infrastructure package.

“I will point out that President Trump proposed a $1.5 trillion package, which most Republicans were all for, and only 5 percent of it was paid for,” Cassidy said in a CNN interview. “We have $550 billion of new spending, of which we can reasonably say is paid for — but certainly one-half by [the Congressional Budget Office] score. And now folks are saying, ‘Oh, can’t vote for that.'”

Sen. Portman recently echoed this same point to CNN, saying that Trump should in fact “take credit for [the bill].”

“President Trump’s effort to raise the level of awareness about the need for infrastructure improvement should help us get this done,” Portman explained. “You know, he proposed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill.”

The bill, now officially Senate-approved as of Tuesday, comes on the heels of months of partisan bickering, which concluded with the Democrats eking out a slim bipartisan majority in support of the measure. Its provisions will, among other things, allot $73 billion to revamp the nation’s electricity grid, $65 billion for broadband updates, and $7.5 billion to build more electric vehicle charging stations.

Facebook stonewalls Biden on stopping vaccine disinformation — because right-wing lies are enriching

The White House is fed up with Facebook over the vaccine disinformation fight, so much so that they’re feeding stories to the New York Times portraying the social media network’s top brass as stonewalling jackasses. And fairly so, as anyone who has actually witnessed the spread of anti-vaccine talking points on social media can attest.

The latest piece, which was published Tuesday morning, is a frustrating read. Mike Gwin, a White House spokesperson, accuses Facebook of not living “up to our, or their own, standards and have actively elevated content on their platforms that misleads the American people.” For example, sources tell the New York Times that the White House “asked for data on how often misinformation was viewed and spread,” but “the company said it couldn’t provide that kind of data.” There is also the widespread problem of “content that wasn’t explicitly false, such as posts that cast doubt about vaccines but don’t clearly violate the social network’s rules on health misinformation.” For instance, many vaccine misinformers — Tucker Carlson at Fox News is a prominent example — skirt the line with the “just asking questions” gambit (i.e. JAQ-ing off), where lies about vaccine safety and efficacy are framed as “questions” so that they can spread rapidly while giving the anti-vaccine liars cover to say they weren’t lying exactly, just “asking questions” about it.

Facebook, meanwhile, sounds more interested in deflection than tackling the problem, responding “to some requests for information by talking about vaccine promotion strategies.” But everyone — especially the folks at Facebook, who have the data — should know that people who are engaged with disinformation aren’t going to be easily lured back to reality with bland PSAs about how to get a vaccine. Trying to fight lurid lies with boring truths is about as helpful as trying to put out the California wildfires by sneezing on them.

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

Ultimately, however, it’s not a mystery as to why Facebook is reluctant to do more to beat back vaccine disinformation on their website. Doing so necessarily means getting aggressive with a fleet of right-wing disinformation troops, including power players like Fox News, who share anti-vaccine clips on the site. And Facebook has a long history of not wanting to tangle with those fools. They hate hearing complaints about it and, let’s face it, right-wing lies are profitable.

Sheera Frenkel, one of the co-authors of the new book “An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook’s Battle for Domination,” was on Pod Save America Monday evening and she explained how Facebook kowtows to right-wing misinformers at the expense of people who are trying to share accurate information online. As she explains, Facebook adjusted its algorithm to “dial up the amount of trustworthy news people see” in the run-up to the 2020 election. “And this kind of lasts for a month before they reverse course on it,” she said, just in time for the lies about the “stolen” election to start flooding the site.

“The real reason” Facebook let the conspiracy theorists get their audience back, she argued, “is that they were getting a ton of complaints.” Frenkel concluded: “Facebook is really afraid of accusations of conservative bias.”

Whatever high-minded “free speech” rationalizations that Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg or other top brass may want to spit out, the likelier story is the boring old profit motive. As a Pew survey released earlier this summer shows, while both Democratic and Republican voters have Facebook accounts in roughly equal numbers, Facebook’s relationship with its conservative user base is a lot stronger, as “Democrats are considerably more likely than Republicans to use many other social media platforms.” Dialing down the disinformation that Republican users crave could threaten the current exclusivity that Facebook enjoys with that crowd.

