Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Why Republicans suddenly seem to be taking COVID seriously

Amid a rising media furor over the steady stream of vaccine disparagement from GOP politicians and Fox News talking heads, a number of prominent Republicans spoke up in favor of vaccines early this week.

On Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “shots need to get in everybody’s arm as rapidly as possible” and asked that people “ignore all of these other voices that are giving demonstrably bad advice.” House Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, got the vaccine after months of delay and then publicly said, “there shouldn’t be any hesitancy over whether or not it’s safe and effective.” And Fox News host Sean Hannity, in a widely shared video, declared, it “absolutely makes sense for many Americans to get vaccinated.” This was treated in the press as an unequivocal endorsement, even though the use of the word “many” was clearly meant to let the Fox News viewers feel like he’s talking about other people getting vaccinated. 

Is this an exciting pivot among the GOP elites?  Are they abandoning the sociopathic strategy of sabotaging President Joe Biden’s anti-pandemic plan by encouraging their own followers to get sick? Are the millions of Republicans who keep telling pollsters they will never get that Democrat shot going to change their minds now? 

Ha ha ha, no.

All this shows is that GOP politicians and pundits still know how to manipulate the mainstream press’s endless desire to believe the Republicans aren’t really as bad as the #resistance tweeters are saying. But while clips of prominent Republicans saying pro-vaccine stuff might be enough to get the press off their backs — or keep Biden from accusing them of “killing people,” as he did (correctly) to Facebook — it won’t be enough to actually get vaccine-hostile Republican voters to change their minds. Indeed, this should be understood more as a P.R. move to quell press criticism than a sincere effort to get reluctant people to get vaccinated. 


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


Unlike most journalists — who merely watch clips from Fox News, often ones pre-selected for them by the Fox News P.R. team — Matt Gertz at Media Matters and Aaron Rupar at Vox actually put in the miserable work of watching entire shows on the network. And both reported on Tuesday that, despite the hype around Hannity’s viral clip, the overall tenor of Fox News this week has still been that getting the vaccine is a very bad thing that no red-blooded Republican worth his MAGA hat should ever do. Indeed, the out-of-context Hannity clip comes from an episode that was overall anti-vaccine. The Hannity clip “came in the middle of a segment in which he railed against colleges and universities that are requiring their students to get their shots,” Gertz writes. He also points out that Hannity’s show “is bracketed between those of Carlson and Laura Ingraham,” and both of those hosts went hard on the vaccines-are-terrible-and-doctors-are-lying-to-you messaging. 

As Rupar points out, “the viral clip of Hannity talking about vaccines came immediately before he pivoted to a story about a college athlete who was temporarily paralyzed after she took a different sort of vaccine in 2019.”

Similarly, Fox morning host Steve Doocy got good press for encouraging vaccines, but, as both Rupar and Gertz point out, it was in a segment where his co-host Brian Kilmeade framed vaccine refusal in terms of “freedom” and told viewers “make your own decision.” The actual message one gets from watching the whole segment: People who get vaccines are sheep, and “free” people who make their own decisions can prove it by refusing the vaccine. So while liberals and journalists were swooning over Hannity’s supposedly reasonable tone from the clip they saw on Twitter, actual Fox News viewers were getting a very different message: Vaccines are dangerous and evil and unpatriotic and don’t you dare get the COVID-19 shot. 

Pro-vaccine messages from Republican politicians should be taken with a similar grain of salt.

McConnell’s words mean nothing to the GOP base, which he likely understands. After all, he’s hardly a popular figure with the base, like Donald Trump or their beloved Fox News pundits. He’s mostly viewed in GOP circles as a charisma-free villain who is good for obstructing Democrats, but not exactly someone people swoon over. Where McConnell has real power is as the leader of the Republican caucus in the Senate. On that front, he appears to be doing nothing to improve the situation. He’s well aware of prominent members of his caucus are out there, stoking conspiracy theories and discouraging vaccination. He seems wholly uninterested in doing anything substantive to discourage the behavior. Indeed, the junior senator from his home state of Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul, is one of the most prominent COVID-19 minimizers on Capitol Hill. While McConnell was giving his limp pro-vaccine statements, Paul was getting into a far more exciting tiff with top Biden health advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci during a Senate hearing. It’s quite likely Republicans understand that clips that can be used to demonize Fauci — and therefore demonizing the vaccine Fauci promotes — will likely get a lot more interest from the GOP base than anything McConnell has to say. 

Indeed, this looks very much like a two-pronged strategy, where the Beltway press gets a “GOP loves the vaccine” message, while the actual base is still getting blasted with a “vaccines are bad” message. Scalise getting the shot is part of this. Scalise is famous to journalists since he’s the second-highest-ranking Republican in the House. But most of the GOP base probably couldn’t pick him out of a crowd, even after being reminded he was the guy that was shot by the unhinged Bernie Sanders supporter in 2017. So while it’s a very big deal to the Beltway press that Scalise is getting Pfizered, the typical GOP voter will neither know nor care. 


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


The good news is that some in the mainstream press are suspecting this might be more of the usual GOP media manipulation.

After an initial bout of gushing praise for this supposed “pivot,” some of the coverage has noticeably shifted in a more skeptical direction. CNN’s Reliable Sources newsletter noted that while as “optimist might say, innocently, that the Fox machine is raising awareness about vaccines,” a “cynic might say that Fox is trying to score PR points.” (And only fools fail to be cynics when it comes to Fox News coverage.) The New York Times headlines Wednesday morning highlighted that “G.O.P. Lawmakers Allow Vaccine Skepticism to Flourish” and the “mixed messages” on Fox News. 

Unfortunately, the Washington Post is still going with the credulous headline, “Growing number of Republicans urge vaccinations amid delta surge.” The rhetoric is portrayed as a “shift,” even though there’s no evidence that the most popular anti-vaccination voices out there have any intention of backing down, much less admitting they were wrong. 

This is almost certainly not a “shift.” It is mostly an ass-covering exercise by Republicans who want to confuse the press about who, exactly, is to blame for the low rates of vaccinations among GOP voters. Journalists should not be snookered by this. It’s very unlikely we’ll see a sudden spike in vaccination rates, which is what would happen if the “Republicans get vaccinated now” message was actually getting through to the people who need to hear it. Instead, we’ll likely see the rate stay steady or even continue to decline.

I hope that I’m wrong, of course. Still, Republican voters may be rubes, but they are better at interpreting “mixed messages” from GOP elites than the press is, and they know they’re meant to hear the anti-vaccine messages while disregarding the pro-vaccine ones. Republican elites haven’t suddenly grown a heart. It’s just a lot harder to pin the blame for the continuing pandemic on Biden if the press is, correctly, blaming Republicans for it. What we’re seeing is likely just Republicans getting the media off their scent, and not a move that will do much, if anything, to get more shots in arms. 

14 flavor-packed recipes for the best Korean barbecue

There’s no barbecue quite like Korean barbecue. The glorious feast, often reserved for restaurants that specialize in the technique, is defined by air saturated with smoke and tables that quite literally sizzle, due to the grills installed smack-dab in the middle. It’s a meal that seems to never end — in addition to the food you order, such as kalbi and kimchi tofu stew, there’s a smorgasbord of complimentary banchan, or side dishes, that get constantly (and generously) refilled.

While Korean barbecue makes for an extraordinary dining out experience, it shouldn’t strictly be considered restaurant cuisine. Though it’s a multicourse meal, it’s not tough to successfully execute at home if you think beyond the humble backyard franks and patties. Korean barbecue is so customizable, fun, and easy to assemble that you can actually whip it up in your own kitchen — hybrid grilling tables not required.

Whether you adore gorgeously grilled marinated meats, salivate for a simmering casserole dish, or simply want to eat a bunch of side dishes and call it dinner (which I do on the regular!), there’s something on this menu for everyone. Here are 14 recipes capable of crushing your KBBQ cravings.

* * *

The side dishes

Musaengchae (Spicy Korean Radish Salad)

We kick off this meal with a bright, crunchy, spicy radish number as one of our banchan. This salad is sure to awaken your palate for the delicious dishes to follow.

Steamed Eggs with Pollack Roe (Gyeran Jjim)

Every good KBBQ spread needs a bowl of gyeran jjim — creamy, custardy comfort in steamed egg form. Lucky for us, Chef Sohui Kim’s recipe seriously delivers.

Japanese Potato Salad

The good ol’ spud is the magical unicorn of root vegetables, tasting incredible no matter how it’s prepared. Exhibit A: this potato salad that’s good both cold or warm, on its own mashed with an effortless Dijon-Kewpie dressing, or as a superb canvas for throwing in whatever leftover vegetables you might have. My favorite mix-ins are canned sweet corn, red onion, and baby cucumbers. Use an ice cream scoop to serve it in flawlessly smooth dollops like they do at restaurants. Or eat it straight from the mixing bowl — there’s really no wrong way to potato.

Pajeon (Scallion Pancakes)

Calling all of my fellow herb hoarders to make these savory crispy-crunchy green-packed pancakes! Big batons of garlic chives, cilantro, or minari can work as superbly as scallions here. To keep your jeon light and crisp, Chef Hooni Kim recommends you keep the batter cold and carbonated (club soda fends off a dense mouthfeel), and the pan hot and well oiled. In fact, at his NYC restaurants Danji and Hanjan, Kim notes that they “keep the batter in the freezer, rather than the refrigerator, during service so it is as cold as possible.”

