Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Bans on mask mandates by GOP governors are being successfully challenged in court

An Arkansas judge on Friday temporarily blocked the state from enforcing its recently-passed ban on school mask mandates, defying the state’s governor and GOP-led legislature – both of whom have fought tirelessly against COVID health precautions. 

The ruling, first reported by AP News, was handed down by Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox, who argued that the state’s April ban discriminated between public and private schools. It comes amid two lawsuits already challenging the rule, one which was filed by an east Arkansas school district that was recently forced to quarantine more than 900 of its students due to a COVID outbreak. 

The law, Fox said, “cannot be enforced in any shape, fashion or form.”

On Tuesday, Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who had thrown support behind the ban back in April, expressed regret over having signed it into law, now urging the legislature to reconsider its position. 

“I signed it for those reasons that our cases were at a low point,” he told reporters. “Everything has changed now. And yes, in hindsight I wish that had not become law,” he said at a news conference.”

Hutchison explained that his primary concern with the ban was that it made children ages twelve and under (who are not yet eligible for a vaccine) particularly vulnerable to the virus. 

He added that many Arkansas lawmakers have adopted a “casual if not cavalier attitude toward this public health emergency.”

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that Hutchinson called two special sessions to address the ban this week, but neither advanced out of committee. On Thursday, a House panel also shot down two bills that would have given school districts the option to mandate mask-wearing – another move that indicates a growing rift between the state’s governor and legislator. 

Republican Sen. Trent Garner, the sponsor of the bill that banned forced mask-wearing, has said that he sees his bill as an opportunity to explore other ways of preventing the spread of coronavirus. 

“What I don’t want is this false sense of security that masks seem to be providing because it’s an easy political tool,” Garner claimed. “Let’s come up with the real solutions when this happens in our schools, and I think we’re woefully inadequate on that.”

The ruling comes amid similar state-level back-and-forth in Florida, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis had vehemently fought mask mandates in the state’s public school system, issuing an executive order last Friday to ban them. This week, the conservative governor – amid a record high in coronavirus cases – dismissed the Centers for Disease Control’s guidance that children above the age of two years old should wear masks in schools, calling it “unscientific” and “inconsistent.”

“Why would we have the government force masks on our kids when many of these kids are already immune through prior infection, they’re at virtually zero risk of significant illness and when virtually every school personnel had access to vaccines for months and months?” DeSantis told reporters last Friday.

On Friday, Local 10 reported that Florida-based Rev. Elvin Dowling, a father of three public school children, is suing DeSantis and the state of Florida over the governor’s executive order. 

Adducing Florida’s state Constitution – which ensures that “adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools” – Dowling is arguing that his children will be unsafe in the absence of a mask mandate. 

“As a concerned parent for not just my three kids, but for all of Florida’s public school children, I am alarmed by the increasing rates of COVID-19 infections in our state, while our feckless Governor twiddles his fingers, runs his mouth, and thumbs his nose at science,” Dowling said in a Friday statement. “Requiring masks at school will protect our children. Currying favor with narrow political interests will not.

Despite repeated humiliation, John Bolton is still downplaying Trump’s coup attempt

John Bolton, former President Donald Trump’s onetime national security adviser, downplayed his old boss’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election during an appearance on CNN’s New Day on Friday, dismissing it as a “hysteria” ginned up by the media. 

Responding to new revelations that Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows engaged in a range of actions designed to discredit and reverse Joe Biden’s electoral victory, Bolton shrugged it off as insignificant.

“I could no more have helped conduct a coup against the president of the United States than the chair you’re sitting in,” Bolton said about the position of Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, which he held during the Reagan administration and which Clark held under Trump. “I think the chance of the assistant attorney general leading a coup is somewhere close to zero.”

When asked by “New Day” host John Berman if he was concerned that other government figures, and not just Trump, were exploring ways to overturn the election, Bolton insisted that because the threats to do so were quickly neutralized by the country’s electoral system it isn’t an issue. 

“Donald Trump said, ‘Mike Pence, I want you to throw out the electoral college votes from some of the key states,’ and Mike Pence flat out refused. That’s how the system works, and when people talk about how close we were to a coup, it vastly overstates the danger,” Bolton argued. “And if you do that, you’re going to prepare for the wrong threat next time. I don’t in anyway defend Donald Trump, but let’s understand clearly what exactly that threat was.”

Bolton went on to say that he rejects calls for increased federal oversight of election administration, arguing that “[if] you centralize more election authority in Washington, and if there is another Donald Trump, it will be easier for that would be coupster to manipulate that mechanism.”

Bolton also dismissed concerns that Trump may try to overturn the 2024 election if he runs and loses, saying that “he can cause trouble but as a private citizen at that point he becomes increasingly vulnerable to prosecution for what is clearly criminal activity.”

“I just think when you magnify the threat and overstate the case you turn people off, you don’t get a serious discussion,” Bolton reiterated. “The conduct Trump engaged in was unacceptable, and people should talk about it, but they should not exaggerate it.”

Twitter reacts to Marjorie Taylor Greene’s new conspiracy theory about the New York Times

Critics mocked Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on Thursday, after she spun a wild conspiracy theory alleging that the New York Times is working with Twitter to have her banned from the platform.

Greene posted a screen shot of an email someone on her staff apparently received from Davey Alba, a technology reporter at the Times who covers online disinformation.

In his email, Alba pointed to one of Greene’s tweets from Wednesday, in which she falsely claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are causing miscarriages and other problems among pregnant women.

“Twitter is likely to take enforcement action on Ms. Greene’s account for coronavirus information. It would be her fourth strike, meaning she would have one strike to go before potentially being permanently suspended from the platform. Would Ms. Greene want to respond to this in a statement?” Alba wrote in the email.

Greene wrote above the image of the email: “How would the @nytimes know that my @Twitter account is about to be suspended? My account is NOT suspended. What kind of relationship does the NYT and Twitter have? Do they coordinate suspending people like me and news stories? Is someone paying for that? Why?”

Here’s how Twitter reacted:

 

Are “love languages” real, or self-help snake oil?

Whether you are single or coupled, it is likely you’ve been asked at some point in your dating life: “What’s your love language?”

The question refers to one of the five so-called love languages — words of affirmation, quality time, physical touch, acts of service, and receiving gifts — developed and popularized by Gary Chapman’s 1992 book “The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate.” Since its publication, the idea of love languages has become a pop psychology mainstay, fodder for thousands of articles in lifestyle magazines and dozens more books by Chapman. For some reason, in the 2010s, the love language concept became explosively popular — to the extent that identifying one’s love language was considered a categorical, dating-profile-ready personality trait as important as astrological sign or Myers-Briggs personality type.

To the unfamiliar, the concept of the five love languages is simple: people express love in one of these five ways, or sometimes a combination of two. Understanding a person’s “love language” can help people in a romantic partnership understand each other’s needs. It’s been said that this understanding can extend beyond a romantic relationship, and apply to friendships and familial relationships, too.

The love language idea is popular for obvious reasons: as with other personality-typing rubrics, it purports to tell us something deep and meaningful about our selves, and/or our partners. But as with all pop psychology trends, it gets binned in a category along with pseudoscientific trends like astrology. Before expending the effort typifying one’s love language, it is worth inquiring: is the concept is actually psychologically meaningful, or just another batch of pop psychology B.S.?

Other, similar personality categorizations have their own dark sides. As my colleague Matt Rosza wrote, the Myers-Briggs personality quiz — ​​ which claims that there are sixteen personality types based on being introverted or extroverted, intuitive or sensing, thinking or feeling and judging or perceiving — can be used to oppress people in the workplace. And astrology, of course, has no scientific grounding.  

But unlike Myers-Briggs, love languages aren’t used in a workplace setting (yet). And unlike astrology, love languages are rooted in our own feelings and experiences, not based on arbitrary positions of stars and planets. 

Hence, therapists seem to agree there is some value in the concept of “love languages” when it comes to interpersonal communication. Though having clashing love languages doesn’t affect a couple’s compatibility, Dr. Carly Marie Manly, a clinical psychologist, author, and speaker, said understanding each other’s “love language” can help two people in a relationship appreciate each other more.

“If I’m in a relationship with Joe, and my love language is touch, and Joe’s love language is touch, and we both know each other’s love language, we’re just going to be touching it up and really happy and connected in that way,” Manly said. “However, if I’m in a relationship with Joe and Joe’s love language is acts of service and mine happens to be words of affirmation, Joe can be taking out the trash, painting the house and doing the dishes, and I’m not even going to notice.”

Manly said this is an example of how a difference in love languages can cause a bit of conflict, but nothing that can’t be resolved. Using herself as a hypothetical example, Manly said in the case with Joe, conflict might surface because she wants him to tell her “I love you,” or ”you’re important to me,” and shower her with compliments. Since that’s how she receives love, that’s how she’ll give it. But to Joe, whose love language is acts of service, he likely wants acts of service in return.

“If I’m not tuned into Joe’s love language, which is acts of service, I’m going to be telling Joe — my love language — and he’s going to be wondering, ‘why didn’t she pick up the dry cleaning,’ and ‘why didn’t she mow the lawn?'” Manly said. “You can miss each other.”

Hence, Manly believes long languages can be an important part of a relationship. Still, she notes there are some caveats to the concept’s usefulness.

“It’s not a cure-all for relationship issues,” Manly said. “You can know someone’s love language, but if they’re being unfaithful, not good with finances, it’s a small but important element. . . . so I think that if people see it for what it is, it can really help partners feel more connected.”

A quick Google search posing whether love languages are “bulls**t” reveals a plethora of conflicting opinions. It is a frequent topic of discussion within Reddit‘s numerous relationship forums, which are full of commenters debating whether or not such things actually matter in a relationship. Various bloggers have opined on the subject in their own corners of the internet.


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


Still, it is telling that therapists believe that the concept is helpful — at the very least because understanding one another’s language shows investment in one’s partner.

“If nothing else, they [love languages] give the person and the couple something to point out and reflect on,” psychotherapist Erin Miller said. “Obviously, it’s not like a one-size-fits-all, instant repair — but it is something to be mindful of, because at the end of the day by investing in that you’re investing in the relationship.”

Miller does caution that love languages can be “weaponized” though.

“It’s the same kind of thing with people who get into astrology, it can be really amazing for self-reflection,” Miller said. “But it becomes a problem when you start using it as a way of putting blame and shame on your partner for not understanding or investing enough in your love language.”

Miller noted that just because one member of a couple resonates with the concept of love languages doesn’t mean that it will be helpful nor meaningful for the other partner as well. 

“I think when people are too heavy-handed with it and are trying to really force it on their partner, that’s when it becomes counterproductive,” Miller said. “Then resentment builds and those partners ends up just feeling either incompetent or resentful.”

Better than expected jobs report shocks Fox’s Maria Bartiromo: “Wow, big beat!”

The Dow and the S&P 500 rocketed to record highs on the heels of a favorable July jobs report – a pleasant surprise for economists expecting less-than-stellar numbers as the economy rebounds from the COVID-19 crisis.

On Friday, the Labor Department reported a whopping 943,000 jobs added last month, putting the unemployment rate at its lowest since March of 2020, right as the lockdowns from the coronavirus pandemic began. Unemployment dropped from 5.9% last month to 5.4%. These numbers outperformed a Bloomberg forecast which predicted a jobs gain of 858,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate falling to 5.7%.

“It’s exactly the kind of report that the market wanted, in that it is strong,” Seema Shah, chief strategist at Principal Global Investors, told Reuters. “It suggests that a labor market recovery is in play but also not so strong that it’s going to push forward the timings of the Fed tapering. That is goldilocks, that perfect mix of strong but not too strong.”

“I have yet to find a blemish in this jobs report,” echoed Harvard economist Jason Furman on Twitter. “I’ve never before seen such a wonderful set of economic data.”

So encouraging that even Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo appeared stunned while reporting the news on Friday.

“The markets are flat going into the jobs report, this is the July job support, we’re expecting 870,000 jobs added to the economy,” Bartiromo told her viewers seconds before the report was released, as Mediate flagged. But after hearing the figures, Bartiromo admitted: “Wow, big beat!” 

“Private sector payroll 703,000, you’ve got a number that is certainly boosting markets right here, Dow Industrial is spiking on this report. Up 72 points. The S&P 500 up six and a quarter.”

To be sure, experts have expressed concerns over the resurgence of COVID-19, which could potentially throw a wrench in the economic recovery. 

“Sectors tied to the reopening of the labor market are leading the way, giving some hope that these gains can continue in the months ahead,” Nick Bunker, economic research director at Indeed Hiring Lab, told The New York Times. “However, the Delta variant does pose a risk to the pace of progress.”

CNN noted that the hospitality and leisure industries – which effectively crumbled last year amid lockdowns and travel restrictions – have primarily fueled the the recent boom, accounting for over a third of this month’s growth.

With schools reopening throughout the nation, the education sector also saw a hike in hiring, though the report’s figures may be overstated because layoffs in the sector were so prevalent at the height of the pandemic.  

Some experts have said that investors were in fact hoping for an underperforming market so the Federal Reserve would be less likely to begin limiting its support. 

“The market actually wants a bad jobs report, perverse as that sounds,” Opimas CEO Octavio Marenzi, told Yahoo Finance Thursday afternoon, adding that investors wanted “the job numbers to come in weak so the Fed has a reason to continue its monetary policy.”

Back in March of 2020, the Fed announced it would be buying billions in corporate bonds by using its emergency lending powers – a tactic employed during the Great Recession. But in June of this year, the Fed revealed it would be selling off $13.7 billion in corporate debt, indicating that the market may no longer need to be buttressed by cash injections. Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida appeared to confirm this guidance this week, saying that he might get behind an interest rate hike if the economy continues to improve. 

“I believe that these … necessary conditions for raising the target range for the federal funds rate will have been met by year-end 2022,” Clarida said this week. 

Despite the jobs growth, the Times reported that some hiring managers are still having difficulty finding candidates to fill roles. Though, disgruntled employers have come under scrutiny for airing out these concerns amid national demands for higher wages. 

Republicans ramp up the racism to deflect blame for COVID surge

The GOP strategy to tank Joe Biden’s presidency was supposed to be a simple one: jack up COVID-19 rates by convincing Fox News viewers that only filthy liberals get vaccinated, then blame Biden for the surge while a media plagued by bothsidesism plays along.