And, as much as they avoid admitting it, Facebook full well knows that right-wing lies drive up engagement, keeping people on their site longer and driving up ad revenue.

As Wired reported in March, NYU researchers found that “news organizations that regularly publish false material get up to 65 percent more engagement than ones that don’t.” But here’s the trick: That’s only if that misinformation is right-wing. There are left-leaning sites that publish false information, but when they do so, it drives down engagement. Right-wing lies, however, are engagement machines. Republican voters are like rats pushing the cocaine button, constantly hitting refresh on fake news, always hungry for more.

“What we find is that among the far right, in particular, misinformation is more engaging than non-misinformation,” Laura Edelson, one of the researchers, told Wired.

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

The Facebook Top 10 Twitter account is a thorn in Facebook’s side because they use the company’s own data to highlight how, on a daily basis, the top posts tend to come from right-wing sources that are, at best, lackadaisical with the truth. Facebook’s top posters are frequently right-wing provocateurs like Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, and Diamond and Silk — all of whom regularly put up posts discouraging vaccination, winking at or openly promoting anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, and letting their loyal fans rave about how vaccines are the devil in comments. While these pundits often skirt the line by hinting at anti-vaccine lies instead of stating them outright, the overall message to their audience is quite clear: Getting vaccinated makes you a bad conservative.

Now conservatives are paying the price for this infatuation with disinformation. COVID-19 rates are soaring in red states, tearing through communities of conservatives who thought they were “owning the liberals” by refusing the shots. Unfortunately, it’s not just affecting the people who would rather wallow in right-wing lies than take in basic health information. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is asking Texans to delay needed medical care in order to keep beds open for the surge of COVID-19 patients, the vast majority of whom are unvaccinated. Mask recommendations and mandates are coming back in some communities, as a stopgap measure because so many people are still unvaccinated. Even vaccinated people are starting to worry about breakthrough infections, though they remain relatively rare and are typically not dangerous. And children under 12, who cannot be vaccinated yet, are in direct danger from unvaccinated people, through no fault of their own.

But more vigorous policing of the way the right is using Facebook to spread vaccine disinformation would mean more whining from conservatives about “cancel culture,” and possibly drive down engagement on the site — and therefore drive down profit. So instead, Facebook is playing games with the White House’s efforts to crack down on anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, hospital beds keep filling up, crowded with people who preferred Dr. Facebook over reality-based medical information.

Dominion hits back at pro-Trump outlets, files lawsuits against Newsmax and OAN for election lies

Dominion Voting Systems filed three lawsuits on Tuesday against Newsmax, One America News Network (OAN), and former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne for promoting Donald Trump’s baseless election conspiracy theory that the company helped facilitate systemic voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

The suits, which total $1.6 billion, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as well as Delaware Superior Court and argue that the two news networks defamed Dominion’s voting equipment. The networks, Dominion wrote in the complaint, “helped create and cultivate an alternate reality where up is down, pigs have wings, and Dominion engaged in a colossal fraud to steal the presidency from Donald Trump by rigging the vote.”

In its lawsuit against OAN, Dominion claimed that the network promulgated the following lies: “(1) Dominion committed election fraud by rigging the 2020 Presidential Election; (2) Dominion’s software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the 2020 Presidential Election; (3) Dominion is owned by or owns a company founded in Venezuela to rig elections for the dictator Hugo Chávez; and (4) Dominion was involved with alleged voting irregularities in Philadelphia and Dallas—cities where its voting system is not even used.”

“On their own,” the company added, “these lies would have been more than enough to irreparably harm Dominion. But OAN did not stop there.”

Dominion further argued that OAN elevated certain personalities like host Christina Bobb; a donor to the Maricopa County election audit, and its White House Correspondent Chanel Rion, who led segments titled “Dominion-izing the Vote,” which often baselessly implied Dominion coordinated election fraud.

Other problematic figures elevated by the network include CEO of My Pillow Mike Lindell, ex-Trump lawyer Sidey Powell and Trump’s former personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who is individually facing a multibillion-dollar Dominion lawsuit that has reportedly put him on the brink of bankruptcy.