Kimchijeon (Kimchi Pancakes)

Should you have a jar of kimchi on the brink of going sour, you can always count on kimchijeon. The twist to Catherine Yoo’s take on the classic appetizer is to throw in whole milk and sweet rice flour, ingredients that deliver some tenderness and chewiness you didn’t even know were missing.

* * *

The main meats

Mom’s Bulgogi with Cucumber Kimchi Salad

I fully acknowledge that saying “my mom’s [insert food here] is the best” is subjective. That hardly ever stops me from singing praises for my own mother’s cooking. With this mindset, I cautiously tried someone else’s bulgogi recipe. Big props to Joanna Gaines for sharing her mom’s buttery-smooth bulgogi with cooling cucumber kimchi slaw recipe — it rocks. To my own mom, who’s reading this: I still really love your bulgogi!

Kalbi-Style Short Ribs

Why sweat over dinner when it can be fast and easy? These short ribs stay true to the authentic umami, caramelly, spice-forward kalbi marinades used at KBBQ spots. Throw the ribs (or your preferred choice of protein — firm tofu is a terrific plant-based swap) in a bag, let them soak overnight, and chuck them on the grill. Even if you can’t stand the heat, grilling these will still be sublime.

Snow Crab with Doenjang-Jjigae Sauce

Flaky crabmeat slathered in a salty meat sauce. Enough said. If clambakes and lobster dinners are your typical cookout fare, be sure to give this dish a try.

Air-Fryer Gochujang Chicken Wings

Remember when I said no grill was required to put together a Korean barbecue feast? That’s thanks to killer quick-cook recipes like these wings from Food52 air-frying expert Urvashi Pitre. They’re shatteringly crisp and sweetly spicy on the outside, and insanely juicy on the inside. The bonus: The recipe takes only 25 minutes to cook.

* * *

Hot and cold bowls

Bibimbap (Mixed Rice with Vegetables and Beef)

Where there’s bibimbap, there’s an instant solution to Korean food hankerings that even the fastest delivery app can’t beat. The only time-consuming part is to mix, mix, mix the gochujang paste super thoroughly into your rice medley.

Budae Jjigae (Army Base Stew)

I can’t think of a more pantry-friendly, throw-it-together casserole dish than budae jjigae. It’s as simple as a matter of stirring and simmering, but the hearty flavors are so scrumptious and chock-full of Korea’s rich culinary history that you would be hard-pressed to find a stew that compares.

Spicy Buckwheat Noodle Salad

Cold soba noodles swimming in a pool of spicy sauce with crunchy vegetables is not just a perfect dish to accompany richer marinated meats, but a refreshing main meal throughout the warmer months.

* * *

And for dessert . . .

Red Bean Ice Cream

Time for something sweet! This luxurious buttermilk-based ice cream is studded with adzuki red beans, which are at once nutty and syrupy.

Asian Pear Galette With Cardamom Whipped Cream

Okay fine, Korean BBQ joints are unlikely to have baked goods on the menu, but Eric Kim’s Asian pear galette can be the whimsical ending to your at-home meal. The ingredients and assembly are simple by design, truly showcasing the powerfully juicy and crisp Asian pear. Do not skimp on the cardamom whipped cream.

Did Trump’s Department of Justice slow-walk the charges against Tom Barrack?

Thomas Barrack, a private equity investor and a former adviser to former President Donald Trump, was arrested on Tuesday on charges of illegally lobbying for Trump’s 2016 presidency on behalf of the United Arab Emirates. 

Barrack, along with others, has been accused of attempting to advance the UAE’s political interest by influencing Trump’s foreign policy decisions from 2016 to 2018, effectively operating as a foreign agent for the U.S. ally. Barrack also stands accused of obstructing justice and making false claims to law enforcement back in June 2019. The charges, however, come more than two years later, leading to questions about the case potentially being bottled up in the Justice Department under the Trump administration. 

As his indictment formally states, the ex-official “advance[d] the interests of and provide[d] intelligence to the UAE while simultaneously failing to notify the Attorney General that their actions were taken at the direction of senior UAE officials.”

During his time advising Trump and a number of other U.S. officials on foreign policy decisions, Barrack also reportedly pursued the role of America’s special envoy to the UAE.

According to federal prosecutors, the body of evidence against Barrack is “overwhelming,” and includes a trove of damning emails, text messages, social media activity, iCloud records, and flight records. The indictment noted that Barrack specifically “provided UAE government officials ‘with sensitive non-public information about developments within the Administration, including information about the positions of multiple senior United States government officials with respect to the Qatari blockade conducted by the UAE and other Middle Eastern countries.'”

Prosecutors also noted that the former official, who was slapped with a seven-count indictment, met with numerous senior officials from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, an ally of the UAE’s.

Aside from Barrack, federal prosecutors have also charged Matthew Grimes (an employee of Barrack’s private equity firm) and Sultan Rashid Al Malik Alshahhi, a UAE national, of working against U.S. interests on behalf of the UAE.

“On multiple occasions, Barrack referred to [Al Malik] as the UAE’s ‘secret weapon’ to advance its foreign policy agenda in the United States,” the Justice Department said in a press release.

Grimes, meanwhile, maintains a “close relationship” with Barrack, residing in the private equity mogul’s $15 million home in Aspen. Prosecutors found that Grimes has taken north of 50 international trips on Barrack’s private plane. 

On Tuesday, prosecutors designated Barrack as a significant flight risk, calling him “an extremely wealthy and powerful individual with substantial ties to Lebanon, the UAE, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

Examples of Barrack’s objectionable work for the UAE abound, according to court filings. Back in 2016, for example, the ex-Trump official inserted pro-UAE talking points into a Trump campaign speech regarding U.S. energy policy. Barrack also made numerous TV appearances over the years advancing UAE’s interests. Following one appearance, Barrack told Alshahhi over email, “I nailed it. . . for the home team,” referring to the UAE. 

Barrack, 74, was arrested in Los Angeles and made his first court appearance on Tuesday afternoon. Prosecutors have asked for the ex-official to be held in federal custody and transported to New York City so he can appear before a judge in a Brooklyn court bail hearing. 

According to the case’s leading prosecutor, Mack Jenkins, the statute with which Barrack was charged is used “very infrequently.”

“We’re talking about the highest levels at the UAE and the highest levels of the United States,” Jenkins said.

Ken Starr: A pedophile’s best friend

Of all the lurid nonsense circulating among conspiracy-addled Republicans, none of their theories is viler than the libel of child sexual abuse that began under the rubric of “Pizzagate” and became the basis of the cult ideology of QAnon. So successful was the smear campaign begun by followers of Donald Trump that millions of deranged people now believe those gothic horror tales targeting the likes of Hillary Clinton, Chrissy Teigen, and Tom Hanks, with the connivance of Republican politicians in search of Jewish space lasers. 

Then there’s real life, in which actual, detestable pedophiles and other sex offenders can depend on their reliable defender Kenneth W. Starr to shield them from the punishment they deserve. Yes, it’s that Ken Starr, the Savanarola of sexual propriety, who is the pedophiles’ best friend.

What we have learned in recent days about the sanctimonious Starr, from his alleged sexual infidelities to his zealous defense of the late Jeffrey Epstein, not only strips away his pious pretensions as sheer hypocrisies but also raises serious questions about his conduct that must still be answered. 

A former public relations executive named Judi Hershman opened the latest inquest into Starr’s iniquities on July 13 when she published an essay on Medium titled “Ken Starr, Brett Kavanaugh, Jeffrey Epstein and Me” that detailed, among many other things, her own illicit affair with the former independent counsel. Her account of an episode with the borderline Kavanaugh and his uncontrollable temper when they both worked for Starr on the Clinton prosecution, as well as her disillusionment with the misogynistic Starr, is worth reading. Yes, that Ken Starr, who, she says, took her hand and “placed it on his crotch.”

Hershman recalls Starr’s attempt in 2010 to deceive her into “counseling” Epstein, whom he whitewashed as “a very wealthy, very smart businessman who got himself into trouble for getting involved with a couple of underage girls who lied about their ages.” He explained that “everyone deserves representation” and that the very smart businessman had “promised to keep it above 18 from now on.” By then Epstein had raped scores of underage girls, and thereafter continued to do so.

Hershman writes that at the time, it didn’t occur to her that Starr himself would be lying about Epstein, or that he might have been involved in executing the “secret and egregious sweetheart deal” that allowed the very smart businessman to evade justice for so many years.

But according to a new book by Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, who first blew the lid off that deal, Starr was zealously committed to the Epstein defense. Her earlier reporting led to the dismissal of Alex Azar, the U.S. Attorney in Florida who signed off on that agreement, from former President Donald Trump’s cabinet. 

In Perversion of Justice, Brown writes that Epstein brought on Starr and Jay Lefkowitz, his longtime associate and partner at Kirkland & Ellis, because of their connections in the Bush Justice Department. Starr’s campaign on behalf of Epstein included a “brutal” smear of a female prosecutor and an insider lobbying effort at the department’s Washington headquarters.

Apparently, Starr has a strangely protective attitude toward molesters and rapists, even when he isn’t being paid big money to defend them. A few years after his crusade on Epstein’s behalf, he and his wife sent a letter to a county judge urging leniency for Christopher Kloman, a retired school administrator and friend of the Starrs who pled guilty to molesting five girls at the Potomac School in McLean, Virginia. They thought he should be sentenced to community service, but the judge instead gave him 43 years in prison.