But the plan hit one little, unforeseen snag: The mainstream media, which did play along for a bit with headlines blaming Biden, suddenly switched gears in mid-July. The severity of the delta variant surge pushed the media to actually start covering both the anti-vaccine propaganda apparatus at Fox News and the fact that COVID-19 hot spots appeared concentrated in parts of the country where people mainline such propaganda. Now, the whole evil scheme has gone sideways. Polling shows Americans are blaming right-wingers and the unvaccinated instead of Biden — and now Republicans are in a panic. 

And what do Republicans always do in a panic? Old-fashioned race-baiting.

Rather than blame the obvious culprits for the pandemic — Fox News-addled anti-vaxxers — Republicans are increasingly accusing immigrants at the Southern border of bringing in COVID-19, and Biden of supposedly letting them. After Biden rightfully called out Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, for his part in letting COVID-19 run rampant, DeSantis pitifully tried to hit back by claiming Biden “imported more virus from around the world by having a wide-open southern border.” 

Other Republican politicians have been echoing this “blame Mexico” talking point, from Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas accusing the Biden administration of allowing a “super spreader event because their open border” to Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds arguing that “the problem is the southern border is open.”


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


Unsurprisingly, Fox News is leaning hard into this “blame immigrants, not the unvaccinated” messaging, often with a side dose of contrasting the supposedly dangerous dark-skinned immigrants with the supposedly pristine lighter-skinned people around the world.

Bret Baier of Fox News was interviewing Centers for Disease Control head Rochelle Walensky last week and complained that his “in-laws live in Austria, they cannot come here to see their six-month-old baby because of the EU travel ban,” but that “migrants come across the southern border from other countries with more COVID.” Walensky calmly replied, “what we really need to do is spend our time getting our communities vaccinated,” but of course, Breitbart and other right-wing outlets portrayed her as somehow too “woke” to deal with the scary disease-ridden foreigners who they clearly believe are identifiable via skin color. 

As usual, there’s a heavy amount of coordination on the right around the new, race-baiting tactic. The Wall Street Journal and New York Post are both on the blame-immigrants-not-the-unvaccinated train. And Fox News is a steady drumbeat of scare stories about COVID-positive immigrants, all meant to give viewers an excuse for remaining unvaccinated because they can blame “dirty” immigrants instead of the homegrown unvaccinated Americans who are passing the disease rapidly. 

It’s all, of course, completely ridiculous. Glenn Kessler wrote a Washington Post fact check that focused on COVID-19 rates among border crossers, noting “so far we do not see evidence to support” the claim that it’s a major factor in the current surge. But frankly, Kessler’s fact check severely understates the case, from a sheer mathematical point of view. Thousands of unvaccinated immigrants at the border simply do not have the numbers to be a greater threat to public health than literally millions of native-born Americans who refuse to get vaccinated.

Any fool who can read a map sees the main problem with the “blame the border” gambit, which is the parts of the U.S. that actually border Mexico are seeing less of a surge than parts that other parts that border water and/or border other U.S. states. 

Yep, the hot spots are running through the Bible Belt more than the Southwest. We also have actual scientific data that shows the delta variant surge that’s causing our current woes is flowing more through Branson, Missouri — where vaccine-eschewing GOP America goes to party — than McAllen, TX. 


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


None of this makes any logical sense, and not just because the Biden administration does have policies to turn people away at the border for being a COVID-19 threat. Even if one accepts the premise that immigrants are adding in any significant way to the COVID-19 problem, why is that an excuse not to get vaccinated? One would think that a belief that people are bringing in COVID-19 is all the more reason to do what offers, by far, the highest level of protection: vaccination.  And yet “scary brown-skinned immigrants are bringing disease!” is being used as a justification by white conservatives to avoid taking basic prevention measures. 

Of course, none of it is meant to be rational.

Republicans are turning to racism for the same reason they always do, to turn off any remaining capacity for critical thinking among their base, replacing it with inchoate fear and rage over the very existence of people that don’t look or talk or act exactly like them. As usual, the GOP elite doesn’t care how many people get sick or die. All they care about is giving their voters some stupid thing to rant and rave about, so they can shut off their brains and not think about how foolish it is to keep voting for people who are killing them to score political points. 

Will this new “blame immigrants, not the unvaccinated” narrative work? It will, in the same way the “blame China” gambit worked: To give Fox News viewers a talking point to scream at relatives who express concerns about their unvaccinated status and give Republican politicians a way to make noise while running away from their own responsibility for this crisis.

What it won’t do is cause the COVID-19 surge to end any time soon. For that to happen, ordinary Republicans need to suck it up and start getting vaccinated in larger numbers. And the longer that their leaders keep feeding them excuses not to do so — such as blaming immigrants — the longer this pandemic will drag out. And the longer that goes on, the angrier the vaccinated majority will get with unvaccinated red hats for being such selfish, whiny babies in the face of a global pandemic. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tells crowd to pull out guns on vaccine canvassers

Freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., suggested to an Alabama crowd that they could whip out a gun on door-to-door vaccination volunteers if they show up at Alabamans’ homes to ask them what their vaccination status is. 

“[President] Joe Biden wants to come talk to you guys,” she said at the Alabama Federation of Republican Women on Tuesday. “He’s going to be sending one of his police state friends to your front door to knock on the door, take down your name, your address, your family members’ names, your phone numbers, your cellphone numbers, probably ask for your Social Security number and whether you’ve taken the vaccine or not.”

“Yeah, well, what they don’t know is in the south we all love our Second Amendment rights,” she added. “We’re not real big on strangers showing up on our front door, are we? They might not like the welcome they get.”

Greene’s recent comments stem from a speech delivered by Biden in early July, in which the president encouraged a door-to-door outreach program in order to increase the vaccination rate throughout the nation. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki later clarified Biden’s speech, explaining that the program would dispatch volunteers who are “local, trusted messengers: doctors, faith leaders, [and] community leaders.” No one, she said, would be legally compelled to get a vaccine. 

Regardless, a number of right-winger pundits and politicians, including Greene, pounced on the speech, framing Biden’s vaccination rollout as a slide toward authoritarianism. 

Following Greene’s latest comments, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., accused Greene of “encouraging violence.”

“We are watching the radicalization of the Republican Party in real time. GOP Rep @mtgreenee is encouraging violence,” Lieu tweeted on Thursday. “(FYI: It’s murder to shoot someone for knocking on your door.) How many Republican Members of Congress will condemn her insane remarks?”

At the event, Greene also demurred the nation’s leading Covid expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, pushing the theory that National Institutes of Health aided and abetted in the creation of the coronavirus at the Wuhan Institute of Virology – a claim that Fauci has repeatedly denied. 

“That is [Fauci’s] baby,” Greene said, referring to the virus. “That is his experiment, and he’s getting to watch it in the real world, like on a live television show where he has a front row seat. He gets to watch what happens.”

Last month, Greene – who lost her committee seats as a result of spreading baseless and dangerous conspiracy theories – made headlines when she compared Biden’s door-to-door outreach program volunteers to “medical brownshirts,” a term used to denote Adolf Hitler’s paramilitary unit during the Third Reich. Greene has also compared mask mandates to the Nazi-era requirement that Jews people wear Stars of David on their clothing in order to identify themselves.

DOJ notes revealed: Trump’s coup was longer in the making than we thought

It’s no secret that former President Donald Trump plotted to overturn the 2020 election if he lost. He had set up the scenario for months, even declaring at one point that the only way the Democrats could win the election was by stealing it. He’d done the same in 2016, telling his cheering crowd that he would only accept the results of the election if he won, and as it turned out, he didn’t even accept that — insisting that Hillary Clinton stole the popular vote. Trump then formed an “election integrity commission” to investigate voter fraud in the election he won. (That commission was eventually abandoned after they were unable to find any proof of voter fraud.)

The election hysteria in 2020 over mail-in votes and Trump’s ludicrous contention that any votes counted after midnight on Election Day were illegitimate would have been easy enough to just chalk up to Trump being a sore loser had Jan. 6 not happened. But the Big Lie was adopted by the GOP establishment for their own cynical, political reasons and Republicans continue to prop it up to this day. That has made it impossible to ignore and requires the attention of everyone who still values democracy and the rule of law. Clearly, we have not seen the end of this.

Just this week, we learned that the coup attempt engineered by Trump and his cronies was much more serious than the silly clown show run by the loony lawyers led by Rudy Giuliani or Trump’s breathless fulminating about his “landslide” win being stolen from him. It turns out that the most alarming threat came from within the government itself and, had it succeeded, would have been the gravest constitutional crisis since the civil war.

According to notes turned over to the House Oversight Committee last week, after Attorney General Bill Barr left the Justice Department (DOJ) in late December of 2020, Trump pressured acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen to declare that “the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and Republican congressmen.” In other words, Trump wanted the DOJ to back his Big Lie, despite both Barr and Rosen telling him there was no fraud. (Trump even proclaimed, “You guys may not be following the Internet the way I do.”) David Laufman, a former senior Justice Department official, told the Washington Post:

“These notes reveal that a sitting president, defeated in a free and fair election, personally and repeatedly pressured Justice Department leaders to help him foment a coup in a last-ditch attempt to cling to power. And that should shock the conscience of every American, regardless of political persuasion.”

But it gets worse.

ABC News published a draft of a letter prepared by a Trump loyalist in the DOJ named Jeffrey Clark, a faceless GOP lawyer who had previously worked in the Bush administration and had been the head of the DOJ’s civil division since September of 2020. On the same day that Trump was leaning on the acting AG to declare the election was “corrupt,” Clark circulated a letter addressed to Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and state legislative leaders, dishonestly claiming that the DOJ had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election.” The letter recommended that the Georgia legislature “convene in special session so that its legislators are in a position to take additional testimony, receive new evidence, and deliberate on the matter.” Clark suggested in this letter that the legislature could refuse to accept the outcome of the election and select electors for Trump instead. This was the essence of the coup plot. According to NBC News, Clark had drafted similar letters to all six states that Trump was contending had been stolen: Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Georgia.

Thankfully, Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue, who recorded these events and turned his notes over to Congress, rejected Clark’s outrageous attempts to overturn the election. But that was still not the end of it.

The New York Times reported last January that Trump had been introduced to Clark by a Pennsylvania politician who assured him that Clark was on the team. When Rosen rejected Clark’s attempt to use the DOJ to foment a coup by enlisting Trump loyalists in the state legislatures, Clark went directly to Trump. The president subsequently threatened to replace Rosen with Clark. He even convened what was described as a bizarre “‘Apprentice’-like meeting” with the two men in the White House that lasted for hours. Evidently, Trump was only dissuaded from doing this when he was told that the entire top leadership of the DOJ would resign if he did. According to the Times, Trump worried that mass resignations would distract attention from his election fraud claims.

It’s easy to say now that “the system worked” but it was a very close thing, entirely dependent on the good-faith actions of certain members of the government. What if Trump had gone ahead and made Clark the acting attorney general, and Clark had sent those letters to state legislatures basically giving a green light from the DOJ to overturn the election results and illegitimately put Trump back in the White House? It’s clear they were serious about doing it, and it’s even clearer that this inane notion of state legislators rejecting the will of the voters has seriously gained currency on the right. This is not the last we will hear of it.

And what of this man Jeffrey Clark, Trump’s willing accomplice in the attempted coup? Is there any accountability for him? Apparently not. He landed a cushy job as chief of litigation and director of strategy at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative-libertarian law firm. The conservative legal establishment takes care of its own — even when they plot to overthrow the government.

And there will almost certainly be a next time.

The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer recently reported on all the Big Money Republicans who are backing the “Stop the Steal” movement around the country. (It’s the usual suspects, proving once again that they are no more driven by principle and ideology than the average MAGA-hatted Trump fan.) She mentioned this in passing:

Few people noticed at the time, but in … Bush v. Gore, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, hinted at a radical reading of the Constitution that, two decades later, undergirds many of the court challenges on behalf of Trump. In a concurring opinion, the Justices argued that state legislatures have the plenary power to run elections and can even pass laws giving themselves the right to appoint electors. Today, the so-called Independent Legislature Doctrine has informed Trump and the right’s attempts to use Republican-dominated state legislatures to overrule the popular will. Nathaniel Persily, an election-law expert at Stanford, told me, “It’s giving intellectual respectability to an otherwise insane, anti-democratic argument.”

Jeffrey Clark was no rogue. He was doing a dry run for a coup long in the making. 

Josh Hawley’s Orwellian “Love America Act” and the fascist campaign to rewrite history

Donald Trump may no longer be president, but the American people are still stuck in a state of malignant normality that his presidency brought into being. 

Psychologist John Gartner describes such a state of being this way:

Malignant normality is when a malignantly narcissistic leader takes control of society and gradually changes reality for everyone else. So their crazy internal reality becomes enacted in the lived true external reality of that society. This is how a leader can come in and change the mores of their society.

In his role as national cheerleader and secular priest, President Biden is trying to provide moral leadership and healing for a traumatized nation, still shell-shocked by the Trump movement’s continuing assault on democracy and society.

Biden’s efforts have provided only short-term relief. The neofascist threat is escalating; Biden and the Democrats have shown themselves largely impotent against it. The coronavirus pandemic is now resurgent because of a new variant and Trump’s followers’ refusal to be vaccinated.

For these and many other reasons — most notably, extreme wealth and income inequality and the global climate crisis — America is becoming a dystopia

The collective emotional state of many Americans, or at least those who are paying attention and still care, is frustration and unease.

Malignant normality creates a playground for fascism and other forms of right-wing maleficence. The Jim Crow Republicans and other elements of the white right are taking advantage of this broken America to escalate their attacks on free speech, reason, truth, reality, human and civil rights and multiracial democracy by weaponizing the nearly meaningless term “critical race theory.” (Yes, the term has a real meaning in academic discourse, but not as bandied about by Republicans in 2021.)

For the likes of Sen. Josh Hawley, the notorious Missouri Republican, such a crisis is a dream opportunity. Last week, Hawley proposed a bill called the Love America Act of 2021, which would deny federal funding to schools that teach the real history of America and the centrality of racism and white supremacy to the country’s origins. The key text of this document reads: 

RESTRICTION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TEACHING THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ARE PRODUCTS OF WHITE SUPREMACY OR RACISM — … [N]o Federal funds shall be provided to an educational agency or school that teaches that the Pledge of Allegiance, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of the United States is a product of white supremacy or racism.

Hawley’s “Love America” bill is not a joke. It is a statement of shared principles and loyalty to an anti-democratic, racial-authoritarian movement that is winning victories all over the United States.

For example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is now mandating thoughtcrime surveys to determine the political beliefs of teachers and students in public colleges and universities.