Dominion’s suit against Newsmax, meanwhile, alleges that the network similarly promoted an “alternate reality.” The company acknowledged that Newsmax at one point admitted the incredulity of Trump’s claims, but maintained that the news show has never issued a retraction for its promotion of these claims.

“If Newsmax cared about the truth—if it cared about informing (rather than deceiving) its viewers—it would identify for its viewers each specific lie it broadcast, promoted, and endorsed in November and December 2020, tell its viewers in no uncertain terms that those lies were false, and explain to its viewers all the voluminous evidence debunking those lies,” Dominion wrote.

On Tuesday, Newsmax told Forbes in a statement that it “has not reviewed the Dominion filing, in its coverage of the 2020 Presidential elections, Newsmax simply reported on allegations made by well-known public figures.” Despite not having reviewed the filing, the network claimed that it’s “a clear attempt to squelch such reporting and undermine a free press.”

With respect to Byrne, Dominion wrote that the former chief had simply “found himself a new pet project” after “blowing up his career at Overstock by having an affair with a Russian spy.”

“In fact, as Byrne has publicly admitted, he had already committed to that narrative three months before the election took place,” Dominion explained. “After the election, Byrne manufactured and promoted fake evidence to convince the world that the 2020 election had been stolen as part of a massive international conspiracy among China, Venezuelan and Spanish companies, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), prominent Republicans, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Dominion, which, Byrne falsely claimed, committed fraud and helped steal the 2020 presidential election.”

Counting these three new suits, Dominion has filed a total of seven lawsuits against various Trump allies, including Giuliani, Powell, Lindell, Fox News, and MyPillow. The three new complaints were filed just ahead of an expected D.C. ruling on whether the suits against Powell, Lindell, and Giuliani will advance in court.

Follow the money: Understanding the deep roots of Donald Trump’s coup attempt

Donald Trump and his allies and followers were involved in a conspiracy against American democracy, the Constitution, the general welfare and the rule of law. Trump may have been president by title, but not in spirit or through his actions. At almost every opportunity he betrayed the presidential oath and worked to undermine the United States and its interests.

The examples are legion: Trump was elected with the help of a hostile foreign power and appeared to do its leader’s bidding throughout his presidency. Trump engaged in acts of democide against the American people through sabotage and willful neglect in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Trump is directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of more than 600,000 people in America. He was impeached twice — something unprecedented in American history — for crimes against democracy and the Constitution.

Donald Trump was grossly corrupt as president, using the office to enrich himself, his family and his political allies.

Trump and his regime debased America’s democracy and political culture, elevating neofascism and white supremacy in an attempt to create a new form of apartheid. The damage Trumpism caused to American society has created a full-blown political and social crisis. Matters are so dire that many observers, including President Biden, have described the Age of Trump and beyond as the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War.

Of course there were also the events of Jan. 6, with Donald Trump’s coup attempt and his followers’ lethal attack on the Capitol.

What new information have we learned? Trump’s coup attempt came much closer to succeeding than was known even several weeks ago. The coup attempt was not “amateurish” or a joke. Trump and his allies’ attempts to overthrow American democracy were entirely in earnest. Trump’s followers who overran the Capitol should not be described as a “mob.” At least some of them were organized, dedicated and well-financed, as well as zealously loyal.

The danger that Trump would invoke martial law and declare himself president for life after his defeat by Joe Biden was so great that the country’s senior military leaders were preparing to stop him.

Last week it was revealed that Jeffrey Clark, a Trump loyalist within the Justice Department, attempted to pressure acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to declare that there were “irregularities” in the votes in key battleground states such as Georgia, where Trump had narrowly lost to Biden.

On CNN’s “State of the Union” last weekend, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said that testimony from Rosen and another Justice Department official had “lifted the lid on ‘frightening’ maneuverings at the department after November’s election.” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told CNN’s Manu Raju he was struck by “how close the country came to total catastrophe” in the last days of Trump’s presidency. According to CNN, Clark “drafted a letter that he asked Rosen to send to Georgia state legislators to say they should convene to examine irregularities in the election.” The New York Times has reported that Clark’s letter suggested the Georgia legislature should void Biden’s victory in the state, while falsely claiming the Justice Department was investigating allegations of fraud. CNN’s report on Durbin’s Sunday interview continues:

The Illinois senator said that he was surprised by “just how directly, personally involved the President was, the pressure he was putting on Jeffrey Rosen.” He added: “It was real, very real. And it was very specific. This President’s not subtle when he wants something, the former President. He is not subtle when he wants something.”