Americans first glimpsed the dark side of Starr’s character when he published the salacious Starr Report (co-authored by Kavanaugh) that led to the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton. They learned more about him when he was booted from the presidency of Baylor University for covering up the rampant sexual abuse of women on campus, including a gang rape by football players. With his partisan fanaticism and his bogus religiosity, he was a natural for Trump’s impeachment defense. 

Considering the smears perpetrated against Hillary Clinton in recent years, it is ironic indeed to review the unsavory conduct of a man who spent so much public time and money attempting to frame her for crimes she didn’t commit as first lady. But these revelations about Starr should evoke more than bemused contempt.

What Julie Brown’s book demands is a full investigation of an authentic conspiracy to pervert justice by Republican prosecutors and lawyers, including Starr. The Justice Department and the House and Senate judiciary committees must not let them get away with it.

In California, a new strategy to fight grapevine-killing bacteria

In 1981, Adam Tolmach planted a five-acre vineyard on land he had inherited from his grandfather in the wine-growing region of Ventura County, California, a few miles east of Santa Barbara. As an undergraduate, Tolmach had studied grape growing and winemaking (areas of study known as viticulture and enology, respectively) and then worked for a couple of years at a winery not far from his grandfather’s land. In 1983, he started producing his own wines, which he sells under the Ojai Vineyard label.

Over the years, Tolmach’s grapevines began to suffer. The plants lost vigor and the leaves dried. It turned out the vineyard was affected by Pierce’s disease, a sickness that had long plagued southern California, but had become more severe in the 1990s after the invasion of the glassy-winged sharpshooter, a large leafhopper insect that feeds on plant fluids and can spread a bacterium known as Xylella fastidiosa, usually just called Xylella (pronounced zy-LEL’-uh). This bacterium has existed in the United States since as far back as the 1880s, and over the years, it has destroyed at least 35,000 acres of the nation’s vineyards.

Tolmach witnessed the slow but certain death of his grapevines. By 1995, there were just too many missing plants, he said. So he decided to pull out the infected vineyard. To continue making wine, he bought grapes from other producers. Tolmach became a winemaker with no vineyard of his own.

Every year, American winemakers lose about $56 million worth of vines, while government agencies, nurseries, and the University of California system invest another $48 million in prevention efforts, according to research published in the journal California Agriculture. At least 340 plant species serve as hosts to Xylella, though the bacteria only harm some of them. Across the globe, Xylella has devastated orange trees in Brazil and olive fields in southern Italy, and recently a newly identified species, Xylella taiwanensis, has been infecting pear trees in Taiwan. As of now, there is no permanent solution. Each time a Xylella species has invaded a new region, it has proved impossible to eradicate.

Countries have long fretted about the potential for infected plant imports to spread the bacteria, and more recently, climate change has been identified as an additional threat, pushing the disease vectors’ habitat north, both in Europe and in the U.S. As winters become warmer, experts say, Xylella could enter new territories, upending their regional economies and landscapes.

Yet there might be some hope. After 40 years of crossbreeding European grape varieties with wild grapes, a plant geneticist recently patented five hybrid grapes that appear to be resistant to Pierce’s disease. While scientists caution that it’s not yet clear how long the resistance will endure, wine producers like Tolmach hope that these new grapes will allow their vineyards to flourish once again.

* * *

A variety of grape species are indigenous to America, and a recent study suggests that Native Americans might have used them to make alcoholic beverages more than 500 years ago. In North America, native varieties tend to have thick skin and an astringent, peppery, acidic taste that is quite different from the grapes used in most wines.

In the 1500s, Spanish settlers brought Vitis vinifera, the common European grapevine for winemaking, to Florida. Farmers never succeeded in cultivating European grapes in the new territory — after a few years, the plants would just die. Then, in the 1860s, the Los Angeles Vineyard Society led grape-planting efforts in the Santa Ana Valley. By 1883, there were a total of 50 wineries and 10,000 acres of grapevines. Then, just a couple of years later, the grapevines had all died inexplicably.

In 1889, the U.S. Department of Agriculture instructed one of the first formally trained American plant pathologists, Newton Pierce, to figure out what was killing the European grapevines. Pierce studied the disease, eventually speculating that it was caused by a microorganism, but he never identified one. Still, in recognition of his effort, the disease was eventually named after him.

In the 1970s, a University of California, Berkeley entomologist named Alexander Purcell helped solve the mystery. At the time, researchers were beginning to think Pierce’s disease was caused by bacteria but had yet to pin down a culprit. Purcell and his colleagues proved the then-unnamed Xylella was responsible by growing the bacterium from samples taken from plants infected by blue-green sharpshooters, and then directly infecting healthy plants with the lab-grown pathogen. Over time, a more complete picture of disease transmission emerged.

The glassy-winged sharpshooter feeds on the green stems and leaves of grapevine plants, which contain water and dissolved nutrients, Purcell told Undark. If the plant is infected with Xylella, some of the bacteria linger in the insect’s needle-like mouthparts. The next time the glassy-winged sharpshooter feeds upon a grapevine, the insect can transfer the Xylella to the new plant. Inside the plant’s vascular tissues, the bacteria multiply, obstructing the normal flow of water and nutrients and interfering with the plant’s metabolism and physiology — a process that ultimately kills the plant.

In the late 1980s, Purcell mapped swaths of the U.S. and Europe by how conducive they are to disease spread. Knowing that Xylella do not thrive in regions with cold winters, that are far from large bodies of water, and that lack a disease-carrying vector such as the glassy-winged sharpshooter, Purcell drew out maps by hand. He then marked the regions with the right combination of geographic and climatic conditions to allow for Pierce’s disease to spread, noticing a pattern emerge.

At the time, the European Union was not very concerned about Xylella, though Purcell contends that the bacteria had almost certainly arrived in the region. In talks and at conferences, he warned that European countries were facing a great danger. He urged the E.U. to increase its regulations of plant imports. Those warnings went unheeded, Purcell said, and in 2017, Pierce’s disease was first detected on the grapevines of the Spanish island of Mallorca, jeopardizing the future of winemaking there. Today, Xylella is spreading through the Mediterranean region and other parts of Europe — just as Purcell predicted.

Alberto Fereres, a Spanish entomologist and researcher at the Spanish National Research Council, is concerned about the devastating effects of the European outbreaks, including one in southern Italy that has infected and killed 20 million olive trees, more than a third of the region’s population. “[Xylella] is present in many more countries than we indeed thought,” Fereres said, adding that his research group recently discovered that the bacteria have been present in Spain for more than 20 years, but for much of that time it only lived in plants that don’t show symptoms of the disease.

Fereres hopes at least some plants will adapt to the presence of the bacteria and that farmers will be able to control the indigenous European vector, the meadow spittlebug, by tilling the land to kill the bug’s juveniles and placing barriers or nets to separate the insects from susceptible plants.

So far, the U.S. has largely used insecticides to get rid of infected insects. The Temecula Valley in California, for example, experienced a severe outbreak of Pierce’s disease in the late 1990s. Back then, stakeholders managed to defeat the disease in less than two years by introducing specific pesticides into the farming of grapevines.

Matt Daugherty, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, studied the resulting decline in Temecula’s glassy-winged sharpshooter population. He said the insect’s numbers remained low until around 2017, when the population exploded for a second time.

“Now the bad news is this,” Purcell said: “After about 18 years, the insect is now resistant to the insecticide.” In entomology, Purcell added, such resistance is common if the same insecticide is used year after year. He and Fereres maintain that pesticides are not a viable long-term solution to the problem. In some countries, this approach has also run up against public opinion. In Italy, for example, consumers have strongly opposed the use of pesticides on olive trees threatened by Xylella.

Rodrigo Almeida, a plant pathologist at the University of California, Berkeley, warns that climate change might worsen the situation: While low winter temperatures in many grape-growing regions have traditionally limited the spread of Pierce’s disease, the past few years have brought warmer winters, allowing Xylella to spread.

“With warming temperatures and warmer winters, you’re going to have sort of more disease where you already have it, and you’re probably going to see the range expand north as well,” Almeida said. Warmer temperatures favor greater survival of the insects and increase the likelihood that an infection will persist through the winter. Almeida added that it’s difficult to predict precisely how much the disease will increase and how it will impact the new territories, but that there is the possibility that the disease will find a home in areas where a dry climate combines with warmer winters.

“We’re expecting things to get worse and worse,” Daugherty said.

Yet, in territories where European grapes die because of Xylella, wild indigenous grape varieties that are not a good fit for winemaking thrive. Those plants bear a unique gene that prevents them from succumbing to the disease, and that specific gene could be a counteroffensive to the bacteria and might well change the future of winemaking.

* * *

In 1989, University of California, Davis plant geneticist and viticulturist Andrew Walker inherited grapevine seeds that he was told were produced from crossbreeding two known Vitis species. But as the plants grew, he soon noticed they were behaving weirdly. For one thing, their vines had sprouted fine hairs along the stems. More importantly, the plants proved resistant to Pierce’s disease. Walker decided to investigate. Perhaps, he speculated, the parent plants, which were still flourishing in an abandoned vineyard owned by his university, had accidentally crossbred with the native grapevines that were growing wild nearby.