Florida has also “banned” the teaching of “critical race theory” in public schools, and will permit — in practice, this may mean encourage — students to record classes without the knowledge or consent of their teachers. This potential surveillance is an obvious form of intimidation or threat against intellectual freedom, and specifically targeting teachers and other education professionals who are perceived as “liberal” and therefore “unfair” to conservatives.  

The Republican-controlled Texas Senate has passed legislation overturning a requirement that the history of the civil rights movement be taught in public schools. That legislation would also remove a course requirement that the Ku Klux Klan should be condemned. As I wrote recently for Salon:

… the requirements removed from the state’s curriculum include two speeches by Martin Luther King Jr., any mention of Latino labor organizers Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, and any mention of Thomas Jefferson’s long-term relationship with Sally Hemings, an enslaved teenage child who bore six of his children. The bill bars any use of the New York Times’ 1619 Project and “prohibits teaching that slavery was part of the ‘true’ founding of the United States” and removes the requirement to study the “history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong.”

Tennessee has proposed fining school districts at least $1 million if a teacher “willingly violates” state laws against discussing racism, white privilege or sexism in class. Education Week reports, “Teachers could also be disciplined or lose their licenses for teaching that the United States is inherently racist or sexist or making a student feel ‘guilt or anguish’ because of past actions committed by their race or sex.” Similar forms of censorship will be imposed in Oklahoma, where “educators could have their teaching licenses suspended or revoked and schools could lose accreditation if an investigation finds evidence that they taught about racism and sexism in ways that violated the law.” Parents in that state will be allowed “to inspect curriculum, instructional materials, classroom assignments, and lesson plans to ‘ensure compliance.'”

These attacks on the teaching of actual history are an Orwellian attempt to control both the present and the future in order to remake America as an apartheid regime. Realpolitik is also in play here: Facing changing demographics and political unpopularity, Republicans seek to use a larger culture-war strategy to win elections and hold onto power by any means possible.

White supremacists and other right-wing ideologues, in the longer view, want to destroy public education and replace it with their own propaganda indoctrination program. One important element is “racial erasure,” in which the truth about American history is replaced with fantasies of white innocence, white nobility and white supremacy.

As Clint Smith writes in the Atlantic, for many so-called conservatives, “history isn’t the story of what actually happened; it is just the story they want to believe. It is not a public story we all share, but an intimate one, passed down like an heirloom, that shapes their sense of who they are. Confederate history is family history, history as eulogy, in which loyalty takes precedence over truth.”

Perhaps most important, the right-wing moral panic over “critical race theory” is a way to delete from public memory the struggle waged for centuries by Black Americans to defeat white supremacy in its various forms. To that point, chattel slavery and the Jim Crow regime were America’s native forms of fascism. Black people defeated those forces and in doing so saved American democracy from its own worst impulses. To erase the Black Freedom Struggle is to make the case that American fascism will be victorious and that resistance is futile.

It is also crucial to understand that America’s state of malignant normality is not isolated or unique, but is part of a neofascist attack by the global right on multiracial and multiethnic democracy around the world. As de facto spokesman for the American white right, Fox News host Tucker Carlson has taken a pilgrimage to Hungary, now under the one-party rule of Viktor Orbán, who has become a role model for the Jim Crow Republican Party and the American neofascist movement.

Orbán has created a fake democracy in Hungary, where elections still occur and tepid opposition is permitted, but in practice he can remain in power indefinitely. He has silenced the free press, crushed any serious democratic opposition, encouraged political violence against his regime’s “enemies” and attacked colleges, universities and other centers of learning. The obvious goal is to silence dissent and produce obedient and compliant citizens who do not seek to exercise critical thinking or speak back to power.

In an essay for Vox this week, Zack Beauchamp discusses the larger significance of Carlson’s pilgrimage to Budapest:

In his Monday monologue, Carlson told his listeners that they should pay attention to Hungary “if you care about Western civilization, and democracy, and family — and the ferocious assault on all three of those things by leaders of our global institutions.” He tweeted out a friendly photo with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and is confirmed to speak at a government-supported conference in Budapest on Saturday. …

[R]ight-wing observers, typically social conservatives and nationalists, see Orbán’s willingness to use state power against the LGBT community, academics, the press, and immigrants as an example of how conservatives can fight back against left-wing cultural power. They either deny Fidesz’s authoritarian streak or, more chillingly, argue that it’s necessary to defeat the left — a chilling move at a time when the GOP is waging war on American democracy, using tactics eerily reminiscent of the ones Fidesz successfully deployed against Hungary’s democratic institutions.

Beauchamp observes that the “Republican turn against democracy” and the American right’s growing interest in Orbán’s Hungary, expressed with unusual frankness and eloquence by Rod Dreher of the American Conservative, “is in significant part fueled by the right’s sense of leftist ascendancy — heightened by electoral defeats in 2008 and 2020 and strengthened by defeat in culture war battles like same-sex marriage”:

This, ultimately, is what makes Carlson’s pilgrimage to Budapest so worrying. The Fox host’s massive following gives him unusual power to set the terms of the conversation on the right; when he talks, Republicans from Trump on down listen. His bear hug embrace of Orbán could not only bring the Dreher view out into the open but also strengthen its influence over the GOP.

Republicans today aren’t directly imitating Orbán; they have their own anti-democratic playbook, drawn from all-American sources. Carlson’s active embrace of Hungary’s strongman risks making that connection more direct, giving Republicans more ideas for how to seize control and a more powerful sense of justification in doing so.

For those who believed that Biden’s election could clear the haze and wake the American people up from the living nightmare of the Trump regime, these last seven months have been increasingly painful. And now the pandemic’s third wave arrives as a gut punch to them as well. Biden and other Democratic leaders still appear obsessed with “bipartisanship” and to this point have refused to act with the “urgency of now” to fight back against Republican attacks on Black and brown people’s right to vote. Even under Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice seems to be protecting Donald Trump instead of investigating and prosecuting him for his crimes against democracy. The overall effect is like being smothered.

Conditions are likely to get worse — perhaps much worse, with Republicans likely to recapture one or both houses of Congress in 2022 and Trump in all probability returning as a presidential candidate in 2024 — before they get better.

To survive and triumph over neofascism America’s well of endless optimism must be fortified with something more durable and realistic, such as the formula suggested by Italian philosopher and activist Antonio Gramsci: “optimism of the will and pessimism of the intellect.” In Gramsci’s “Prison Notebooks,” he wrote: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

That is precisely where Americans find themselves now: The waking nightmare of the Age of Trump, from which we have not escaped, is one such “morbid symptom.” Recognizing that truth may make it possible to return to full political and social consciousness, and begin the real work of repairing and rebuilding American democracy.

“All Things Must Pass” is peak George Harrison: 50th anniversary edition serves a feast for the ears

Released in belated celebration of the 50th anniversary of George Harrison’s solo mega-statement, the remixed “All Things Must Pass” is a feast for the ears. Hardcore audiophiles and Beatles historians will surely revel in the profundity of outtakes and production notes. Meanwhile, music lovers the world over will delight in the opportunity to revisit the Quiet Beatle’s career-defining triple album.

Originally released in November 1970, “All Things Must Pass” is peak Harrison. By the end of his Beatles years, Harrison had turned in one masterwork after another, including such highlights as “While My Guitar Gently Weeps,” “Here Comes the Sun” and the chart-topping “Something.” Although it had been preceded by “Wonderwall Music” and “Electronic Sound,” the highly anticipated “All Things Must Pass” served as Harrison’s coming-out-party as an artist in his own right after having languished for years in the shadows of John Lennon and Paul McCartney.


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


Remixed by Grammy Award-winning engineer Paul Hicks, the deluxe edition of “All Things Must Pass” is chock-full of musical revelations. In Hicks’ hands, the original album shimmers into life with the wider sonic palette made possible by technologies that would have been unimaginable five decades earlier. Take the title track, for example, which benefits from greater instrumental separation, rendering Harrison’s timeless musings about life’s transitory nature even more heartrending.

Listen to “All Things Must Pass”:

And while Hicks delivers an admirable upgrade for Harrison’s original LP, the real treasure lies in the supplemental discs. Fans will enjoy the experience of the “Day One” and “Day Two” demos, originally recorded on May 26-27, 1970, that set the stage for Harrison’s achievement. In their unvarnished form, early takes such as “What Is Life,” “Awaiting on You All” and “Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll)” brim with the unmistakable energy of musical discovery.

Of particular interest are the “Day Two” outtakes, including Harrison’s early stabs at “Run of the Mill,” “Wah-Wah” and “Beware of Darkness.” One of the great joys of the deluxe edition arrives in the form of “Cosmic Empire,” a track that didn’t make the final cut for “All Things Must Pass.” For many listeners, the song will arrive like a time capsule — a revelation from another time that seems as fresh and potent as the day it was first conceived in the studio.

Listen to “Cosmic Empire”:

Executive produced by Dhani Harrison, the über box set is exceedingly well-curated, including a deftly created scrapbook from Olivia Harrison, the musician’s widow, along with a slew of ephemera, highlighted by the quartet of replica gnomes (along with a Harrison figurine) so prominently featured in the LP’s original production art.

Over the past several years, classic rock fans have been treated to what may seem like an unremitting onslaught of box sets and deluxe editions, of remasters and remixes. But “All Things Must Pass,” along with the Lennon estate’s recent takes on “Imagine” and “Plastic Ono Band,” represents one of the finest recent incarnations (or reincarnations?) of a rock-and-roll masterwork. With “All Things Must Pass,” Harrison’s original vision comes roaring back to life in new and powerful ways, well-supplemented by a bevy of outtakes that will be welcome additions to any fan’s collection.

Rep. Lauren Boebert lost a family member to COVID — but she’s still a vaccine foe

Rep. Lauren Boebert, the Colorado right-wing firebrand, has continued to oppose both mask mandates and vaccine precautions aimed at stopping the spread of the coronavirus, even as the pandemic heads into a third deadly wave, fueled by low vaccination rates and the fast-spreading delta variant. This is especially striking since a member of Boebert’s extended family, her step-grandfather Bob Bentz, died of COVID last December.

As Salon has previously reported, Boebert never knew her biological father. Her mother, Shawn (or Shawna) Roberts Bentz, became partners with Steve Bentz (Bob Bentz’s son) sometime before 1994, when their first son was born. Lauren was 7 years old at that time. Shawn Roberts and Steve Bentz were married in 1996 and had three more sons, born around 1996, 1999 and 2003, according to a bankruptcy filing reviewed by Salon.  

Boebert spent much of her childhood in Aurora, Colorado, a suburb of Denver, in a house that Bob and Steve Bentz bought in 1992 and owned together until Bob’s death last year. Boebert’s family later moved to the western slopes of the Rockies, about 200 miles away. Her mother and stepfather purchased a $200,000 four-bedroom home in Rifle, Colorado, in 2002, when Lauren was 15.

Four days after Bob Bentz’s death on Dec. 8, his daughter-in-law Shawn Roberts Bentz, Lauren Boebert’s mother, was in Washington with her daughter. As Salon has reported, Boebert and her mother, along with Boebert’s teenage son, took a private after-hours tour of the Capitol that night under unexplained circumstances

Bob Bentz’s obituary in the Denver Post describes him as “an avid golfer, hiker and skier,” survived by four children, 20 grandchildren and 26 great-grandchildren. It makes clear that he died after contracting COVID, adding, “A celebration of Bob’s beautiful life will be held in the Denver area when it is safe to gather.” 

Throughout her brief time in the national spotlight, Boebert has been a vocal opponent of mask mandates and vaccination programs, and has at times appeared to suggest that the pandemic is a hoax and vaccines are unnecessary. In a since-deleted June 30 post, Boebert tweeted, “The easiest way to make the Delta variant go away is to turn off CNN. And vote Republican.”

About a week after that, concluding a string of posts attacking President Biden’s proposed door-to-door vaccination program, Boebert tweeted, “COVID-19 mutated into Communism a long time ago.”

More recently, the Colorado congresswoman threw a mask in the face of a congressional staffer after being asked to wear it on the House floor, in accordance with regulations. Most famously, Boebert made national headlines last month by deriding Biden’s proposed vaccination program in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference gathering in Dallas, telling the crowd, “Don’t come knocking on my door with your ‘Fauci ouchie.’ You leave us the hell alone!” 

In a recent report from CNN’s Gary Tuchman, some constituents in Boebert’s western Colorado district, which has low vaccination rates and an increasing COVID caseload, said they were “embarrassed” by her handling of the coronavirus issue and her refusal to follow basic public health rules. 

In a heated phone interview with Salon on Thursday afternoon, Boebert expressed displeasure over this story, which was still in progress at the time. “You guys are disgusting,” she said. “Are you kidding me? You’re writing a story about my dead step-grandfather?” Asked whether the loss of a family member had changed her views of the pandemic, the congresswoman replied, “I think you are a disgusting, vile human being.”

Trump’s magic mark: Republicans reap millions in donations with the “pre-checked box”

Earlier this year, the New York Times revealed that Donald Trump’s campaign had extracted tens of millions of dollars in extra contributions from his supporters by surreptitiously signing them up for recurring donations, mostly by using pre-checked boxes in online forms. That practice was widely criticized and drew the attention of federal election officials, but it definitely hasn’t stopped. Trump’s fundraising appeals still appear to be automatically opting in donors for multiple contributions, which may partly account for $100 million-plus war chest the former president has accumulated since losing last year’s election. Other Republican candidates and elected officials have followed along, embracing Trump’s dubious fundraising practices just as they have embraced his politics.

Concerns around Trump’s donation scheme first emerged in April, when a Times investigation found that the former president’s campaign operation had routinely been signing up contributors for monthly — or even weekly — recurring contributions, through deliberately bewildering online forms and pre-checked authorizations. In the weeks before Election Day last fall, the Trump campaign rolled out an increasingly opaque array of these boxes, which featured huge blocks of boldface or all-caps text, full of aggressive phrasing, evidently intended to distract donors from the opt-out language in smaller, fainter type below.

This tactic, the Times reported, “ensnared scores of unsuspecting Trump loyalists — retirees, military veterans, nurses and even experienced political operatives. Soon, banks and credit card companies were inundated with fraud complaints from the president’s own supporters about donations they had not intended to make, sometimes for thousands of dollars.”

Trump’s campaign was forced to refund $122.7 million as a result of 200,000 disputed transactions in 2020. Refunds to donors who exceed legal limits are not infrequent in political campaigns, but that was a vastly higher sum than the amount refunded by Joe Biden’s campaign. This captured the attention of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which in May sent a formal recommendation to Congress, asking for an outright ban on pre-checked recurring donation boxes. 