Asked by Bash whether Trump tried to get Rosen to overturn election results, Durbin replied: “It was not that direct, but he was asking him to do certain things related to states’ election returns, which he refused to do.”

The New York Times has reported that Rosen “told investigators from the inspector general’s office about five encounters with Mr. Clark, including one in late December during which his deputy admitted to meeting with Mr. Trump and pledged that he would not do so again.” Clark reportedly urged Rosen and other DOJ officials on several occasions “to falsely assert that continuing voter fraud investigations cast doubt on the election results.”

For those who choose to see the truth, there is nothing “shocking” or “revelatory” about what is now known about Donald Trump and his agents’ attempt to overthrow American democracy.

Trump and his agents and followers repeatedly said in public that they would not respect the results of the election if he did not win. From the beginning of his presidential campaign in 2015 and throughout his presidency, Trump and his movement have publicly and repeatedly displayed their contempt for democracy.

While the mainstream news media is now trying to present itself as sounding the alarm in defense of democracy, too many in the media spent the last five years downplaying the Trump regime’s existential danger to the country.

In his role as chief law enforcement officer of the United States, Joe Biden should declare that investigating and punishing Donald Trump and his regime’s crimes against democracy are a national priority. Attorney General Merrick Garland should initiate a full investigation of Trump and his regime’s many crimes as well.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that either Biden or Garland will do that. In a new op-ed for the Washington Post, the constitutional law experts Laurence Tribe, Barbara McQuade and Joyce White Vance warn that “failing to investigate Trump just to demonstrate objectivity would itself be a political decision — and a grave mistake. If we are to maintain our democracy and respect for the rule of law, efforts to overturn a fair election simply cannot be tolerated, and Trump’s conduct must be investigated.”

To fully expose and unravel the conspiracy to overthrow American democracy — in which Jan. 6 was just one element — will require that investigators follow the money.

Jane Mayer of the New Yorker has already begun that necessary work. In her new essay “The Big Money Behind the Big Lie,” Mayer details how a small number of billionaires and elite right-wing interest groups and activists are working across the country to overthrow America’s multiracial democracy.

She offers this context about the Arizona “audit,” a model for the methods these neofascist oligarchs hope to use to overthrow democracy:

Arizona is hardly the only place where attacks on the electoral process are under way: a well-funded national movement has been exploiting Trump’s claims of fraud in order to promote alterations to the way that ballots are cast and counted in forty-nine states, eighteen of which have passed new voting laws in the past six months. Republican-dominated legislatures have also stripped secretaries of state and other independent election officials of their power. The chair of Arizona’s Republican Party, Kelli Ward, has referred to the state’s audit as a “domino,” and has expressed hope that it will inspire similar challenges elsewhere….

Mayer reports that the Arizona audit was “fed by sophisticated, well-funded national organizations whose boards of directors include some of the country’s wealthiest and highest-profile conservatives. Dark-money groups, whose donors may remain anonymous but are clearly linked to influential right-wing think tanks and interest groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), “have relentlessly promoted the myth that American elections are rife with fraud, and, according to leaked records of their internal deliberations, they have drafted, supported, and in some cases taken credit for state laws that make it harder to vote.”

The nonprofit groups behind the Big Lie, Mayer reports, have all received funding from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, an obscure Milwaukee tax-exempt organization that supports “radical challenges to election rules — a tactic once relegated to the far right.” Since 2012, the Bradley foundation has spent $18 million, Mayer says, supporting right-wing groups pushing to restrict voting rights.