Indeed, this turned out to be the case. Vitis arizonica grows wild in the southwest U.S. and Mexico, and Walker matched the genetic fingerprint of the male V. arizonica in his own plants. The wild plant carries a dominant gene that passes along Pierce’s disease resistant traits to its offspring.

Sensing that this could lead to breakthrough for new varieties of grapevine, Walker began the slow process of crossbreeding. This technique goes back about 10,000 years and involves selectively breeding plants and animals with desired traits. In this case, Walker wanted to cross disease-resistant V. arizonica with winemaking varieties like cabernet sauvignon.

The first generation’s seedlings all carried the gene for disease resistance. Walker selected the highest quality among them, and when the plants flowered, he crossed them again with various V. vinifera varieties. He did this for four to five generations, reaching a point where 97 percent of the plant’s genome came from V. vinifera and 3 percent came from V. arizonica. It took Walker about 20 years to develop these new plants, five varieties of which have been patented and given out to a few producers, and sold through a handful of nurseries. Tolmach, the winemaker from Ojai, was one of the few lucky ones to receive them.

“I guess what’s shocking to me is that the quality is there — these can be standalone wines by themselves,” said Tolmach. In 2017, he planted about 1,800 plants on 1.2 acres with four of Walker’s varieties, and he recently bottled the 2019 vintages. (These vintages won’t be available until this fall, when they will be priced between $30 and $40 per bottle, which is comparable to his vintages that use traditional grapes.) Tolmach said that his new plants are healthy and thriving with no sign of the disease, and he’s now thinking of planting more on a 10-acre vineyard that he purchased in northern Santa Barbara County.

Matt Kettmann, a California writer and wine critic who has been following Tolmach’s work for years, tasted Tolmach’s wines produced with resistant grape varieties. He said they are unique and interesting wines with characteristics reminiscent of wines of European heritage. He described Tolmach’s 2019 wine using Walker’s paseante noir grape as tasting of “black cherry, mocha, clove, baking spice,” while praising its “smooth texture and rich mouthfeel.” “That one,” said Kettmann, “was really kind of impressive to me.”

Kettmann anticipates that the new wines will be appreciated by connoisseurs, but he wonders how the larger American market will respond. Europeans emphasize the value of terroir — the taste imparted to a wine by a particular region’s soil, topography, and climate. Americans, on the other hand, tend to care more about the variety of the grape, like pinot gris, cabernet sauvignon, or zinfandel — and Walker’s varieties are entirely new.

“Tradition is a huge consideration in choosing wine varieties for winemaking. Can you name any new grape varieties introduced during the last 50 years that are now widely used for wine?” wrote Purcell in an email.

It’s also not clear whether new genotypes of Xylella might evolve to infect the hybrid grapes, Purcell and Fereres wrote to Undark. Currently, only a single gene confers the resistance. For this reason, it might be necessary to incorporate new resistance genes by crossbreeding additional varieties of grapevine, said Purcell.

Still, growers like Tolmach are excited by Walker’s resistant varieties, and some are planting them in areas that have been impacted by Xylella, Walker said. Though Tolmach has made wines with the new grapes exclusively, he suggests many wineries may opt to blend the grapes with other mainstream varieties.

For his part, Walker believes that any skepticism about his grapes’ novelty will fade in the face of climate change. “It is going to force people to reevaluate how we improve grapevines,” he said.

* * *

Agostino Petroni is a journalist, author, and a 2021 Pulitzer Reporting Fellow. His work appears in a number of outlets, including National Geographic, BBC, and Atlas Obscura.

This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center.

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

No, Merrick Garland hasn’t dropped the ball on accountability — but he still could

On Monday night, there was a brief moment of serious consternation at the news that the Department of Justice (DOJ), under Attorney General Merrick Garland, had declined to prosecute former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for lying to Congress after the department’s Inspector General forwarded a serious referral presenting evidence that Ross had lied. The next day, the Associated Press, which published the report, issued a correction to say that it was actually the William Barr Justice Department that had issued the declination, not Garland which was a welcome relief for those who have been growing more and more concerned about whether there will be any real accountability for the Trump administration’s lawlessness. After what he did with Roger Stone, no one expected William Barr’s Justice Department to hold any Trump crony accountable. It remains to be seen if Garland will reverse that decision — but he certainly should.

Garland did announce some good news on Monday, however, formally reversing many decades of DOJ policy when he announced that, with some limited exceptions, the department would prohibit the seizure of journalists’ records in leak investigations. This is a power that was egregiously abused in the last administration but was used liberally by administrations of both parties. Getting rid of it is a good step.

Garland’s other recent decision to double the size of the voting rights enforcement staff to vigorously combat efforts to restrict ballot access and prosecute those who threaten or harm election workers was also very welcome. Unless and until the filibuster fetishists in the U.S. Senate agree to pass new voting rights legislation, these will be the only tools the federal government will have to protect the electoral system.

And the decision to reinstate the moratorium on federal executions, which Trump and Barr had dropped after almost two decades so they could go on a killing spree in the last year of Trump’s term, is another huge step back from the moral abyss.

But there is reason to be worried about Garland’s DOJ still.

The decision to support Trump’s claim that he was performing his official duty when he demeaned and degraded E. Jean Carroll’s integrity and her physical appearance as he denied her accusation that he’d raped her in a department store dressing room before he was president was inexplicable. This claim of immunity because he was doing his job is based upon a law that holds that an individual government employee cannot be held personally liable for what he or she does in the course of their duties. It’s ridiculous that anyone would agree that being a disgusting boor is in the presidential job description, but it’s even more worrisome that this concept is now being taken up by at least one of his henchmen and it could have very far-reaching consequences.

Alabama Republican Congressman Mo Brooks is now citing the same immunity in a lawsuit brought against him for helping to incite the January 6th insurrection. Brooks stood on the stage at the “Stop the Steal” rally and proclaimed that was the day “American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.” He says he was just performing his official duty, under the same legal theory that Trump used to excuse his crude defamation of E. Jean Carroll, a claim excoriated by Donald Ayer, deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, and Norman Eisen, special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment, who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times this week exhorting the Attorney General not to accept Brooks’ claim:

It is difficult to imagine an act that falls farther outside the scope of a sitting congressman’s official duties than what he is accused of doing: helping to provoke a crowd to lay siege on the center of our federal government, putting his fellow members at risk of physical harm and ultimately disrupting the vital constitutional process of certifying presidential election results…Certification that Mr. Brooks acted within the scope of his job would leave the United States government defending the right of its elected representatives to foment insurrection against itself.

They point out that if Garland grants this certification, then it is only a matter of time before Trump himself claims it in one of the many legal cases pending such as the one in Georgia in which he is being investigated for pressuring election officials to “find” the votes he needed to win the electoral college, in which case it will be the law of the land that politicians are immune from any legal accountability for attempting a coup. Or as Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe wrote in a piece making a similar argument, “to embrace that proposition is to embrace the quintessential dictatorial premise that the chief executive is the state.” 

I have never been very optimistic that there would be any legal accountability for important Republicans, particularly Donald Trump. For quite some time there has been a widespread understanding in the political establishment that even in the face of outright criminal behavior, it would be dangerous to “lock up” high-level members of the government because it would start a cycle of retaliation. This idea certainly informed the Obama administration which made the decision not to “look in the rearview mirror” on the torture policies of the Bush administration. But as former congresswoman Elizabeth Holzman, D-NY, pointed out in a recent interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, it wasn’t always so.

During Watergate, a large number of high-level administration officials went to jail. The attorney general himself (and a close personal friend of the president) did 19 months in federal prison after being convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. (The perjury charge, by the way, was for lying to Congress, which is what former Trump Cabinet member Wilbur Ross is accused of doing.)

I might have held out some hope that Congress would have been able to at least get to the bottom of the events of January 6th since it was such a grievous assault on the constitution and a physical attack on the capitol itself. However, the Republicans’ rejection of the eminently fair Bipartisan Commission proved that they will obstruct any attempt to seriously investigate. With this week’s appointment of at least four GOP supporters of both Donald Trump and the insurrection itself to the House select congressional committee, it’s not looking very promising. One of them, Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, was obviously chosen for his penchant for histrionics in committee hearings which virtually guarantees that he and his cohorts will be playing to the audience of one, holed up in one of his presidential palaces in exile.

Meanwhile, the DOJ is dutifully prosecuting the actual insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol, so there is that. People are going to do time for what they did that day and you can’t help but think of the words of Donald Trump himself who told journalists Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker: “Personally, what I wanted is what they wanted.” Of course, it was. But it looks like they’re the only ones who will have to pay a price for it.

No, Merrick Garland hasn’t dropped the ball on accountability — but he still could

On Monday night, there was a brief moment of serious consternation at the news that the Department of Justice (DOJ), under Attorney General Merrick Garland, had declined to prosecute former Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for lying to Congress after the department’s Inspector General forwarded a serious referral presenting evidence that Ross had lied. The next day, the Associated Press, which published the report, issued a correction to say that it was actually the William Barr Justice Department that had issued the declination, not Garland which was a welcome relief for those who have been growing more and more concerned about whether there will be any real accountability for the Trump administration’s lawlessness. After what he did with Roger Stone, no one expected William Barr’s Justice Department to hold any Trump crony accountable. It remains to be seen if Garland will reverse that decision — but he certainly should.

Garland did announce some good news on Monday, however, formally reversing many decades of DOJ policy when he announced that, with some limited exceptions, the department would prohibit the seizure of journalists’ records in leak investigations. This is a power that was egregiously abused in the last administration but was used liberally by administrations of both parties. Getting rid of it is a good step.