That doesn’t appear to have had made any meaningful impact on Trump’s fundraising effort. In fact, Salon’s reporting reveals that dozens of other Republican candidates and organizations now rely on pre-checked boxes to keep the money flowing, so much so that it can essentially be regarded as standard operating procedure on conservative fundrasing. 

On donaldjtrump.com, where the former president is collecting funds for his Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, the website’s contribution page automatically signs donors up for both monthly recurring donations and an additional mid-month donation — both of which match whatever contribution amount is initially specified by the donor. 

“The Left is putting AMERICA LAST,” one box reads in bold letters. “I need all hands on deck if we’re going to SAVE AMERICA! My team is handing me an updated Donor List soon — will I see your name? Step up NOW to increase your impact by 400%!”

Below that paragraph is smaller, lighter text that reads: “Donate an additional [amount specified] automatically on 8/13.” In both paragraphs, the separation between the pre-checked box, the boldface message and the line that authorizes a donation appears constructed to be intentionally confusing.

A number of experts on political fundraising said they viewed the pre-checked boxes as unethical or worse, noting their obvious potential to dupe potential donors who are less technologically savvy. 

Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, called the Trump campaign’s continued reliance on recurring donations “outrageous,” saying in an email exchange with Salon that such pre-checked boxes “have been shown to lead to consumer complaints and unhappy supporters.” He continued, “Giving donors the choice to opt in to recurring donations is a much better business practice than stealthily signing people up for recurring donations.”

The FEC’s recommendation to Congress, Beckel added, “should be a clear sign to all candidates to cease this practice.”

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor in the College of Law at Stetson University, also said by email that it was “outrageous that donaldjtrump.com is still running the pre-checked box gambit on their donors.” She added, “It shows contempt for their financial supporters. If any donor wants to make a recurring donation, just have them opt in. Don’t trick them into it.”

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, called the pre-checked boxes “ripoffs” in an interview with Salon. He noted that such tactics “invariably hit elderly people the most, because they are the ones who are more likely to contribute without knowing the ramifications of checkboxes or any similar kinds of gimmicks.”

Salon reached out to Trump’s team, which declined to respond to questions on whether the use of pre-checked boxes was a sound fundraising practice. The former president’s director of communications, Taylor Budowich, sent a statement by email that did not address that issue:

With the help of millions of American Patriots, President Trump has raised a record-setting amount of money to help elect America First conservatives and win back the House and Senate for Republicans in the 2022 midterm elections. The liberals hate this, as they should, because their days of ruinous leadership are numbered.

Though Trump’s messaging remains distinctive in terms of strident, overheated rhetoric, Salon’s reporting makes clear that he is far from the only Republican to rely on pre-checked boxes in fundraising appeals.

In fact, a significant number of high-profile Republican senators employ the tactic, ranging across the GOP spectrum from loyal Trump supporters like Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin to Trump skeptics like Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Three of the most prominent Trump backers in the House, Devin Nunes of California, Jim Jordan of Ohio and Matt Gaetz of Florida, also use pre-checked boxes.

Salon reached out to all of the lawmakers mentioned above for comment. Only Gaetz responded, writing by email: “While Democrats and Republicans alike ‘check the box’ for lobbyists and PACs on K street, I’m the only Republican in Congress who totally refuses their dirty money.”

“I hope Salon criticizes me daily for funding my campaign only and directly from regular folks,” the scandal-plagued Florida congressman added, without comment on his use of pre-checked boxes.

The Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee all use pre-checked donation boxes to solicit contributions for the upcoming election. None of those organizations responded to Salon’s request for comment. 

As things stand, campaign finance law does not address deceptively-structured payment schemes such as pre-checked donation boxes.

“This is an unfair, misleading, and predatory practice, said Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in an interview with Salon. “But at the moment, it’s a legal one.”

Bookbinder continued, “You would hope that after the kind of attention this received four months ago, campaigns and parties would just stop doing it. But where that doesn’t seem to be the case, I think there would need to be agency or legal action.”

Republican lawmakers, Bookbinder suggested, are taking cues from Trump’s open disregard for fundraising ethics. “You have the tone being set by organizations that are working for Donald Trump, who has shown this kind of contempt for any type of rules or traditions meant to make things more fair,” he said. “This seems to be a natural outgrowth of that.”

On campaign finance ethics, the FEC has been described as “notoriously dysfunctional” by one of its commissioners. The agency has frequently bogged down in partisan bickering that stalls or kills efforts to crack down on violations of the law. In fact, from July to December of 2020, under the Trump administration, the FEC lacked a quorum sufficient even to hold meetings, generating a massive backlog of 446 unresolved cases.

“The usual situation has been that the Democratic FEC commissioners have tried to enforce campaign finance law against both Democrats and Republicans, have tried to enforce it somewhat stringently,” a senior director for trial litigation and chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center told NPR last year. “And the Republican commissioners have generally opposed enforcement of the law, regardless of whether the law-breaker was a Republican group or a Democratic group.”

On the subject of pre-checked donation boxes, however, the FEC’s recommendation to Congress was unanimous. Democratic commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub was principal author of the letter released in May, urging Congress to set rules for those soliciting political contributions:

(1) receive affirmative consent of contributors when setting up recurring contributions, not to include implied consent through such means as pre-checked boxes; (2) provide a receipt and clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms of recurring contributions to contributors at the time the contributions are set up and at the time of each individual contribution; (3) in each communication with the contributor regarding a recurring contribution, provide information needed to cancel the recurring contribution; and (4) immediately cancel recurring contributions upon the request of contributors. The same requirements should apply to those seeking recurring donations to fund electioneering communications. 

To a considerable degree, the pre-checked box tactic was pioneered by WinRed, a for-profit company that serves as the RNC’s designated fundraising platform. In April, four state attorneys generals opened a probe into multiple platforms’ donation tactics, including those of WinRed and its Democratic counterpart, ActBlue, over their use of pre-checked boxes. ActBlue later told the Times it had begun phasing pre-checked boxes out of its platform. This appears to be true: The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee do not automatically opt donors into recurring donations. 

WinRed has accused the attorneys general of “exploiting their positions of power for partisan gain.”

“​​Only when Republicans began challenging the Democrats’ long-held advantage in online fund-raising did these Democrat Attorneys General activate,” WinRed told The Washington Examiner in July. “It’s troubling to see these AGs attempt to use the power of their offices for the purpose of helping the Democrat Party.”

WinRed CEO Gerrit Lansing did not respond to Salon’s request for a comment. 

A legislative push against this tactic has also begun on Capitol Hill. Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., recently announced the introduction of a bill that would prohibit the use of pre-checked recurring donation boxes once and for all. “Following the FEC’s unanimous vote,” Klobuchar wrote, “it’s clear we should take action to ban this practice and ensure contributors are fully informed. This legislation will do just that.”

Neuroscientist explains how fanatical Trump followers could lead us to societal collapse

Do not be alarmed, but consider this article a prediction and a warning. Actually, it’s okay to be a little alarmed, because recent events—like the storming of the Capitol—are certainly cause for concern. Let’s call it what it is; Donald Trump has created a cult and radicalized its members. QAnon also shares a large part of the responsibility, whoever they are. We may not be able to see it because Trump has been banned from Twitter and Q conversation cleaned from social media, but behind the scenes, this cult is being transformed into an army of soldiers.

How do we know that it is as serious as I say; that this is not just more fear mongering? Well, for one, people have died. Heather Heyer, a counterprotester protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, was run over by a white supremacist, and 19 others were injured. Last year a man drew a hunting bow on protestors in Salt Lake City before being taken out by the crowd, a chilling moment that was captured on video. On the day of the Capitol riot, a pipe bomb was found a few blocks from the Capitol building. In addition to these troubling events, many others who will go unnamed have been the victims of hate crimes that can be traced to the alt-Right, pro-Trump movement.

But the causalities have not only been on one side. Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt was fatally wounded by a cop as the mob tried to breach a door, another frightening moment caught on video. The point I’m making has nothing to do with whether or not the shooting was justified—though saying that level of force was necessary strikes me as uncomfortably close to Right-wing apologists who defend cops that shoot unarmed black men. The point is that the violence is escalating, and there’s every reason to believe that escalation will continue. To use Newton’s third law as a metaphor—for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So, what does this mean for the future of America?

Since aggression provokes fear, and fear promotes aggression, a dangerous feedback loop has been established, dividing the nation to such a degree that something like civil war seems imminent. It may be a “cold civil war,” but there will still be violence, destruction, and death. There will also be more gridlock in Washington, which makes any kind of progress impossible. It is hard to calculate the suffering that could have been avoided with a functional Congress, but we can be sure it is substantial. And if the division gets too severe, which is where we are headed, there will be a point of no return. Social chaos and economic collapse will follow, the United States will lose its status as a superpower, and life as we know it, will cease. If the pandemic showed us anything, it is that despite how advanced we are technologically, we are not protected from disaster, and our way of life can change overnight.

The good news is that this gloomy future is only inevitable should we choose not to intervene. But we do have to make a conscious effort to avoid catastrophe if we want any chance of being successful. I’m not talking about compromising, or forgiving, or forgetting—because we should do none of those things. I’m proposing something altogether new, something radical to stop Right-wing radicalism. But to understand the solution, and why it is necessary, we first have to get a clearer understanding of the problem, and of the predictive power of science.

The Predictive Power of Terror Management Theory

To those skeptics who consider a civil war of sorts an unlikely scenario, just ask yourself how likely any of the events mentioned above would have seemed in the pre-Trump era. Imagine taking a time machine back to 2014, and telling people that the reality show star Donald Trump would be our next president. That alone would sound ridiculous. Now imagine telling people that thousands of his supporters would storm the Capitol—many armed—in hopes of overturning the 2020 election. It would sound like some zany plot for an over-the-top comedy. Now imagine that after such event, and after trying to get his vice president killed, Trump would still own the Republican party and all of conservative media. On the surface, this outcome seems so improbable that it makes one doubt our ability to predict the future at all.

Despite how unlikely this general scenario might have seemed, I’m going to argue that it was in fact predictable with a high degree of statistical certainty, if one had the proper theoretical framework through which to understand those events as they were unfolding. That framework is called Terror Management Theory(TMT), and this paradigm from social psychology will be our sense-making lens in a time where nothing seems to make much sense.

Armed with the logic of Terror Management Theory, and an understanding of the relevant neuroscience, I was able to predict the rise of Trump, the white Nationalist movement that put him in office, the Q problem that led to the Capitol attack, and the refusal to accept the results of the election by Trump and his supporters—many months in advance. These predictions will be explained later in the article. No, I am not a psychic, but I did have a crystal ball called “science.”

Karl Popper, the father of the philosophy of science, said the riskier the prediction made by a scientific theory, the more convincing it is when that prediction comes true. And you can be sure that when I was making such predictions, in articles for websites like Raw StoryDaily Beast, and Psychology Today, they seemed to describe highly unlikely outcomes. That is, if one were getting their analyses from mainstream news media and professional statisticians unfamiliar with the effects of “mortality salience”—in other words, making people think about death, or making them feel that there is a looming existential threat. I bring up these predictions not to say “I told you so” or for bragging rights; rather, it is a plea for the reader to take the predictions of the theory seriously.

To understand how Terror Management Theory can be used to predict the collective behavior of a society when existential threat looms—whether that threat is ISIS, Right-wing terror, or the pandemic—a brief introduction is in order. If you are already familiar with the theory and its relevance to Trump supporter psychology from past articles published at Raw Story, know that this piece presents new insights and ties up many seemingly unrelated features of cognition in a way that illuminates precisely why everything happened the way it did. The Trump loyalist is a mystery we are about to unravel, and in doing so, we come to see that the average MAGA maniac had little choice over their behavior.

Cultural Worldviews are Death-Anxiety Buffers

Terror Management Theory, which was based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning book from the 1970s called The Denial of Death, has been supported by hundreds of psychology and neuroscience studies. According to the theory, most of human behavior is driven by our subconscious fear of death. Unlike most if not all other animals, we have an awareness that one day we will inevitably die, for reasons that are beyond our control. This realization leads to an existential fear that is always bubbling beneath the surface. Without any way to cope with that cold hard fact of life—or fact of death, I should say—it can be difficult to get up in the morning, and to go on living, knowing it is all in futility.

How do we deal with our fear of death and unrelenting existential angst? Through cultural worldviews.

According to TMT, as a way of dealing with persistent death anxiety, humans created cultural worldviews—like religions, national identities, and political ideologies—to ease our fears and distract us from the fact that we will soon be gone, and probably forgotten. These worldviews make us feel safe and permanent by providing paths to immortality.

Through the concept of an afterlife, religions make literal immortality possible, while political ideologies and national identities give us symbolic immortality. In other words, they make us feel like we’re part of a group and a movement that will outlive the individual. Worldviews also give life a meaning and a purpose. Whether we identify as Christian or Muslim or Buddhist, Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, we all belong to a tribe. Some tribes are just more ideologically extreme than others, and less accepting of outsiders. This applies even to atheists and anarchists, who are often just as ideological as the ideologies they are trying to escape.

So, worldviews are a double-edged sword: on one hand they give us direction and comfort, on the other they divide us into in-groups and out-groups, turning fellow humans into spiritual or political enemies. The unfortunate result is tribalism. Racism can be thought of as a specific type of tribalism, as tribalism proper would include other types of prejudice, like bias against people of other nationalities, religions, and political parties.

Tribalism, or loyalty to one’s social group and aggression toward outsiders, is bad enough when times are good, but when there is an atmosphere of existential fear lingering over society for whatever reason—terror attacks, political incompetence, or a pandemic—tribal behavior gets turned up to eleven. In response to mortality salience, we double-down on our beliefs and try to force them on dissimilar others, and if they resist, we try to punish them. Whether the purpose of this punishment is to enforce fairness or to get revenge is largely in the eye of the beholder.

Understanding racism as emergent from tribalism can make sense of many confusing things. For example, during the Capitol riot, footage from Fox News showed more than a few black protestors in the audience. CNN cameras showed practically none, and we will probably never know whether Fox was selectively focusing on the minorities in the crowd, or if CNN was selecting them out of shot, though we can reasonably assume the truth is probably somewhere in between. While the minorities appeared to be safe in the crowd of QAnons and Trump soldiers, Nancy Pelosi would have undoubtedly gotten mauled by the mob. This of course does not mean that many of the Alt-Right rioters were not racist—it simply means they interpreted the minorities in the crowd to be tribe defectors, and as long as they show allegiance to the Nationalist movement or conspiracy theory mindset that signals they belong to the right tribe, the white tribe, they are accepted.