It might seem improbable that a low-profile family foundation in Wisconsin has assumed a central role in current struggles over American democracy. But the modern conservative movement has depended on leveraging the fortunes of wealthy reactionaries. …

For now, though, conservative groups seem to be doubling down on their investments in election-fraud alarmism. In the next two years, Heritage Action plans to spend twenty-four million dollars mobilizing supporters and lobbyists who will promote “election integrity,” starting in eight battleground states, including Arizona. It is coördinating its effort with the Election Transparency Initiative, a joint venture of two anti-abortion groups, the Susan B. Anthony List and the American Principles Project. The Election Transparency Initiative has set a fund-raising goal of five million dollars. Cleta Mitchell, having left her law firm, has joined FreedomWorks, the free-market group, where she plans to lead a ten-million-dollar project on voting issues. She will also head the Election Integrity Network at the Conservative Partnership Institute, another Washington-based nonprofit. As a senior legal fellow there, she told the Washington Examiner, she will “help bring all these strings” of conservative election-law activism together, and she added, “I’ve had my finger in so many different pieces of the election-integrity pie for so long.”

The campaign against multiracial democracy involves multiple fronts on which culture-war issues — in this case, the white right’s moral panic over “critical race theory” — are a powerful tool for mobilizing white “conservatives” and other neofascists. At Popular Information, Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria expose the money and networks behind this most recent battle, noting that the attack on CRT “didn’t happen on its own”:

Rather, there is a constellation of non-profit groups and media outlets that are systematically injecting CRT into our politics. In 2020, most people had never heard of CRT. In 2021, a chorus of voices on the right insists it is an existential threat to the country.

A Popular Information investigation reveals that many of the entities behind the CRT panic share a common funding source: The Thomas W. Smith Foundation.

The Thomas W. Smith Foundation has no website and its namesake founder keeps a low public profile. Thomas W. Smith is based in Boca Raton, Florida, and founded a hedge fund called Prescott Investors in 1973. In 2008, the New York Times reported that The Thomas W. Smith Foundation was “dedicated to supporting free markets.”

Legum and Zekeria report that Smith personally “opposes all efforts to increase diversity at powerful institutions and laments the introduction of curriculum about the historical treatment of Black people.”

These big-money financiers of the plot against America benefit from a system of laws that allows them to evade taxes and conceal their resources. America’s extreme inequalities of race, income and wealth are reflections of long-standing systemic and other forms of institutional racism and simultaneously a means through which such systems and outcomes are maintained, protected and advanced.

In a recent interview with Ruth Ben-Ghiat, sociologist Brooke Harrington discusses her research into the views and actions of ultra-wealthy individuals, who wield, she says, a transnational, unaccountable power. … They regard states as playthings. The law is their marionette. They interfere in democratic processes and legislative processes”:

They gave me a picture of what the world looks like to not just Fascist leaders, but to the larger group to which Fascist leaders belong: people who’ve purchased complete impunity, for whom the rule of law and the boundaries of nation states are just a set of shopping opportunities. If you can’t find what you want at one shop, you just move on to the next. …

This matters because in the 21st century, Fascism cannot exist without an offshore system: Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, all of them depend on it. If you want to get to a Fascist in the 21st century, you turn off the money taps and those money taps are not in their home nations, they are overseas, in offshore financial centers.

The spread of fascism, Harrington says, “is funded in large part by a strain of offshore financial networks, like the ones that were behind Brexit and behind the Trump campaign.” Neoliberalism (a nicer word for “gangster capitalism”) cannot entirely be separated from neofascism and the assault on multiracial democracy, if one seeks to understand America’s democracy crisis. Those forces are in a symbiotic relationship.

In a new essay at Boston Review, economist Prabhat Patnaik explores this further:

As the old prop of trickle-down economics lost its credibility, a new prop was needed to sustain the neoliberal regime politically. The solution came in the form of an alliance between globally integrated corporate capital and local neofascist elements.

This dynamic has played out in countries around the world, from the rise of Narendra Modi in India and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil to Donald Trump in the United States.…

The neofascist assault on democracy is a last-ditch effort on the part of neoliberal capitalism to rescue itself from crisis. To escape this state of affairs, world public opinion has to be mobilized decisively against neoliberalism, and the support of global democratic movements has to be garnered. Only then will this breeding ground for neofascism at last be undone.

The American neofascist movement is a very well-funded hydra. Pro-democracy forces must of course be focused on the immediate goal of defeating the Republican Party in the 2022 and 2024 elections, which will be an uphill battle. But America’s pro-democracy forces must also understand that these are battles in a longer cultural, political and social war that has been fought for decades, with no end in sight.