Garland’s other recent decision to double the size of the voting rights enforcement staff to vigorously combat efforts to restrict ballot access and prosecute those who threaten or harm election workers was also very welcome. Unless and until the filibuster fetishists in the U.S. Senate agree to pass new voting rights legislation, these will be the only tools the federal government will have to protect the electoral system.

And the decision to reinstate the moratorium on federal executions, which Trump and Barr had dropped after almost two decades so they could go on a killing spree in the last year of Trump’s term, is another huge step back from the moral abyss.

But there is reason to be worried about Garland’s DOJ still.

The decision to support Trump’s claim that he was performing his official duty when he demeaned and degraded E. Jean Carroll’s integrity and her physical appearance as he denied her accusation that he’d raped her in a department store dressing room before he was president was inexplicable. This claim of immunity because he was doing his job is based upon a law that holds that an individual government employee cannot be held personally liable for what he or she does in the course of their duties. It’s ridiculous that anyone would agree that being a disgusting boor is in the presidential job description, but it’s even more worrisome that this concept is now being taken up by at least one of his henchmen and it could have very far-reaching consequences.

Alabama Republican Congressman Mo Brooks is now citing the same immunity in a lawsuit brought against him for helping to incite the January 6th insurrection. Brooks stood on the stage at the “Stop the Steal” rally and proclaimed that was the day “American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.” He says he was just performing his official duty, under the same legal theory that Trump used to excuse his crude defamation of E. Jean Carroll, a claim excoriated by Donald Ayer, deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, and Norman Eisen, special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first Trump impeachment, who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times this week exhorting the Attorney General not to accept Brooks’ claim:

It is difficult to imagine an act that falls farther outside the scope of a sitting congressman’s official duties than what he is accused of doing: helping to provoke a crowd to lay siege on the center of our federal government, putting his fellow members at risk of physical harm and ultimately disrupting the vital constitutional process of certifying presidential election results…Certification that Mr. Brooks acted within the scope of his job would leave the United States government defending the right of its elected representatives to foment insurrection against itself.

They point out that if Garland grants this certification, then it is only a matter of time before Trump himself claims it in one of the many legal cases pending such as the one in Georgia in which he is being investigated for pressuring election officials to “find” the votes he needed to win the electoral college, in which case it will be the law of the land that politicians are immune from any legal accountability for attempting a coup. Or as Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe wrote in a piece making a similar argument, “to embrace that proposition is to embrace the quintessential dictatorial premise that the chief executive is the state.” 

I have never been very optimistic that there would be any legal accountability for important Republicans, particularly Donald Trump. For quite some time there has been a widespread understanding in the political establishment that even in the face of outright criminal behavior, it would be dangerous to “lock up” high-level members of the government because it would start a cycle of retaliation. This idea certainly informed the Obama administration which made the decision not to “look in the rearview mirror” on the torture policies of the Bush administration. But as former congresswoman Elizabeth Holzman, D-NY, pointed out in a recent interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, it wasn’t always so.

During Watergate, a large number of high-level administration officials went to jail. The attorney general himself (and a close personal friend of the president) did 19 months in federal prison after being convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury. (The perjury charge, by the way, was for lying to Congress, which is what former Trump Cabinet member Wilbur Ross is accused of doing.)

I might have held out some hope that Congress would have been able to at least get to the bottom of the events of January 6th since it was such a grievous assault on the constitution and a physical attack on the capitol itself. However, the Republicans’ rejection of the eminently fair Bipartisan Commission proved that they will obstruct any attempt to seriously investigate. With this week’s appointment of at least four GOP supporters of both Donald Trump and the insurrection itself to the House select congressional committee, it’s not looking very promising. One of them, Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, was obviously chosen for his penchant for histrionics in committee hearings which virtually guarantees that he and his cohorts will be playing to the audience of one, holed up in one of his presidential palaces in exile.

Meanwhile, the DOJ is dutifully prosecuting the actual insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol, so there is that. People are going to do time for what they did that day and you can’t help but think of the words of Donald Trump himself who told journalists Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker: “Personally, what I wanted is what they wanted.” Of course, it was. But it looks like they’re the only ones who will have to pay a price for it.

How quickly we forget: Amid the trauma of the Trump era, each new outrage just disappears

Last week, the American people learned that leaders of the U.S. military had plans to prevent Donald Trump from ordering the  armed forces to stage a coup during the last days of his presidency. These new “revelations” dominated the headlines for a few days. But once again, Trump’s crimes and overall perfidy were then thrown down the memory well. The mainstream media has largely moved on. The American people appear to be indifferent, expressing an attitude of “so what?” and “nothing really matters anyway.”

This is more evidence of how the normalization of social and political deviance has tightened its hold on American society.

America has long been a pathocracy. But the Age of Trump took this to the extreme; the sickness spread not just among the country’s elites but rained down from the White House to the tens of millions of Trump faithful. In turn, the latter amplified and spread their collective pathology across the country.

None of this was caused by Donald Trump and his fascist movement, but Trump’s regime nurtured and spread America’s pathocracy and social and political deviance, giving them renewed life.

Here are several examples of how such behavior continues to plague the country, most of them largely ignored or rapidly forgotten by both the mainstream media and the public.

Last Friday, two men were arrested in California for planning a terrorist attack on the Democratic Party headquarters in Sacramento. CNN reported that the men “allegedly wanted to start a movement to overthrow the government,” motivated by Trump’s electoral defeat last November:

Five days before the presidential inauguration on January 20 — which prosecutors believe was to be a key date in the planning of the attack — the Justice Department apprehended one of the men who had amassed a large arsenal. Ian Benjamin Rogers, 45, of Napa, California, showed strong support for White supremacy and for Trump, and said in text messages he realized he would be labeled a domestic terrorist, according to Justice Department court filings.

A man Rogers communicated with, Jarrod Copeland, 37, of Vallejo, California, was arrested in Sacramento this week, DOJ said.

Court records citing extensive encrypted messages between Rogers and Copeland raise the alarm of how the men sought to inspire domestic terrorism toward Democrats — and how their anti-government motivations may still persist.

In January, Rogers had told Copeland, “I want to blow up a democrat building bad,” and Copeland responded in agreement, writing, “Plan attack.”

The pair discussed “war” after President Joe Biden’s inauguration, the Justice Department said. They also discussed attacking George Soros, a billionaire donor who supports liberal causes, and Twitter, which by then had removed Trump from the social media platform.

“I hope 45 goes to war if he doesn’t I will,” Rogers allegedly wrote.

During the last week of June, an alleged white supremacist murdered two black people in an attack near Boston. The white shooter was later killed in a gun battle with police.

In a different incident, an active-duty U.S. Marine and two other men allegedly planned to launch a wave of white supremacist terror attacks. The Daily Beast reports the men wanted “to assassinate minorities, drug users, and employees of the Democratic National Committee with explosives, rocket launchers, and automatic rifles.”

That’s according to a newly unsealed FBI search warrant affidavit obtained by The Daily Beast, which indicates USMC Private First Class Travis Owens and his partners in the unrealized murder plot were influenced by Timothy McVeigh, the former U.S. Army soldier behind the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 people dead and injured nearly 700. The document also states that one of the suspects had links to the Atomwaffen Division, a violent neo-Nazi group linked to at least five murders. A handful of active service members and veterans have been identified as being members of Atomwaffen, which calls for the armed overthrow of the U.S. government.

Two weekends ago, a white supremacist militia group marched through the streets of Philadelphia. That was one of many acts of public intimidation by right-wing paramilitary organizations in the months since Jan. 6. National security and other experts have warned that right-wing terrorism, especially involving white supremacists, poses the most significant internal threat to the country’s domestic safety and security.

Donald Trump and his movement are valorizing right-wing terrorists as “martyrs” who are to be honored for their “sacrifice.” Members of Trump’s Jan. 6 attack force are also being reimagined as “political prisoners” and “patriots” who should be freed immediately.

The right-wing echo chamber continues to use stochastic terrorism — and outright and direct threats of violence as well — to encourage violence against Democrats, “progressives” and others deemed to be the enemy.

More than 600,000 people have died during the coronavirus pandemic. The Republican Party and the Trump movement continue to mock and downplay the seriousness of the pandemic, and to weaponize it in an endless “culture war” battle to “own the libs.”

The normalization of social and political deviance also corrupts justice and the rule of law. Of the thousands of Trump followers who attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, only 581 have been charged with crimes. Most of Trump’s attack force was simply allowed to go free by law enforcement on that day. Of those arrested, the vast majority will not face the most serious possible charges.

On Monday of this week, a Capitol attacker was sentenced to eight months in prison, after facing felony charges that could have merited a 20-year sentence. He was the first member of Trump’s attack force to be sentenced for a felony conviction.  

Can anyone doubt that if this man were identified as an antifascist, a Black Lives Matter supporter, a pipeline protester or a supporter of some other progressive cause, the sentence would have been far more severe? If he were a Muslim, the consequences would be harsher still. 

The likely or known ringleaders of Trump’s Jan. 6 coup attempt and attack on the Capitol — including Trump himself, Republicans co-conspirators in Congress and those who financed the plot — have not been arrested or prosecuted, and likely never will be.

This is an example of a larger unstated rule in American society, where rich white men rarely if ever face the full consequences of their deeds, however egregious those may be.