While the Alt-Right is mostly composed of Christians and Republicans, their Christian-American worldview has evolved into the more-extreme philosophical framework outlined by the tribe leaders—Donald Trump, Q, and conservative talk show hosts looking to boost ratings. At the same time, these influencers are monitoring social media and gauging sentiment on the ground, so the views of the tribe members and leaders evolve together, and this coevolution is guided largely by the atmosphere of existential fear, which is enhanced by the fear mongering coming from the top. And then, Trump’s reassuring words, and Q’s perceived righteousness, provide scared and confused human beings with a philosophy that gives them comfort and purpose. It is difficult if not impossible to reach these people with reason alone, as reason is not going to make them feel safe or comforted or inspired. And if the reasoning is perceived as being based on principles from an opposing tribe’s worldview, they will flat out reject that logic on principle alone. That is not to say these people are completely unreachable—it’s just going to take a lot more than reasoning with them.

Predictions Come True

What were the sources of existential threat that created the conditions that would put an opportunist like Trump in the most powerful position in the world?

In 2016, I wrote an article for the website Aeon titled How the Fear of Death Makes People More Right-Wing, which argued that the Brexit and Trump movements were catalyzed by existential fear created by the string of ISIS attacks that had recently rocked the world. Prior to that essay, in January—almost a year before the election—I wrote an article for Raw Story called Donald Trump Has a Mental Disorder That Makes Him a Dangerous World Leader, which over the course of his presidency would receive upwards of 30 million views, making it the website’s most popular article ever published.

In July of 2016, when all the pundits and statisticians were predicting a blowout by Hillary Clinton, I published another article titled A Neuroscientist Explains Why Trump is Winning, and one month later another piece titled The More People Think About Death, the More They Think About Voting for Trump, which directly linked Terror Management Theory to Trump’s rabid support. A 2016 Daily Beast article along the same lines, called Why Do Some People Respond to Trump? It’s Biology 101, issued a warning for voters in its concluding paragraph:

“The rise of Trump has defied almost all logic. But he isn’t appealing to logic. He is appealing to our most basic survival instincts. Those include fear and the natural tendency to thrive and conquer. This presidential election will be an important test for our nation. We will see if we are evolved enough for our logic to overcome our instincts.”

Apparently we were not. Over the next few years, I would write more than a dozen articles on Trump-related psychology for Raw Story and Psychology Today that would receive millions of views, and land me offers of representation by fancy literary agencies, and media requests for appearances on popular web shows like the Young Turks’ Damage Report and the David Pakman Show.

In these interviews I described how Trump would respond as he began to lose power, based on insights from Terror Management Theory and the neuroscience of narcissism. Again, I deserve no special credit for these predictions; had I not been introduced to Terror Management Theory by a colleague, I would have been just as clueless as the pundits and statisticians. However, Ernest Becker, the cultural anthropologist who wrote The Denial of Death, and Sheldon Solomon, the psychologist who turned Becker’s idea into an actual testable theory, are prophets in my book. Prophets of death, I guess you’d call them.

A more recent article, posted in September of 2020 at Psychology Today, titled How Trump and Media Allies Target the Mentally Vulnerable, had another clear warning. The teaser text read, “We can expect that conspiracy theories will be weaponized this election (again).” In it I explain how Trump and Q targeted people with schizophrenia and related disorders, by exploiting their heightened sensitivity to patterns (which are often not actually there). In another article published around the same time, I warned that the division was getting so bad that we could expect the election results to be rejected by half of the country. Despite these dire predictions being widely broadcast, the future that the science was foreshadowing seemed to be unavoidable. Why? Because unless we can learn to mentally override our fears and biases, they will completely control us, and they will make us tribal. But we are not totally hopeless—if we understand the neuroscience underlying these phenomena, we can fight back.

The Prefrontal Cortex is the Source of “Free Will”

The kind of person who is likely to be a Trump extremist is also likely to have impaired or suboptimal brain function in an important region known as the prefrontal cortex. A healthily-functioning prefrontal cortex is what allows one to override their primitive instincts, to think rationally, and to respond to stressful events in a controlled manner, rather than being controlled by fear and reflexive behavior. It does this by arming the conscious agent with a higher form of self-regulation and control, known as cognitive control, executive control, or effortful control.

To be clear, impaired cognitive control is not just a problem we see with Right-wing radicals. It is connected to ideological extremism more generally, so poor prefrontal activation is a concern for Left and Right-wingers alike. In fact, this cognitive profile is also associated with stimulant and alcohol addiction, as well as mental illness, like schizophrenia. And in super stressful times, like during a pandemic, we all become mentally ill in some way (anxiety, depression, etc.), and therefore less in control of our biases and behavior, which limits our ability to act freely. Why? Because the cognitive mechanisms that normally allow us to do so dissolve, leaving us with only preprogrammed behavior.

While some people will claim that they have no racial biases, or any biases for that matter, a famous experiment called the implicit bias task reveals that almost all of us do, and there’s plenty of data to prove it. This bias affects how we process information and perceive the social world around us. However, this bias is subconscious and not easily detected with the naked eye. This has the unfortunate result of making it easy to ignore. Whether or not our implicit racial bias leads to overtly racist attitudes and behavior depends on an interplay between different brain areas—specifically the amygdala, which lights up when we experience something we perceive to be threatening, and the prefrontal cortex, whose job it is to regulate and suppress that fear response and the associated behavior. But if the prefrontal cortex isn’t working right, it can’t do its job.

Brain imaging studies have shown that people who display a stronger implicit bias have a stronger electrical response to black or other-race faces in the amygdala. An exaggerated amygdala response is part of what creates the sudden sensation of feeling scared. In people with healthy functioning brains, the fast amygdala response activates the prefrontal cortex, which is slower and plays a regulatory role. When the fear system is triggered, prefrontral areas work to assess the situation rationally, calming the mind and curbing fear-evoked behavior. Thanks to specific neural regions like the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and the anterior cingulate cortex, the brain exercises cognitive control, suppressing the tendency toward tribalism.

The problem is, not everyone has a properly functioning prefrontal cortex, and these people are the ones whose biases control them. They cannot reason those fearful surges away because they lack the mechanisms that make that kind of high-level reasoning possible. Since alcohol and amphetamine addiction can exacerbate this problem, Fox News viewers with such vices will be more vulnerable to the effects of fear mongering, and if they are given a “call to action” by a tribe leader like Trump or Q, more likely to act aggressively in an effort to push their worldview on others. Most supporters will stay home, but with many millions of followers tuned in, it is not surprising that a few thousand showed up to storm the Capitol.

So now that we understand the root cause of it all, perhaps we should view Trump and Q followers differently. They are not normal supporters, but more akin to cult members who have been radicalized by fear, their fates determined due to a lack of free will—which refers to our ability to override our primitive programming and tribal instincts. They are, in a sense, victims. They have been duped and brainwashed by rigid ideologies almost from the time of birth, and those ideologies have been weaponized by divisive politicians like Donald Trump. Does it make more sense to want to punish or fight these people, or to recognize them as agents who’ve lost their autonomy and ability to reason effectively?

The enemies are the influencers intentionally deceiving these vulnerable people, stoking their fears and fueling their biases. You may say some were racist, crazy, or ignorant before Trump, but we now see how that got that way. Politicians create fear and hatred for votes, Alex Jones does it for clicks, Fox does it for ratings, and QAnon does it for…chaos, I suppose. These are the people we must not let win. The actual followers are pawns in their game.

So, what can we do to release these people from the grips of their psychological captors?

The Path to Deradicalization

The solution is multi-faceted, and change won’t happen overnight. One major goal would be to alter the worldview and belief structure of the extremist, and another would be to strengthen their prefrontal cortex, so that the agent is in control, rather than being controlled by the primitive brain.

Fortunately, one fascinating feature of the brain is its plasticity—or ability to rewire itself in response to new information and experience throughout life. Through exposure to new stimuli, new synaptic connections can be formed, creating neural pathways that can promote a restructuring of old and rigid belief systems. To facilitate cognitive restructuring, meditation and attentional exercises can train the prefrontal cortex to attenuate a hyperactive amygdala and control those bad instincts. A campaign to make these kinds of practices commonplace should be a goal of scientists and educators. It is not easy, but it is certainly possible to reverse biased and even racist tendencies through cognitive interventionsCounterbias training has proven effective in making police officers more aware of their implicit biases, though enhanced awareness does not always immediately translate into changes in behavior.

That could require more extreme therapeutic measures, such as pharmacological treatments to reset the brain. Psilocybin, the ingredient in magic mushrooms, or LSD, supplemented with talk therapy could be an effective way to alter rigid worldviews and dissolve biases. In a 2016 article, I suggested LSD therapy for Donald Trump, and although the title may make one chuckle, I seriously believe it would be the most effective way to get Trump to understand the effects of the division he’s sowed. Psychedelics work by relaxing belief structures, so that the agent can “achieve a healthy revision of pathological beliefs,” to quote psychedelics researcher Robin Carhart-Harris. Unfortunately, this remedy would require that the extremist be open-minded enough to give such an experimental treatment a try. Given that the average Q follower is all about “waking up” and seeing reality as it is, it is not unreasonable to think that a psychedelics campaign could catch on in those communities. Studies have shown that the use of psychedelics is associated with a decrease in authoritarian political views and an increase in views associated with liberalism, like open-mindedness and empathy (though one could argue some “liberals” today have neither of these). These drugs work by dissolving the ego, making one feel more connected to nature and to others.

But the real problem is that our most popular worldviews—the major religions, political ideologies, and national identities—divide us into tribes, and emphasize our differences rather than our similarities and shared human interests. If Terror Management Theory is correct, then the obvious solution is a new cultural and political worldview that unites us all under a common existential goal: the continued survival, progress, and eventually, the outward expansion of humanity. This worldview is called the Cosmic Perspective, and I have outlined it in a Psychology Today blog post titled, Could a ‘Cosmic Religion’ Unite a Divided Nation? You can learn about how the Cosmic Perspective naturally emerges from Terror Management Theory in this YouTube video on my channel (Road to Omega), Trump Divided America—Here’s How We Heal.

Part of being liberal means being compassionate, but this is just as much about practicality as it is empathy. There’s really no other choice than trying to make things better. I’ll be playing my part by creating more content aimed at coming together—call it propaganda for a psychedelic revolution. Coming together does not mean meeting in the middle—as extreme centrism can be just as counterproductive as any other kind of extremism. We need radical solutions that push us forward, and we cannot go forward if we’re at war.

If you’d like to be part of the solution, subscribe to my Substack newsletter, Road to Omega, which is a project aimed at fighting misinformation, healing division, and redistributing wealth and power in America. The project will be tokenized with NFTs (non-fungible tokens), and token holders will benefit from the project’s success, so there is value in participating.

Simply stated, Road to Omega is an effort to save the world with science and epistemology. The plan entails:

  • healing the division in America and abroad by fighting tribalism
  • fighting misinformation with a logical reasoning system
  • decentralizing wealth and power with blockchain technology
  • creating a new political party based on self-correction
  • unifying the sciences with a new kind of “Theory of Everything”
  • dissolving the boundary between science and spirituality
  • developing a “religion for robots” that provides a code of ethics for AIs

If you’d like to read more about Road to Omega before subscribing, check out the first Substack newsletter—a plan to save the world with science and epistemology—here. This post lays out the plan in detail and tells you how you can get involved. Alternatively, you can read the much shorter About page.Aside from the newsletter, I will be continuing to publish articles at Raw Story along the same lines, so stay tuned!

Bobby Azarian is a neuroscientist affiliated with George Mason University and a freelance journalist. His research has been published in journals such as Cognition & Emotion and Human Brain Mapping, and he has written for The New York Times, The Atlantic, Psychology Today, and Scientific American. Follow him on Twitter @BobbyAzarian.

Devout Christians are much more likely to fall for QAnon conspiracies: poll

Although QAnon isn’t a religious movement per se, the far-right conspiracy theorists have enjoyed some of their strongest support from White evangelicals — who share their adoration of former President Donald Trump. And polling research from The Economist and YouGov shows that among those who are religious, White evangelicals are the most QAnon-friendly.

The Economist explains, “One prominent theory is that Americans who have no religious affiliation find themselves attracted to other causes, such as the Q craze. Another, posited by Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska, is that modern strains of Christian evangelicalism which ‘run on dopey apocalypse-mongering’ do not entirely satisfy all worshippers — and so, they go on to find community and salvation in other groups, such as QAnon. Using The Economist’s polling with YouGov, an online pollster, we can test both of these theories.”

Sasse’s willingness to call out “dopey apocalypse-mongering” among some White evangelicals shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of religion in general. The conservative Nebraska Republican draws a distinction between extremists and non-extremists within Christianity. And the Economist/YouGov poll underscores the fact that among Christians, one finds a variety of opinions where QAnon is concerned.

“From July 10 to July 13, 2021, YouGov asked Americans their racial and religious affiliations, whether they thought of QAnon favorably or unfavorably and whether they believed in a variety of popular conspiracy theories,” The Economist notes. “Those theories included old stand-bys, such as whether the moon landing in 1969 was faked.”

The Economist continues: “According to YouGov’s recent polling, which we combined with an earlier survey from March to obtain a larger sample size, Americans who attend church the least are also the least likely to have a favorable view of QAnon. Among those who say they ‘never’ go to church, just 9% who have heard of the QAnon conspiracy view it favorably. Fully 92% of these respondents view it unfavorably — a net favorability of minus 83 percentage points.”

According to The Economist, “The rating among people who attend church the most — once a month or more — is minus 52 points.”

“We ran a statistical model to control for potential links between attitudes towards QAnon and other demographics — such as race, age, gender, education, party affiliation and vote choice in 2020,” The Economist notes. “Our model confirmed that the relationship between church attendance and QAnon was not a statistical fluke: adults who attended church at least once a month were eight percentage points more likely than we predicted to rate QAnon favorably.”

The Economist didn’t find that QAnon is universally loved within Christianity by any means, but it did find that among Christians, White evangelicals are the most likely to be QAnon-friendly.

“White evangelicals, the most religiously devout group among those surveyed by YouGov, are particularly susceptible to supporting QAnon and believing other conspiracy theories,” The Economist reports. “They also tend to attend church frequently. Twenty-two percent of evangelicals who know about QAnon view it favorably, according to YouGov’s numbers — compared with 11% among the rest of the adult population. At the other end of the spectrum, 24% of evangelicals rate QAnon as ‘very unfavorable,’ compared with 58% among other people.”