By comparison, last Thursday eight protesters, including Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, were arrested by Capitol Police for a peacefully demonstration in the Hart Senate Office Building against the Republicans’ nationwide campaign to restrict voting rights for Black and brown Americans. On Monday of this week, 100 protesters were also arrested by Capitol Police as they peacefully marched in support of voting rights on the 100th anniversary of the landmark Seneca Falls Women’s Convention, a formative moment for the women’s suffrage campaign (which for the most part excluded black women).

The net effect of this normalization of social and political deviance is to rob people of their capacity for mass outrage and collective action. This normalization process is also disorienting because it limits a society’s ability to understand the larger context of history, especially as it relates to questions of struggle and resistance. Thom Hartmann warned in a recent essay how:

History shows that most democratic nations don’t realize how serious their authoritarian fascism problem is until it overtakes them altogether. We saw it in the 1930s in Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan; today it’s happened in Hungary, Turkey, Egypt, Russia, The Philippines and Brazil, and is well underway in Poland, India and multiple smaller countries.

Here in America, the GOP today has a serious fascism problem, and it’s endangering all of us. It’s closer than most of us realize.

Fascism isn’t just about the merger of oligarch and state interests; it also requires a repudiation of the rule of law and the institutions of democracy itself.

The normalization of social and political deviance also denies a people the moral language necessary to diagnose and understand the full dimensions of a given crisis. For example, Donald Trump and his regime can be reasonably described as “evil.” But most members of America’s political class have consistently refused to use that language. The result was to enable the Trump regime’s assault on democracy, such that the country now faces an existential crisis that President Biden recently described as comparable to the Civil War.

In a 2019 interview with Salon, philosopher Susan Neiman discussed the question of Trump and “evil”:

Donald Trump meets every single criterion for using the word evil — and he keeps meeting it every day. Evil is a word that should be used with caution. … Unfortunately, the description of “evil” has been so overused that many people just believe that it is a type of name-calling.

I disagree. When we relinquish the use of language like “evil” we are leaving the strongest linguistic weapons that we have in the hands of the people who are least equipped to use them. But I do understand the caution and anxiety about using that language. Given the way that Trump’s supporters and the broader right-wing movement in America works, I am unsure if describing Trump as being evil would actually bring any clarity to the conversation. That does not mean that accurate language for describing Trump and what he represents should be avoided.

At the recent CPAC conference in Dallas, Trump told his audience, “I didn’t become different. I got impeached twice. I became worse.”

As he has done on several previous occasions, Trump engaged here in unintentional truth-telling, accurately described the moral shortcomings of too many American elites as well as everyday citizens.

Ultimately, there is no natural end point to the normalization of social and political deviance. It is a bottomless pit, one into which America as a whole has fallen. Some Americans willingly threw themselves into it the pit. Others have jumped in while wearing parachutes — that have not opened. Many Americans were thrown into this bottomless pit by others. A few — the lucky, the wise or those possessed of special insight, have avoided falling into the pit and remain poised on its edge, at least for now.

Only collective action and commitment to a moral crusade can save American democracy now. The normalization of social and political deviance is a process meant to make that impossible.

How Senate Democrats aim to pass climate policy without Republicans

President Joe Biden came into office brandishing an ambitious agenda. Then he ran headfirst into the impenetrable political wall that is the U.S. Senate. 

Biden’s $2 trillion climate and infrastructure plan, the crown jewel of his first-term agenda, endured months of negotiations before a bipartisan group of centrist senators whittled it into a version that they could accept. The now-$600 billion deal would still be a major investment in American infrastructure, but it doesn’t resemble Biden’s initial vision, which would have accelerated the transition to a low-carbon economy in the U.S. and invested serious resources in green jobs. ​​But Biden promised he wasn’t abandoning his climate mandate. “I’m not just signing the bipartisan bill and forgetting the rest of it,” Biden assured the progressive faction of his party in June. 

Late Tuesday night, Senate Democrats moved “the rest of it” a step forward. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and other Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee announced that they aim to pass the rest of Biden’s agenda — all of the climate and social policies that didn’t make it into the $600 billion infrastructure deal — in a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. Budget reconciliation is a process that allows Senators to bypass the filibuster — the arcane procedure that allows the minority to block bills that don’t have 60 votes — and to pass spending and tax measures with a simple majority. 

Deciding on a spending limit that moderates and progressives could agree on was the easy part. The hard part will be negotiating the specifics of the package, which are still forthcoming. 

The climate policies included in the spending plan may center around something called a clean electricity standard, or CES, which is a statutory mandate to reach a renewable electricity generation target by a certain date. The standard, according to Democratic lawmakers and legislative aides, aims to slash emissions 50 percent in the electricity sector by 2030. The standard would require the U.S. to get 80 percent of its electricity from clean sources by 2030, too.  

Decarbonizing the electricity sector is relatively low-hanging fruit. The way that the U.S. has made the most progress on cutting carbon so far has been through the electricity sector, with steps like retiring coal-fired plants, putting emissions controls on natural gas power plants, and adding wind and solar to the grid. Even so, power is the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by sector, right behind transportation. And the U.S. will require even more electricity to power the electric vehicles and electric appliances needed to replace the kinds that run on fossil fuels. 

But there are about a thousand moving pieces that might make it difficult to pass a clean electricity standard. For one, conservative Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia doesn’t like it. “I know they have the climate portion in here, and I’m concerned about that,” Manchin told CNN on Wednesday. If Manchin doesn’t get on board with a CES, it’s dead in the water, since Democrats must ultimately get all 50 senators in their party to vote for the bill in order for it to pass. What’s more, it’s not clear whether the Senate parliamentarian, the person who decides whether something can or cannot be included in a budget reconciliation bill, will allow Democrats to include a CES in there. 

“I don’t think you can reasonably argue that regulations that limit emissions or change car standards or anything like that are budget germane,” Marc Goldwein, head of policy at a nonprofit called the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told Grist in February. 

There are ways to tailor a clean energy standard to make it budget-relevant and fit the reconciliation mold. Democrats could incorporate the CES into the tax system by taxing certain percentages of electric utilities’ carbon-emitting generation. They could propose creating a carbon trading program within the federal government that companies can tap into to become more climate-friendly. And it’s worth noting that the CES isn’t the only climate measure under consideration. Democrats are also hoping to include funding for a “Civilian Climate Corps,” similar to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps but for jobs in climate resiliency, conservation, and other green industries. They may try to tie in money to expand existing clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits, funding to weatherize and electrify buildings, and more. In the House, where Democrats have a wider majority, progressives will likely try to tack on more climate-related amendments. 

“We’re probably still only about a fifth of the way through this process, but one of the most important thresholds was what’s the top line and what’s the commitment to climate?” Democratic Senator Brian Schatz from Hawaii told reporters on Wednesday. “And I feel very good.”

Out of half-and-half? Here are four easy substitutes

Half-and-half is a delightful dairy product — it works just as well as a coffee creamer as it does for making luscious, rich mashed potatoes. But sometimes, you run out because life happens and you need a substitute for half-and-half. That’s where these genius swaps come in. Next time you’re using a recipe that calls for half-and-half and all you have is milk or cream in the fridge, turn to these savvy substitutions.

What is half-and-half?

Well, it’s exactly what it sounds like! Half-and-half is a dairy product that is made by homogenizing a mixture of whole milk and heavy cream. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is the governing body that defines things like the difference between half-and-half and heavy whipping cream, half-and-half must contain at least 10.5% milkfat, but not more than 18% milkfat. Unlike heavy cream, half-and-half doesn’t hold its structure when whipped, so you can’t use it to make whipped cream. However, we have plenty of other brilliant recipes, like our Creamed Spinach and Parsnips, this refreshing, award-winning Lemon Basil Sherbet, and Cauliflower Gratin With Mornay Sauce.

Half-and-half substitutes

If you have whole milk and heavy cream on hand, you can make half-and-half. Using a measuring cup, simply combine 3/4 cup whole milk and 1/4 cup heavy cream (aka whipping cream). Use this mixture just as you would if you had half-and-half, like mixing it into a cup of coffee or tea or churning homemade ice cream.

Another good way to make a substitute for half-and-half is to combine equal parts of milk and light cream (1/2 cup of each). This is the exact formula for half-and-half, but home cooks are more likely to have heavy cream on hand than light cream, which is why we think the first recipe is the best method.

You can also use skim milk to make half-and-half. Instead of using equal parts of milk and cream, use 2/3 cup of low-fat milk and 1/3 cup of heavy cream to make a seamless substitution.

Another suitable swap for half-and-half is evaporated milk. All you need is to substitute an equal amount of evaporated milk for half-and-half; so if your recipe calls for 1/2 cup of half-and-half, just use 1/2 cup of evaporated milk in its place.

There are other ingredients that you can use in place of half-and-half such as melted butter, silken tofucornstarch, and Greek yogurt, but those methods are less tried-and-true.

New indictment could open “Pandora’s box” for Trump officials — including Ivanka and Jared: analyst

Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Tuesday that the indictment of longtime Trump ally Tom Barrack could pose trouble for former Trump officials if he chooses to cooperate with prosecutors.

During the interview, Burnett noted that Barrack was the chairman of former President Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration, which has also come under scrutiny from prosecutors for potential illegally spent funds.

“They are investigating possible misuse of funds and this could relate to members of the Trump family, right?” she asked McCabe. “Jared and Ivanka were intimately involved with the inaugural committee. Barrack knows anything there is to know about this. Could that be part of what this is about, for Barrack to give information on Trump or Trump family members?”

McCabe said it’s not clear that’s where this case is headed since the charges against Barrack are not related to his work on the inauguration.

However, he did not shut the door on the possibility altogether.

“The indictment itself puts the government in a position of enormous leverage over Tom Barrack, and one of the ways he might try to resolve this big problem he’s got is to provide information or evidence to the government on any other investigation,” he explained. “That could include the ongoing investigation of the inaugural committee or really anything else. So it really could open up a Pandora’s box for other people in the administration.”

Watch the video below via YouTube:

GOP doctor running for Minnesota governor denies he’s an anti-vaxxer — he’s just anti-vax-curious

A Minnesota physician who was banned by TikTok and investigated by medical authorities for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 is now running for governor. While Scott Jensen denies he’s an anti-vax candidate, he’s definitely an anti-vax-adjacent candidate

Jensen, a Republican who served four years in the Minnesota state Senate, launched a gubernatorial bid this spring after drawing headlines throughout the pandemic for stoking false claims about the virus. He was featured in the viral conspiracy-theory video “Plandemic” and cited by PolitiFact cited as a key source for its 2020 “Lie of the Year.” That referred to a Fox News appearance when Jensen supported the false allegation that doctors were overcounting COVID cases for financial benefit. Medical experts have in fact argued the exact opposite, that cases have consistently been undercounted.

Jensen’s baseless claim was promoted on the conspiracy theory clearinghouse Infowars and later used by former President Donald Trump on the campaign trail to downplay the pandemic death toll. Jensen came under investigation by the Minnesota State Board of Medical Practice last year for spreading the claim, although the complaint challenging his medical license was ultimately dismissed.

Jensen told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune that he had “no regrets” over his comments and touted his “inflated numbers” claim in announcing his gubernatorial campaign, vowing to “continue to search for truth and expose the facts surrounding COVID-19.”

More recently, Jensen has partnered with anti-vaccine activists to stoke fears about coronavirus vaccines. In May, he joined Dr. Simone Gold, an anti-vaccine activist who founded the pro-hydroxychloroquine, anti-mask group America’s Frontline Doctors — and who was arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 — in a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services seeking to prevent kids under 16 from being vaccinated. The lawsuit cited Jensen’s false claim that COVID poses a “0%” risk of death to children. Although in statistical terms the risk to children is low, hundreds of children and teens have died and thousands have been hospitalized, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jensen told the Twin Cities Pioneer Press that he has “quietly” been a member of America’s Frontline Doctors, which became something of a national laughingstock after videos showing Dr. Stella Immanuel, another member, warning about the dangers of sperm “demons” and “astral sex” with witches went viral last year. (For unclear reasons, Immanuel was speaking at a press conference in front of the Supreme Court building.) Jensen has recently tried to downplay his involvement with Gold’s lawsuit, telling the Pioneer Press that he had not read the entire petition and adding that he “did not know Simone was in any hot water over January 6.”

Jensen himself has refused to be vaccinated, saying it’s unnecessary because he was already infected with COVID. In fact, the CDC has urged those who have recovered from COVID to be vaccinated because it’s not clear how long natural immunity lasts. Jensen has defended the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine — which was vigorously promoted by Donald Trump as president — as a COVID treatment despite FDA warnings that data suggests the drug has “no benefit” to patients and could cause serious heart, kidney and liver issues. More recently, Jensen has promoted ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug that the FDA warns is not an antiviral and could cause “serious harm” to COVID patients. A large study cited by many conservatives to back its use was retracted last week due to “ethical concerns” after researchers discovered data discrepancies.

Jensen insists, however, that he is not against vaccines. “As Information and data are emerging weekly, if not daily, It is important to scrutinize and access all the data. Dr. Jensen appreciates the robust conversation from all perspectives,” Rita Hillmann Olson, a spokesperson for Jensen’s campaign, said in a statement to Salon. “The majority of Dr. Jensen’s patients, who are 70 or older with multiple underlying conditions, have been vaccinated for COVID. He spends more than $100,000 per year to provide vaccines for his patients and vaccines are a standard part of the medical care he provides.”

Dr. Aleta Borrud, a Minnesota doctor and a Democrat who is running for a state Senate seat, called Jensen’s claims an “affront” to health care providers and to the thousands of Minnesotans who have lost loved ones in the pandemic.

“By spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccination, Dr. Scott Jensen is undermining Minnesota’s efforts to put our state on a path to recovery at a moment when Minnesota is seeing an uptick in COVID-19 cases,” Borrud said in a statement. “He has been denounced nationally for falsely stating that COVID-19 deaths are inflated, attacking the integrity of our frontline medical providers, asserting they stand to gain financially by inflating death statistics.”

Jensen’s claims casting doubt on federal health agencies and the national COVID response have made him a star in right-wing media circles and has earned him frequent appearances on Fox News and other conservative outlets. Jensen has used his higher profile to build up a large social media following, becoming “one of the nation’s most-followed politicians on TikTok,” according to Axios, before he was banned from the app in April for violating its COVID misinformation policies.

Jensen has also amassed more than 290,000 followers on Facebook, which President Joe Biden recently blamed for “killing people” by failing to crack down on misinformation about the pandemic. Jensen’s Facebook rants against Dr. Anthony Fauci and videos criticizing the federal response frequently go viral and are swamped with comments calling forFauci’s arrest, falsely claiming “there was no pandemic,” baselessly alleging that the vaccine is “more dangerous than the virus” and pushing conspiracy theories comparing mass vaccination to “Holocaust experiments.”

Democratic state Sen. Matt Klein, a physician, said it was “harmful and dangerous” for Jensen to value his experience as a doctor over the “expertise of the overwhelming majority of virologists and public health experts across the country.”

“As doctors, when we encounter an issue outside our area of expertise, it is our practice and our creed to seek the opinions of experts in order to provide the best possible medical advice,” Klein said in a statement. “Time and time again, Scott Jensen has refused to do so and misled the people of Minnesota about the COVID-19 pandemic as a result.”

Jensen’s vaccine skepticism predates the pandemic. In 2019, he posted a Facebook video saying that vaccines could have adverse side effects, saying that “results are not guaranteed and research-based predictions often fall short” while supporting parents’ rights to refuse to get their kids immunized. But over the past year, he has become a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine conspiracy world. In October, Jensen appeared at a “Vaccine Awareness Event” in Alexandria, Minnesota, that featured discredited leading anti-vaccine activist Andrew Wakefield; Del Bigtree, founder of the anti-vaccine Informed Consent Action Network and a frequent guest on Alex Jones’ Infowars; Dr. Bob Zajac, a Minnesota physician who came under investigation by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice for questioning the safety of vaccines to patients; and Sheila Easley, an anti-vaccine activist whose claim that the MMR vaccine caused her son’s autism was featured in Wakefield and Bigtree’s documentary “Vaxxed.” At that event, Jensen stressed that he is not an anti-vaxxer but praised the panel for its “education and engagement” efforts.

Jensen was also a presenter at a notorious event called the “Truth Over Fear Summit on Covid and the ‘Great Reset,'” which the Anti-Defamation League described as promoting the conspiracy theory that “global elites” are using the pandemic to “advance their interests and push forward a globalist plot to destroy American sovereignty and prosperity.” The event also featured Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a leading anti-vaccine activist; Dr. Judy Mikovits, the doctor behind the “Plandemic” video and a vaccine conspiracy theorist; Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, who championed the use of hydroxychloroquine and got Trump to endorse it; Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who has falsely claimed that COVID vaccines cause infertility; and Dr. Carrie Madej, a QAnon supporter who spoke at a pro-Trump, anti-vaccine rally on Jan. 6, claiming that the vaccine “contains bio-sensing nanomachines designed to alter human DNA and control people’s minds.”

Jensen also appeared at the Minnesota Holistic Round Table Summit, which also featured Bigtree and Zajac, and has frequently appeared on Bigtree’s “Highwire” podcast since the start of the pandemic. Bigtree became a star in the anti-vaccine world after the 2016 release of “Vaxxed,” which was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival after backlash from medical experts. The film pushed Wakefield’s discredited claim that MMR vaccines cause autism, according to Stat News, and “advanced, but provided no evidence for, a conspiracy theory” claiming that the CDC “covered up vital data and committed fraud.”

Bigtree’s show was removed from YouTube after he urged viewers to intentionally expose themselves to COVID, but not before it had attracted more than 360,000 followers and more than 30 million views. Bigtree, who has no medical training, has called for everyone but high-risk individuals to “develop natural, stronger, more thorough herd immunity” without a vaccine, even though medical experts warned that would kill hundreds of thousands more people.

Bigtree has claimed that the “purpose” of COVID is to “help usher in vaccine mandates” and is part of a plot by the pharmaceutical industry to enrich itself. Bigtree has promoted his views on Infowars, baselessly warning of “vaccine-enhanced disease” and pushing the discredited claim that the vaccine makes women infertile.

Bigtree was a featured speaker at the MAGA Freedom Rally on Jan. 6, about a block away from the Capitol building, where he linked Trump’s election conspiracy theories to his campaign against vaccines.

“I wish I could tell you I believed in the CDC. … I wish I could tell you that this pandemic really is dangerous,” he said. “I wish I could believe that voting machines worked … but none of this is happening.”