QAnon believes that the U.S. government has been infiltrated by an international cabal of child sex traffickers, pedophiles, Satanists and cannibals and that Trump was elected president in 2016 to fight the cabal. And as extreme as QAnon’s beliefs are, some of their supporters are serving in Congress. Republican QAnon supporters who have been elected to the U.S. House of Representatives include Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado — and Michael Flynn, who briefly served as national security adviser under Trump in 2017, was a featured speaker at a QAnon event in Dallas.

Among White evangelicals, The Economist observes, a fondness for conspiracy theories isn’t limited to those promoted by QAnon.

“White evangelicals are 34 percentage points more likely than other Americans to believe that ‘millions of illegal votes’ were cast in the 2020 election,” according to The Economist. “These adults also tend to be more conservative, and vote for Republican politicians more often than non-Whites and members of other religious groups do. Evangelicals are influenced by the official party line on issues of the day — even if they are conspiratorial. And adoption of one wild theory, perhaps made more persuasive by a politician’s avowals, tends to lead to the adoption of others.”

“Jeopardy!” is likely naming this man you never heard of as host – apparently the job was always his

All told, 2021 has been a miserable year for the hopeful. We hoped vaccines would brighten the light that marks the end of our pandemic tunnel, only to realize that what we were seeing was a gap between tunnels; enjoy the view while we have it.

We thought that moral arc of the universe might finally be bending back toward justice, as one of our greatest heroes once assured us. Various courts have since let us know that nope, ’twas merely a small crick against the doomsday direction in which we were previously heading. We’re right back on track, don’t you fret.

We thought that a fan-fueled campaign, backed by a modest amount of media support, might lead to LeVar Burton taking over as the host of “Jeopardy!,” inheriting the role made iconic by the late Alex Trebek, who succumbed to cancer in November 2020.

And if it didn’t go to Burton, maybe one of the women who auditioned would get it. Robin Roberts turned in a strong showing, after all. “Big Bang Theory” real-life brainiac Mayim Bialik was excellent. Of course, none of those choices seem as much as a shoo-in as “Jeopardy!” champion of champions Ken Jennings.

Naturally, when presented with the opportunity to select one of two beloved actors with solid, respectable ties to academia, or an award-winning Black female journalist, or the man who destroyed all comers in a winning streak that lasted for 74 games, Variety reports that executives at Sony Pictures Television have started “advanced negotiations” to pass Trebek’s mantle to . . . Mike Richards.

No, not the guy who played Kramer on “Seinfeld.” Mike Richards, the show’s executive producer. The 46-year-old executive who told Broadcasting + Cable back in May that they were looking for a host with a “20-year horizon and who can focus on the show and make it great over that time.” Not long after that interview he must have caught his own reflection in the mirror and confidently muttered to himself, “My God . . . it’s me.”

This is a move straight out of Dick Cheney’s playbook, or the 2011 comedy “Horrible Bosses.”

According to a Variety report that broke on Wednesday, Richards is starting the process of taking over as host. On Thursday CNN’s Brian Stelter seconded this, characterizing the situation as “effectively a done deal.”

I wish I could say that I am surprised at this but honestly I’m not. This is for a number of reasons other than the fact that it’s 2021, the year that wants us to know we can never have nice things.

For one thing, I have been alive for long enough to know that this is how the world works. Whenever any job associated with an institution opens up after being held by the same person for decades, the people with the power to fill that job more than likely know who they want for it.

Sony Pictures Television had more than a year to blue-sky who their top picks would be. Jennings was certainly in the mix, and according to those reports, is still at the top of list.

But Sony telegraphed this move early on when it had Richards host right after Jennings’ seven-week run. That struck me as something of a stop-gap while production got its list of prospective hosts together; indeed, the stated reason that Richards stepped in for two weeks was to keep the production going while they found candidates willing to emerge from their pandemic isolation to come on a set with strangers.

Jennings did fine during his run. However, on a show that prides itself on making the contestants the stars, having the GOAT as its permanent host ensures that in some respects he would always overshadow them. 

When Richards followed, he reminded viewers of what Trebek did so well, not by channeling or imitating the late host, but adopting a manner and demeanor that recalled the way Trebek struck a balance between engaging with contestants while staying out of their way.

And Richards has plenty of on camera experience, having hosted reality shows such as “High School Reunion” and “Beauty and the Geek,” as well as the GSN game shows “The Pyramid” and “Divided.”   His credits as an executive producer include the revival of “Let’s Make a Deal” and the special celebrity editions of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.”

He’s also one of the executive producers on “The Price Is Right” named in several gender discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuits filed by that show’s models, including the famous 2010 complaint brought by Brandi Cochran that resulted in A Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarding her $7,763,440 in damages. Among other allegations, Cochran said that she noticed the maltreatment other women suffered after becoming pregnant, and claimed Richards stopped speaking with her as frequently and implied she would have been fired if she hadn’t kept her own pregnancy a secret.

Another “Price Is Right” model, Lanisha Cole, alleged a 2011 complaint that among other insults, Richards hindered her exposure on the show by creating policies that hadn’t existed before and ignored her in favor of another model, with whom he was having a relationship.

Returning to the matter at hand, though: Richards really nailed his two weeks.

Around that time the initial list of guest hosts had been released but most of the selections struck me as lovely tributes and/or theater.

Also, do you remember who wasn’t on that first list? LeVar Burton.

Now: you could surmise that the “Jeopardy!” producers wanted to create some drama with that decision, but let’s be real. The show was aware of the petition campaigning for Burton’s hire. It began late last year.

Once Burton was added to a subsequent list of guest hosts, that generated more publicity for him and the show, although obviously his desire get the hosting gig was and is genuine . . . although his tryout week was not his finest performance. He also only received one week, whereas most of the other guests hosts got two and weren’t programmed against the Summer Olympics.

Not that any of that matters. A few things were against Burton from the jump, topmost being his level of stardom.

Remember the whole point of “Jeopardy!” is to make its contenders the stars of the show, a quality Trebek took very seriously. He may have been its star, but he innovated a way of hosting that was low-key and comforting. The legend was quite secure regarding his intellect; that came across in his stage presence, too. But he didn’t lord is over other people.  

Burton has a low-key, comforting personality too. But he’ll forever be associated with his other roles which, along with being 64 years old, would have doomed his chances regardless of how smoothly or poorly his week went. Never mind the fact that the shows for which we know him best – “Star Trek: The Next Generation” and “Reading Rainbow” – are beloved and aligned with the “Jeopardy!” ideals of rewarding knowledge and curiosity.

Burton could have hosted flawlessly while juggling disco balls and directing a trio of dancing poodles. It wouldn’t have mattered, apparently. I’m guessing the job was Richards’ long before he set foot on that set.

When I originally wrote about Burton’s tryout week, I contemplated including an observation about the danger of assuming he was a natural choice because of his qualifications, and because selecting him would show the producers’ willingness to break the chain of white maleness that has long run through trivia shows like “Jeopardy!” Hiring Burton, or Bialik or Roberts, would signify a commitment to progress. Plus, it would have been uplifting move.

I use the word danger because I recalled the sensation of the collective gut punch dealt earlier this year in a different industry competition: Remember when we all thought Chadwick Boseman was going to get that best actor Oscar? It went to Anthony Hopkins for “The Father,” and quite deservedly. Every best actor nominee deserves an Oscar. But that was Hopkins’ second Oscar win, and Boseman’s last and only chance to win one, since he also died last year.

Apples and oranges, sure. Except it’s all from the same fruit stand.

Richards was selected despite the many cases made for “Jeopardy!” to display some commitment to diversity by selecting a woman or a person of color. That’s a lovely idea, but Sony was never going to do that.

Richards previously said that stability is one of the show’s calling cards, so his selection shows the world that a “smooth transition” rooted in familiarity is more important than potentially rocking any boats.

He’ll require an acclimation period, as any new person would. Revelations of his past harassment claims are already emerging, but in a year that saw convicted rapist Bill Cosby released from prison on a technicality, will past allegations of Richards being a misogynistic, harrassing manager matter to most people? Probably not.

Richards knows how to guide the game, how to keep the time, the cadence, everything. There’s no need for a “breaking in” period. He’s ready to jump in because he’s the younger guy who has always been there. It’s his time. Isn’t that how the world works . . . for some people? 

In summary: Richards makes sense for “Jeopardy!” because this is a show that doesn’t need a star and has no intention to change the world – or change, really, at all.

The job was always his.

The rest was just for show.

Trump urges supporters to buy misspelled “membership” cards with image resembling Nazi logo

Former President Donald Trump reportedly encouraged supporters in an email Wednesday to help choose a design for a “membership” card, meant to signal the holder’s loyalty to Trump and his “America First” vision. 

But people quickly noticed a few problems with the designs — the word “official” was misspelled on one, and another featured an eagle logo that bore an uncanny resemblance to the Nazi eagle emblem first used by the party in 1920s Germany.

The call to action was included in at least two emails sent by Trump’s Save America PAC, according to Insider, which first reported the news. 

“We recently met with the President in his Florida office and showed him four designs,” one read. “Originally we were planning on releasing just one design, but when President Trump saw the cards on his desk, he said, ‘These are BEAUTIFUL. We should let the American People decide – they ALWAYS know best!'”

The email went on to say that the cards would only be “reserved for President Trump’s STRONGEST supporters” and “will be carried by Patriots all around the Country.”

Of the four red-and-black designs, one features a gold eagle with its wings outstretched, another shows the U.S. Seal, and a third is set on a backdrop with an image of the U.S. flag waving. All include Trump’s signature in a prominent position.

The flag card was also emblazoned with “Trump Offical [sic] Card,” quickly sparking mockery online. 

“Nothing spells official quite like… misspelling ‘official.'” anti-Trump Republican group The Lincoln Project tweeted.

“Sure, they’re Nazis, but they’re not grammar Nazis,” comedian Nick Pappas added.

Others noticed the resemblance of Trump’s golden eagle to another logo used by Hitler and the German Nazi party — though that symbol also includes a swastika.

“Trying to think where I have seen the new Trump Card insignia before,” author Amy Siskind tweeted.

It’s unclear when the physical cards would be issued, if ever — though it’s just the latest scheme in a long line of fundraising gimmicks used by Trumpworld. 

Most notably, the former president’s re-election campaign guided supporters into recurring donations in ways that some argue are illegal. Insider also reported that another email last month offered Trump supporters a signed photo of the former president himself for $45.

In total, estimates suggest that Trump has netted at least $100 million this year on political fundraising, if you add new donations to leftover cash from his 2020 campaign.

A farewell to harms: Meghan McCain exits “The View” but may have tainted it forever

The end of this week marks the end of an era for the millions of people who tune into “The View” for their daily spleen-venting courtesy of outgoing co-host Meghan McCain. After Friday’s telecast we won’t have her to kick around anymore. Not on a near-daily basis, anyway. (In the near term she’s signed on to executive produce a Lifetime biopic starring Heather Locklear.)

But McCain’s official departure from “The View,” which she announced on the air July 1, leaves daytime television’s most politically influential talk show without its “sacrificial Republican,” as she once claimed to be in a fit of self-pity. Whatever will we do without the sustaining power of her wingnut-flavored granola?  

To “The View,” McCain was more than a spout of parbaked twaddle delivered with tell-it-like-it-is confidence. She was a voice of false equivalency and “but what about”-ism, representing America’s extreme right-wing Karens. Occasionally she would vanish when a guest with whom she didn’t want to engage appeared. But she wasn’t just a purveyor of half-truths and Fox News talking points. She offered the very important perspective of women who make everything all about them.

Whether a given episode’s Hot Topics concerned reproductive rights, identity politics, voting rights, cancel culture, protests against police brutality, anti-Asian violence, or anything related to the pandemic – especially as it pertains to who’s to blame for stagnating vaccination rates (hint: it’s Republicans, Meghan!) – McCain always found a way to redirect the road trip right back to her doorstep.

Except, that is, on the topic of nepotism. For that, she had bright orange detour signs to redirect us.

“I think my work and my work ethic speaks for itself,” the daughter of the late Arizona Senator John McCain declared last week while addressing Ben Stiller’s assertion that Hollywood is a meritocracy offered in defense of a group of moguls’ kids planning to make a movie together.

Anyway, this week she accused CNN’s Chris Cuomo of “the worst kind of nepotism that the media has an example of” for not covering the civil investigation that found his brother, New York governor Andrew Cuomo, guilty of sexual harassment on his show. So there.

Four years’ worth of her eyebrow-raising blurts made “The View” a central media attraction. But that wasn’t entirely about her. Whoopi Goldberg’s confused and horrified reactions at her opinions were GIF goldmines. Joy Behar’s acerbic rebuttals and outright smackdowns and Sunny Hostin’s educational reads gave life to late-night comedy monologues and slow news days.

For people who live to drag dumb takes on social media, McCain and the conflict she created were reliable ways of bumping up in an era that’s generally bummed us out. She was exhausting, but what she brought out in Behar, Goldberg and Hostin made for memorably entertaining TV.

But entertaining TV isn’t necessarily good for healthy discourse. Often its effects are the opposite, tilting what should be illuminating exchanges into street brawls.

“The View” has lasted for 24 seasons and cycled nearly two dozen co-hosts through the New York City studios where it’s been produced. The show will certainly outlast McCain. Remaining to be seen is whether the havoc she regularly wrought since joining in 2017 will permanently change its chemistry, much in the way some drugs can permanently alter brain function.

In this scenario, the drug is frivolous anger.

Anger is a natural human emotion – healthy even, in the right circumstances. A motivator, when applied purposefully. Angry gets s**t done.

Frivolous anger functions differently, acting more like an opioid than a benign stimulant. The longer that it’s intravenously pumped into our systems, the more difficult it is to quit. Anyone who survived the last five years knows this all too well.

But we can’t overlook the fact that Donald Trump injected anger into “The View” via Rosie O’Donnell back in the mid-aughts. The feud he picked with her bled into the show and eventually destroyed her relationship with that era’s supposed sacrificial Republican Elizabeth Hasselbeck.

You can still watch the 10-minute, May 2007 slugfest  that resulted in O’Donnell quitting the show directly afterward. People really should, because it’s instructive. It marks the start of a reformulation that eventually brought McCain, previously a host on Fox News’ “Outnumbered,” into mainstream America’s living rooms.

Hasselbeck, a post 9/11 conservative during George W. Bush’s administration, wasn’t especially beloved in her day either. “We used to fight on the air all the time,” she recalls in a 2019 visit to “The View” to promote her new book. McCain is downright bubbly in that clip, laughing enthusiastically and jovially chirping, “What’s that like? I don’t know!”

Behar answers with, “It’s a little different. But truthfully, we never fought backstage. See, that’s the difference.” At this, a wave of  “oh no she di-int” ooooh -ing fills the place.

“‘The View’ has become an influential political talk show because it isn’t one,” Amanda FitzSimons wrote in 2019, part of an expansive New York Times Magazine profile of the show, it hosts and its political and cultural influence.

FitzSimons was referring to the stealthy potency of the show’s cultural heft, which has evolved from the idea-exchanging kaffeeklatsch the show’s creator Barbara Walters originally envisioned into a political opinion battleground, sometimes friendly but often not entirely. The secret sauce, other than the show’s careful co-host curation, is the moderator’s ability to prevent episodes from descending into complete bitterness.

This was easier to do when everyone was in the same room, sharing a table. Having to look your co-workers in the eye tends to lower the temperature in most interactions. Beaming each co-host in remotely during the pandemic only exacerbated the rifts present since McCain joined the cast.

Without a live audience reminding the co-hosts that people at home were watching, and with the editing filling the screen with Behar’s and Goldberg’s unfiltered reactions to McCain’s pop-offs, “The View” merged into some combination of a sideshow and a pile-on.  

When Twitter or CNN react to headline-making moments “The View” generates on any given day the topic of discussion is secondary to the bickering.

We remember when McCain called Behar a bitch on the air, but can you recall the circumstances? More recently Whoopi and McCain degenerated into a back and forth of “I don’t care that you don’t care,” but who can cite what everyone wasn’t caring about off the top of their head?

Who cares? 

Everyone singing the “ding-dong” song from “The Wizard of Oz” has a right to enjoy whatever the relative silence her absence yields. Then we should be concerned about who or what takes McCain’s place.

An analysis in The Wrap states that McCain’s tenure with “The View” did not result in a substantial ratings boost, although the show’s audience has been holding steady where other shows have weathered audience erosion – especially its CBS daytime rival, “The Talk.”

Indeed, according to Nielsen ratings, “The View” is experiencing its best season since McCain joined, leading daytime among total viewers and households for the first time in the show’s history. (The trade publication’s article credits the 2020 election cycle for this, which I agree with.)

That she juiced the daytime talker’s social engagement level is indisputable. Seeing the program’s hashtag trend on Twitter is enough to elicit a Pavlovian response at delighting in whatever new memes may have resulted in that day’s smackdown.

It’s equally as likely, though, that whatever she said or did created another opportunity to enjoy anew the famous “one of these things is not like the other” tile screenshot of the other hosts laughing as she scowls in the lower corner. Either way, it got people talking, which has currency to ABC.

In the same way television news coverage slid steadily rightward in reaction to Fox News’ ascent, McCain’s success in securing attention for “The View” raises the probability that its next right-wing representative will be even more divisive and less capable of good-faith debate. (Imagine someone like Tomi Lahren taking McCain’s position. Behar might spontaneously combust before our eyes.)

Debate is a conversational artform the show tossed out some time ago without losing our attention, so why fix that dysfunction? Something about it seems to be working.

On the other hand, the strength of “The View” has long rested in its ability to strike a liberal-leaning centrist conversational tone that combines disparate paradigms, often with volatility and good humor. Should the producers find a reasonable, right-tacking conservative unicorn with a fierce, informed perspective who can disagree with her colleagues, but who doesn’t come off like a caustic lunatic (best of luck with that star search!) she may reinvigorate the show’s dynamic.

People would still despise her. Twitter will have that woman for lunch. But maybe she’ll win something for herself and that McCain was never capable of doing: a modicum of respect.

Ding-dong.

The silkiest pasta sauce from any vegetable you’ve got

Every week in Genius Recipes — often with your help! — Food52 Founding Editor and lifelong Genius-hunter Kristen Miglore is unearthing recipes that will change the way you cook.

* * *

This recipe started as the white flag in a feud with eggplant—its sponge-ish behavior, its peculiar demands for salt-leaching and vigilant frying — but it turns out to be a technique that can help you melt just about any vegetable into a rich, pasta-hugging sauce.

Francis Lam, the host of The Splendid Table and the vice president and editor in chief of Clarkson Potter, first wrote about the technique in 2009 for Gourmet’s website, and later for Salon’s, and — later still — I included it in the first “Genius Recipes” cookbook.

But for the first time, for this week’s video and podcast, I got to hear more from Francis about the genesis of the recipe and all the other liberating dinners we could be eking from it, in summer and beyond.

No thanks to culinary school, Francis had thought there was only one right way to cook eggplant, and every summer, in the name of ratatouille, he’d go to battle with the fruit that is apparently also a vegetable (1). He’d salt, he’d cube, he’d oven-sear uncrowded batch after uncrowded batch, willing them not to smear into a pulp.

But after tasting a proudly ugly eggplant pasta at a restaurant in Rome (“a truly homely specimen” (2)), he wrote, “Why fight the eggplant and try to get neat, seared cubes? Let it be what it wants to be! Let it turn to mush! Let it soak up oil! Let us all be frank with ourselves.”

In addition to this permission to relax, the keys to Francis’ technique are, for starters, flavorful friends like garlic and thyme, and plenty of olive oil to carry them. Then, after a lazy, mostly covered simmer with a little liquid to help vegetable become sauce, all that’s needed is a little prodding with a wooden spoon to finish the job.

And while eggplant is especially agreeable to drinking up garlicky, herby oil (and subsequently collapsing), you shouldn’t stop there. As The Wednesday Chef blogger Luisa Weiss wisely pointed out back in 2010, Francis’ basic method can be applied to just about any vegetable you’re not sure what to do with — some will just take more time or liquid to nudge them along.

Here are a few ideas to get you started: Luisa suggested zucchini with mint or parsley, or cauliflower with red pepper flakes (and Parm for both). On the podcast, Francis came up with everything from chile oil to capers to MSG for the eggplant. I’m ready to break out Marc Matsumoto’s grated dried shiitakes again, with a yellow pepper that’s been side-eyeing me all week.

***

Recipe: Pasta With Silkiest Eggplant Sauce From Francis Lam

Prep time: 25 minutes
Cook time: 25 minutes
Serves: 4 as a main course, 6 as a starter

Ingredients

  • Salt
  • 1 pound (450 grams) eggplant, cut into 1/2-inch (1.3-centimeter) slices
  • 1/3 cup (80 milliliters) extra-virgin olive oil, plus more to finish
  • 3 garlic cloves, lightly smashed
  • Leaves from 2 sprigs thyme or oregano, chopped
  • 1 cup (240 milliliters) stock or water (Lam even uses water leftover from cooking lentils)
  • 1 pound (450 grams) long pasta (spaghetti, linguine, whatever floats your boat)
  • 2 tablespoons minced sun-dried tomatoes
  • 6 leaves basil, cut into a chiffonade
  • Freshly ground black pepper

Directions

  1. Lightly salt the slices of eggplant, stack them back together, and let it all hang out for 20 minutes. This will season it and water will drop out, allegedly removing the bitterness, if it’s there.
  2. Meanwhile, pour the olive oil into a wide, heavy saucepan, add the garlic cloves, and set over low heat. You’re just trying to get them friendly with one another, so don’t worry if nothing happens for a while.
  3. Dry off the eggplant and cut it into chunks. When you start hearing the garlic sizzle a little and can smell it, drop in your eggplant and stir to coat it all with oil. Turn up the heat a little bit to medium-high, add the thyme, and stir. When the eggplant starts to turn translucent and soften, add the liquid and let it come to a boil, then turn it back down to medium-low. Let it bubble for a bit and cover it, leaving a crack for steam to escape. Stir once in a while, so the bottom doesn’t stick.
  4. While the eggplant is softening, bring a large pot of water to boil, salt it, and cook the pasta to al dente.
  5. While the pasta is boiling, check on the eggplant. The liquid should be mostly absorbed or reduced after about 20 minutes. Once it looks mashable, mash it up with a spoon and adjust the seasoning with salt and pepper to taste. It should be silky-smooth and garlicky and humming with oil.
  6. Drain the pasta and toss with the eggplant purée. Stir in the tomatoes, basil, and pepper and gild the lily with some more oil to serve.

(1) It’s a vegetable because we said so, writes our Kitchen Scientist columnist Nik Sharma.

(2) Beauty may be in the eye of the hungry. As my husband walked by the copy of the Genius Recipes book splayed open to this page, he said, “That looks so good.”

How Le Creuset nails the art of colorful cookware

There’s a scene in the movie “Julie & Julia” in which Meryl Streep, playing the inimitable Julia Child, is bustling around her Paris kitchen. She dips a spoon into a fiery red-orange casserole dish for a quick taste, decides to add a dash of salt, and moves on to tend to a boiling pot of cannelloni. Cut to another scene where Amy Adams, playing food blogger Julie Powell, is laboring over a pot of beef bourguignon in her New York City apartment. Set decades apart, the two scenes share one unmistakable visual detail — a vibrantly colored Le Creuset on the stove.

For the better part of the last century, Le Creuset’s Dutch ovens have been both a cookware luxury and kitchen staple for home cooks and professional chefs alike. The brand changed the way many approached cooking by reinventing a utilitarian item in a way that combined form and function with flair. Equipped with a double-coated enamel engineered to resist dulling, staining, and even chipping, Le Creuset’s Dutch ovens were always durable, yes, but their colors lent them something even more distinctive — personality.

It all started with the color Volcanique (or Flame, as we now know it), which was inspired by the intense orange glow of molten cast iron — and the tonal variation as it cooled and hardened. While Flame remains a best-seller, the French cookware company has since introduced more than 200 colorways in both matte and metallic finishes. You’ll find colors like Artichaut, an “opulent green that is born of the garden,” and Oyster, a gray-brown sheen with a hint of iridescence. Then there’s the personalization offered by colorful knobs that can be swapped in to accentuate certain tones: think of a light blue pot with a gold-finished topper.

The process of color production at Le Creuset is as complex as it is unique. It begins with a fair amount of trend forecasting with the help of partners around the world who track global events, cultural movements, and design trends and help distill them into micro trends. These trends are then translated into visual and design cues, and undergo an internal process of development and experimentation, which eventually turns them into fresh color launches.

From there, the Le Creuset’s color lab and foundry, located in in Fresnoy-le-Grand in the North of France, take over — and regardless of the target hue, the end result is always at the mercy of science. “At the highest level, you’re trying to create colors from materials that inherently don’t like each other — and you want to get them to bond,” says Le Creuset’s vice president of marketing, Christopher Scinto.

That bonding process of cast iron and glass — the components that make up the cookware — produces a chemical reaction. The compounds, which are then used to create the colors, will change that initial reaction, and it doesn’t always go as planned. The next step is to get each layer of color to chemically bond with one another. The enamel may bond with the cast iron, but that doesn’t mean that the secondary colors are going to bond with the base color. For that reason, it’s virtually impossible to ever match a Le Creuset shade to a Pantone chip.

And while there have been the occasional off-base results (softer neutrals are particularly tricky to achieve through the chemical process), the brand has also found itself with hues that exceeded all expectations. An example is the recently launched Agave, which features a cross-color gradient — a first for the Le Creuset. It begins as a lush green that fades into a striking blue, creating a beautiful ombré effect.

“The brand is continually researching ways to create lively, unexpected color combinations,” says Scinto. And while Le Creuset releases at least one new colorway every year, they are always intentional with each new tone they introduce.

To date, Cerise is their most popular color across the globe. Described as a luscious cherry red, exuding passion with a timeless attitude, it joins a host of new warm colorways like Nectar and Cayenne — a golden yellow and a zesty red-orange, respectively. On the cooler end of the spectrum, blues reign supreme, like the ever-popular Marseille, which emulates the hues of the southern French coast. When it comes to neutrals, Meringue, which is inspired by towers of meringues at a Parisian patisserie, is a crowd favorite.

Generationally, it’s been found that those who are investing in their first Le Creuset tend to shy away from the over-saturated primary colors in favor of neutrals like Oyster, Meringue, and Licorice (a sophisticated matte black). This contemporary palette of colors is relatively new for the brand. “We researched kitchen design trends, and of the 4 million new kitchens produced per year, they all largely end up being neutral-toned, which makes for a great base for people to build off of,” says Scinto.

At a time when so many of our buying decisions relating to home are motivated by design, cookware can be an easy way to usher in a fresh dose of color into the kitchen, without having to resort to a more drastic change. “We like to think of it as jewelry for the kitchen,” says Le Creuset’s territory manager, Dena Engelhardt. “Human beings are visually motivated, so why wouldn’t we want to surround ourselves with beautiful items that can engage us?”

Lauren Boebert says her late-night Capitol mystery tour was “totally legit.” Except it wasn’t

As Salon reported exclusively on Wednesday, Rep. Lauren Boebert, the Colorado Republican known for her fervent pro-gun positions and tireless support of Donald Trump, led a mysterious late-night family tour of the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 12, three weeks before she became a member of Congress. Although Salon’s report was illustrated with photos of Boebert’s family members at the Capitol on the day in question, she told the Daily Mail that the story was “false.” 

In that interview with the Daily Mail, Boebert continued, “Now, Salon is pushing this false story in what amounts to nothing more than clickbait. Here are the facts. The House Ethics Committee cleared me of these unfounded accusations, no reconnaissance tour occurred, and Salon continues to be a lying rag.”

Salon’s article did not allege or imply that Boebert led a “reconnaissance tour,” and made clear that she has repeatedly denied that suggestion. Her Capitol tour on Dec. 12 was clearly a family visit, but exactly how and why it occurred — after hours and apparently with no member of Congress or official guide present, as Capitol rules clearly stipulate — remains unexplained.

In a subsequent Wednesday evening interview with Salon, Boebert admitted that she had in fact led the Dec. 12 tour, but without explaining the circumstances. 

When this reporter identified himself, Boebert responded, “The rag publication!” She then said her team doesn’t “talk to” this reporter, adding, “Yeah, I guess, have fun writing your stories.” 

Asked whether she denies the after-hours Dec. 12 Capitol tour and what exactly was false in Salon’s reporting, Boebert responded, “Um, that’s my son and my mom. I was walking through the Capitol, which is totally legit for a member-elect.”

In fact, there does not appear to be any provision in Capitol rules for tours led by members-elect. Furthermore, tours led by actual members are only supposed to occur on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., not on weekends or at night.

Boebert denied that the tour had violated Capitol rules, but did not explain how it was arranged or who had authorized a tour at an unusual hour under unusual circumstances. “It was totally permitted,” she said. “There were no restrictions against it, nor are there now. So, I mean fake news.” She then cut the call short, saying, “Sorry. See you later, you lose.” 

As Salon noted in the initial report, a maskless Capitol Police officer apparently accompanied Boebert’s mother and teenage son to the observation deck at the top of the Capitol Dome, and appears in a photo taken by a fourth person, presumably Boebert herself.

It would seem reasonable to conclude that Boebert’s extraordinary family tour must have been approved by a high-level government official, either in Congress or the Trump White House, but no evidence of that has emerged to this point.

Salon has been unable to confirm the identity of the police officer seen in Boebert’s family photo, and the Capitol Police have not responded to numerous requests for clarification. 

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem returns to ride at Sturgis motorcycle rally during major COVID spike

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, a Republican, is expected to attend the state’s 81st annual Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, an event that was deemed a superspreader event last year, despite the recent uptick in COVID-19 cases this year. 

The event is scheduled to bring around 700,000 people – a marked 200,000-person increase from the prior year. Last year’s smaller charity ride “had many characteristics of a superspreading event,” according to a report by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, which noted that the rally “generated public health costs of approximately $12.2 billion.” The rally, they estimated, may have resulted in the infection of about 250,000 Americans nationwide. 

At the time, Noem dismissed the report, saying that it “isn’t science; it’s fiction.” She added: “Under the guise of academic research, this report is nothing short of an attack on those who exercised their personal freedom to attend Sturgis.”

According to AP News, Noem – who has repeatedly flouted public health guidelines and even criticized governors who heeded them – is set to make an appearance at the event, which starts on Friday and is expected to generate $800 million in revenue, per the state’s Department of Tourism.

Dr. Michael Osterholm, the head of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, expressed significant concern that the event might trigger yet another wave of hospitalizations throughout the country.

“I understand how people want to move on from this pandemic — God knows I want to — but the reality is you can’t ignore it,” Osterholm told AP. “You can’t just tell the virus you’re done with it.”

The state’s current rate of infection is about half of what it was ahead of last year’s Sturgis rally, with deaths also having plummeted substantially, AP noted. 

However, it’s unclear precisely how many rally goers have been vaccinated, as the event will not require vaccination for admittance. According to The New York Times, about 46% of adults in Meade County (where the rally is held) are vaccinated – an approximate 14% deficit from the national average. The Center for New Data found via cell phone data that vaccination rates amongst rally-goers are disproportionately low compared to other countries in South Dakota last year, as AP noted. 

Motorcycle riders meanwhile have argued that the open-air environment would mitigate the potential spread of the virus. But a team of contact tracers last year found that 649 cases throughout the country, including one death, were linked to attendees of the event. 

The rally comes amid a resurgence of mass gatherings throughout the nation. This past weekend, Chicago organized its annual Lollapalooza music festival, which brought north of 350,000 people – albeit they had to be vaccinated for entry. In Wisconsin, about 500 Covid cases have been linked to the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks championship game last month, which brought over 100,000 viewers in one night.

Dinner for one? Clay pot rice is a customizable, filling option packed with flavor

Cooking for yourself can sometimes feel like one of the most difficult, energy-draining tasks. A majority of recipes yield multiple servings, plus it may not feel entirely worth it to spend hours on a meal that you quickly finish on your own.

Luckily, there’s a perfect dish for one, which also happens to be one of my favorites: clay pot rice. 

Clay pot rice is a signature dish in Hong Kong, which is almost endlessly riffable (some food historians estimate that there are more than 20-plus traditional flavors of Cantonese clay pot rice) depending on your ingredient preferences. Popular add-ins include boiled and sliced chicken, braised duck, Chinese sausage, spareribs, mushrooms and other vegetables.

The result is comforting and flavorful, as well as perfect for a party of one. 

Here are some things to keep in mind as you start experimenting with clay pot rice:

Preparing your clay pot

Clay pots of varying sizes can be purchased online and at many Asian supermarkets, but it’s important to take a little time to properly season and clean your pot before you start making dinner.

As Food & Wine wrote in 2020, to properly season your clay pot, you’ll want to “combine a 4:1 ratio of cool water and cooked white rice to fill the pot halfway. Set the pot over medium-low heat, bring to a simmer, and adjust heat to maintain a gentle bubble until the rice softens into a porridge. Turn off heat, and let stand until cool.”


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


At that point, discard the porridge and allow the pot to completely cool before cleaning it with a soft sponge and lukewarm water. Be sure not to use soap on partially glazed or unglazed pots. 

Can’t find a clay pot? No worries. You can often mimic the exact same recipes using a rice cooker! 

Cooking in a clay pot

Above all, cooking in a clay pot is convenient. Typically, you soak the rice in the pot itself for 30 minutes to an hour. In the meantime, you can prepare other elements of the dish. This recipe we like from The Woks of Life recommends preparing a sauce that is a mixture of regular soy sauce, dark soy sauce, fish sauce, sugar and white pepper. 

While the rice is soaking, you can also slice up some of the flavorful add-ins, such as scallions, ginger, choy sum and Chinese sausages (which can typically be found in the butcher’s section of your local Asian market). 

After you soak the rice, then begins the actual cooking, which is a quick, but gradual process of adding ingredients to the simmering pot on the stovetop: the cured meat, the sauce and finally your vegetables. When everything is cooked, pour the mixed sauce and spread the chopped scallion over the top. 

All in all, it takes about 15 minutes of actual cooking time, which is perfect for a weeknight dinner for one. It’s also a great, inexpensive use for any leftover proteins or vegetables that you have in your refrigerator. 

The end result 

The rice tastes crispy, and the claypot gives the entire dish a really appealing smoky flavor. The aromas of Chinese sausage, choy sum and soy sauce blend perfectly in this one dish, while the warm temperature makes you feel fulfilled and relaxed. 

For some additional inspiration, check out this recipe for Top Chef winner Hung Huynh’s claypot rice from Food & Wine and Diana Yen’s Bo Zai Fan (Chinese chicken and mushroom clay pot rice) from Bon Appetit.

For more dishes that are easy-to-customize, check out these recipes:

The willful misinterpretation of Marie Kondo’s decluttering is rooted in racism and capitalism

With organizing consultant and general lifestyle guru Marie Kondo‘s return to the small screen in Netflix’s “Sparking Joy,” premiering later this month, it seems we’re in need of another round of clarification on what her philosophy is and is not. A feature in The Walrus published Thursday erroneously equates Kondo with minimalism, which the magazine contends is no longer the style du jour. 

“Marie Kondo, the decluttering phenom who encouraged millions to ‘spark joy’ by throwing out heaps of perfectly good things, was met with substantial ridicule when she began selling “essentials” like silicone head massagers and $61 paperweights on her website,” Mireille Silcoff writes. 

Kondo, of course, has never told anyone to throw out “heaps of perfectly good things” for no reason. This outcry first arose when her “Tidying Up” series hit Netflix in 2019, but the misconception that she wanted people to toss their beloved books was put to rest. Still, this remains a common error. Her famous philosophy, in which she invites us to purchase and keep only the items that “spark joy,” is frequently misinterpreted as a brutal demand that we throw out the majority of our belongings in pursuit of inner peace.

But here’s the thing: if all of your belongings do spark joy, Kondo has been pretty clear she thinks you should keep them. If collections of dolls and action figures, a room full of pinball machines, and a closet full of drab clothing items you seldom wear, spark joy for you, keep them. 

“Don’t focus on reducing, or on efficient storage methods, for that matter. Focus instead on choosing the things that inspire joy and on enjoying life according to your own standards,” Kondo writes in her 2011 book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up.” She insists that we do what we must to reach a point of comfort with our possessions, noting how different that can look for each of us: “For a shoe lover, it might be one hundred pairs of shoes, while a book lover might not need anything but books.” 

Kondo’s philosophy is fundamentally simple, rooted in self-reflection, self-love, and deeper understanding and intuition about what matters to us. Yet, Kondo’s words have long been misinterpreted, even demonized, often by white and western critics. She’s often treated as a threat to a more traditional way of life, and, hmm, I can’t imagine that has anything to do with her race or nationality as a Japanese woman?

If there’s anything Kondo is a threat to, it’s capitalism, and a consumer culture that relies on frivolity, on brands telling us what we want and need, rather than each of us deciding this for ourselves. The truth is, if we as consumers purchased and kept only the items that we truly loved and connected with, we would be buying a lot less stuff. Brands and corporations would almost certainly suffer from such a shift, and consumers would become the ones with sole power in pursuing only what “sparks joy” for us.

From Amazon’s digital marketplace that can deliver whatever item we want within a day, even within hours, to Instagram’s recent conversion into an influencer shopping market, companies have been able to thrive off of the digital age of instant gratification. This uniquely western, capitalist compulsion to purchase, own, and amass private property as an individual is obviously threatened by a lifestyle that encourages more thoughtful consumption.

The misrepresentation of Kondo as some fanatical insisting we throw out everything we own feels almost deliberately fearmongering. After all, this week’s pro-maximalism feature in The Walrus isn’t the first time the Kondo way has been misinterpreted and maligned. Former New York Times food writer Alison Roman — who’s more famous for her explosive Twitter conflict with Chrissy Teigen — has accused Kondo of “[selling] out,” and “capitalizing on her fame,” for creating a line of merchandise. Kondo has, at other points shortly after her first Netflix series in 2019, been called a “monster,” and her methods written off as “woo woo nonsense.” Author and activist Barbara Ehrenreich tweeted that she “[hates] Kondo because, aesthetically speaking, I am on the side of clutter.” 

Of course, despite hypocrisy accusations, at no point has Kondo spoken against building a personal brand or selling products, nor has she even come out as anti-clutter, if living in clutter and among a mess of items that spark joy for you is your preferred, self-actualized way of life. Much of western criticism, backlash and even racist and xenophobic attacks against Kondo stem from projection, from what the white, western gaze chooses to see and hear from a Japanese woman who dares to offer advice about seeking fulfillment beyond consumerism.

The reality that simply buying more quantities of stuff without discernment might not bring us fulfillment or happiness is scary — it’s certainly scary for the corporations, fast fashion brands and digital marketplaces that owe their success to our indiscriminate purchasing and wasteful consumption. If western society truly understood and embraced her philosophy, Marie Kondo would pose a significant threat to a uniquely western, consumerist way of life — and that’s why her detractors are so determined to ensure we don’t understand.

“Sparking Joy” will be available to stream Aug. 31 on Netflix.

Adam Driver is impressive, but can’t save Amazon’s audacious & sexy rock opera “Annette”

Visionary director Leos Carax’s ambitious, audacious “Annette” opens with an infectious musical number, “So May We Start,” that recalls a sublime moment from his superb film, “Holy Motors.” Then it just becomes enervating. This downbeat musical is calculated to disarm and polarize audiences — and it will. Some will be enchanted and admire its riskiness; others will be exasperated and bored to the backteeth. But that does not make it good.  

Before the endless singing begins — Sparks did all the songs — a voiceover asks for the audience’s complete attention. However, it is hard not to let one’s mind wander during this visually dynamic but emotionally stagnant film. “Annette” is thin on plot but long on running time (140 minutes).

Henry McHenry (Adam Driver) is a comedian with a sold-out hit show titled, “The Ape of God,” and described as “a mildly offensive evening.” It is an extended standup routine Henry performs in a bathrobe on stage. The audience asks why he became a comedian, and he replies, in call and response fashion, with sass and crass. He is decidedly lowbrow. In contrast, his girlfriend, Ann Defrasnoux (Marion Cotillard), an opera singer, is highbrow. She “dies and bows every night,” as Henry observes. They are dubbed, “Beauty and the Bastard” by the press. The fictional “Showbizz News,” interrupts “Annette” from time to time to sing reports about the couple’s engagement, their baby, and their possible breakup.

The relationship between Henry and Ann is counterintuitive, and the couple notes this very fact in a song, “We Love Each Other So Much,” which delightfully skewers the banality of love songs with that title phrase being repeated almost ad nauseum. “Annette” is engaging during these early scenes, as well as during an episode where Henry tickles Ann. (There is, admittedly, a real pleasure in seeing Driver make Cotillard squirm by licking her feet.)

Even when the film appears to be a series of loosely strung together set pieces, such as a meta-performance by Ann’s accompanist (Simon Helberg), or a fabulous delivery room fugue, Carax keeps his audience intrigued if not in awe. The film gently tips into surrealism, with an ape portraying Henry in one shot, or Ann entering a forest while on stage during a performance. Even when an unexpected revelation is made about the nature of Annette, the couple’s baby, viewers may go along with the film just to see where it is going. 

But then “Annette” takes several turns for the worse. Six women have come forward accusing Henry of abuse, witnessing his violence and anger (in a song that sounds heavily influenced by Philip Glass). Henry’s Las Vegas show bombs not kills, causing his star to go in decline. And something happens on a yacht during a storm that shifts the narrative in both unexpected and unpleasant ways. 

As Carax pulls the rug and the floor out from under the audience, another twist happens — Henry makes a discovery about baby Annette that prompts him to take her on tour even as Ann’s accompanist accuses Henry of exploiting the child. 

And here is where the film will test viewers’ patience and goodwill (if it hasn’t already). It is not just that the plot gets dark, and the music more somber. The scenes go on too long, and they lack punch. There appears to be little payoff for having invested so much time with Henry, a monstrous, unlikable character, listening to his unfunny stage show, or watching him act like a Stage Dad for Annette.

What Carax is saying about the fickleness of celebrity and the perils of fame seems almost as obvious as “We Love Each Other So Much.” There just does not seem to be any there there once the film finally arrives at where it is going. 

Driver certainly seems to appreciate the opportunity to deliver such a complex and all-in performance. He is a fascinating actor, whose large frame can dominate the screen; Carax frequently films him shirtless practically fetishizing Driver’s physique and massive size. However, Driver, along with his big broad shoulders, are forced to carry the weight of this film, and it may be too great a task. As Henry transforms over the course of “Annette,” Driver changes his look and his demeanor skillfully, but it feels like he is expending considerable energy for nothing. His singing is not the greatest, and as the film peters out — the ending feels abrupt — one gets the sense that Driver is just exhausted and needed to stop. 

In support, Cotillard looks lovely here, but she is woefully underused. Her character is undeveloped, even to the extent that there is something, never explained, involving her repeatedly munching on apples. 

“Annette” is maddening because it engages the senses but rarely the emotions. The film may be stylish, and the visuals are accomplished — Carax uses superimposed images, strobe effects, and other visual gimmicks — but they cannot mask the fact that like Henry’s shocking Vegas performance, the emperor has no clothes.

“Annette” opens in theaters on Friday, Aug. 6 and is available to stream Aug. 20 on Amazon.