Earlier this year, Jensen also appeared on the podcast hosted by Sherri Tenpenny, who has described Covid as a “scamdemic” and the vaccines as a “genocidal, DNA-manipulating, infertility-causing, dementia-causing machine.” Tenpenny claimed on Twitter that vaccines are a “method of depopulation” before she was suspended by the platform. A recent analysis found that Tenpenny was one of just 12 accounts responsible for producing up to 65% of all anti-vaccine content on Twitter and Facebook. Among her many conspiracy theories is a claim that Bill Gates is behind “chemtrail, 5G, and vaccine microchip-related, world-domination plans,” according to Snopes. More recently, Tenpenny went viral after appearing before Ohio state lawmakers to make the false claim that vaccines magnetize people.

Last month, Jensen was interviewed by Robert Scott Bell, a radio host and homeopathic practitioner who has promoted the use of a formula called Silver Hydrosol as a COVID treatment. The FDA has since listed the product among other “fraudulent” COVID remedies. More recently, Bell’s show has promoted vaccine infertility, vaccine shedding, “Eugenics,” and 5G conspiracy theories. The show is hosted by Natural News Radio, which was founded by Mike Adams, a conspiracy theorist who compared those who advocate COVID vaccines to Nazi eugenicists.

Despite repeatedly appearing alongside some of the most prominent anti-vaccine activists in the world, Jensen has repeatedly denied being an anti-vaxxer. He told the Star-Tribune in May that he wants vaccines for children paused “so that the status quo can be maintained until we have a chance to have a broader, more robust discussion.” But he has continued to claim on social media that teens and children have a “0% statistical chance of dying” from the pandemic even though at least 335 Americans under 17 have died, according to the CDC, and some children infected have had long COVID symptoms lasting for months.

Jensen called Democrats who accuse him of spreading conspiracy theories “desperate” but has said he knows his comments will continue to shadow his campaign.

“I think for me the question is going to be: ‘Was I on point? Was I rational? Was I a COVID denier? Did I intentionally phone in conspiracy theories?'” he told the Star-Tribune. “I think it’ll hang around. But I think it is going to be far enough away that Minnesotans are going to demand a stronger focus on public safety and what are we doing for our kids.”

In recent months, Jensen has tried to shift his public image, in sharp contrast to his initial attempts to blame Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, for “destroying livelihoods” and keeping “families apart and businesses closed” during the pandemic.

“I think Gov. Walz has made some good decisions, but as this pandemic has gone on, decisions haven’t been based on science, they’ve been based on political science,” Jensen told local news outlet KSTP after announcing his bid in March.

He denied that he has spread conspiracy theories, but= doubled down on his opposition to mask and vaccine mandates.

“I don’t think I introduced conspiracy theories,” he told the outlet. “People took snippets of what I said and put it wherever they wanted on programs and on pages and websites I’d never heard of. I don’t think there’s anything I could have done about that.”

The Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party has gone on the offensive against Jensen’s nascent campaign, calling him an “anti-vaccine doctor” and slamming him for joining a “fringe group of doctors and insurrectionists to spread dangerous misinformation.”

In a statement after Jensen announced his candidacy, DFL Party chair Ken Martin described him as “a dangerous COVID-19 conspiracy theorist who has been caught spreading lies about the pandemic, palling around with anti-vaccine extremists, and downplaying the virus that has taken over half a million American lives.” 

Who’s afraid of Nina Turner? Corporate Democrats, the Israel lobby and Big Pharma

Nina Turner is very scary — to the power brokers who’ve been spending big money and political capital to keep her out of Congress. With early voting underway, tensions are spiking as the decisive Democratic primary race in northeast Ohio nears its Aug. 3 finish. The winner will be virtually assured of filling the seat in the deep-blue district left vacant by Rep. Marcia Fudge when she became President Biden’s HUD secretary. What’s at stake in the special election is whether progressives will gain a dynamic champion in the House of Representatives.

For the Democratic Party establishment, the specter of “Congresswoman Nina Turner” is alarming. The former national co-chair of the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign has a proven capacity to stir fervent energy on the left around the country. Her ability to inspire at the grassroots is far beyond what mainstream party leaders can do.

All politics is local when the votes are finally counted — but in the meantime, this contest is a national clash of political forces. Turner’s endorsements include 15 progressive House and Senate members along with numerous left-leaning organizations. Her main opponent, Shontel Brown, has supporters who include the upper ranks of Democratic Party leaders as well as corporate heavy hitters.

Hillary Clinton’s mid-June endorsement of Brown was later eclipsed by the third-ranking House Democrat, majority whip Jim Clyburn. He recorded a TV ad for Brown with a swipe at Turner while identifying himself as “the highest-ranking African American in Congress.” In the process of throwing his political weight against Turner — who is a strong advocate of Medicare for All — Clyburn didn’t mention his exceptional record of receiving hefty donations from the pharmaceutical industry.

Last fall, a newspaper in his home state of South Carolina, the Post and Courier, spelled out details under the headline “Clyburn Has Taken More Than $1 Million in Pharma Money in a Decade, Far Surpassing Peers.” The paper reported that Clyburn “has collected more in the last decade from powerful political action committees attached to the pharmaceutical industry than anyone else in the House or Senate.” Clyburn has been vocally in tune with his benefactors, warning against Medicare for All and “socialized medicine.”

That Clyburn would try to undercut Turner’s campaign is logical, especially given her emphatic support for Medicare for All. Likewise, one of her major campaign planks — calling for “environmental justice” and “reinventing our energy and transportation systems through a Green New Deal” — would hardly appeal to the fossil-fuel mogul who is the biggest funder of the Democratic Majority for Israel super PAC, now intervening with huge ad buys to defeat Turner.

The megadonor behind that intervention is “an oil and gas executive who belongs to a billionaire family,” the Intercept pointed out days ago. “Stacy Schusterman, heir and chair of Samson Energy, a fossil fuel company that owns at least 11 oil and gas wells in Wyoming, donated $1.55 million to Democratic Majority for Israel in 2019 and 2020, a super PAC that has in turn spent over $660,000 on ads” supporting Brown and attacking Turner. 

Those ads have descended into blatant deception. “Brown has gained momentum in recent weeks with hundreds of thousands of dollars in support from the Democratic Majority for Israel PAC, who funded flagrantly false mailers smearing Turner,” the Cleveland Scene newspaper reported last week. These methodical lies have included claims that Turner has opposed universal health care — an assertion that earned the label “wildly dishonest” from Washington Post journalist Dave Weigel and the adjective “sleazy” from Rep. Mark Pocan, chair emeritus of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. 

Democratic Majority for Israel is led by Mark Mellman — a longtime strategist for AIPAC, the powerful right-wing group more formally known as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which remained closely aligned with Benjamin Netanyahu throughout his long and racist tenure as Israel’s prime minister. Another spinoff from AIPAC that’s also spending big bucks on advertising against Turner is a rightward-leaning outfit called Pro-Israel America. Its founder and executive director, Jeff Mendelsohn, worked as a high-level AIPAC operative for more than 10 years.

The massive amounts of advertising and vitriol being dumped on Nina Turner leave Israel and foreign policy virtually unmentioned. And she has said little about the Middle East or other aspects of foreign affairs. But Turner’s occasional comments have been clear enough to convey principled independence. In a tweet two months ago, during Israel’s aerial bombardment of Gaza, she wrote: “Palestinian lives matter.” The same week, she expressed solidarity with American Jews and Palestinians who had gathered in front of the State Department to call for an end to Israeli apartheid.

While well-heeled groups that demand unequivocal support for Israel’s policies are funding anti-Turner ads, Shontel Brown has gone out of her way to express fulsome devotion to Israel as well as gratitude to Democratic Majority for Israel. Meanwhile, people who actually live in the congressional district have much to consider about the close-to-home records of the two leading candidates. Turner served on the Cleveland City Council and in the Ohio State Senate. Brown is a local elected official and chairs the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party.

Early this month, when Cleveland’s daily newspaper weighed in with an endorsement, it wasn’t a close call. “There is one person in this crowded field who has shown she isn’t afraid to stand up to power and to partisan shibboleths, who has the guts to say what she thinks and do what’s right for her constituents and country, who is passionate about public service and knows the issues, the personalities, the challenges better than anyone else in this race,” the Plain Dealer editorialized. “That person is Nina Turner.” In sharp contrast, the editorial described Shontel Brown as “a pleasant but undistinguished member of Cuyahoga County Council who has little to show for her time in office.”

But the national forces arrayed against Nina Turner are preoccupied with other matters — like protecting the pharmaceutical industry’s leverage over health care, or maximizing the profits of fossil-fuel companies, or maintaining Israel’s power to suppress the rights of Palestinian people. In pursuit of such goals, the mission is clear: Don’t let Nina Turner get to Congress.

Former Fox News reporter calls out Tucker Carlson for lying about vaccines: “It’s about ratings”

Former Fox News reporter Carl Cameron appears to be fed up with Tucker Carlson’s antics. On Monday, July 19, Cameron criticized the primetime television host for spewing misinformation and sowing doubt about the COVID-19 vaccines.

Cameron appeared on CNN’s “New Day” where he shared his opinion of Carlson, as HuffPost reported. He admitted that he believes Carlson’s efforts and dangerous rhetoric are a method of gaslighting viewers to increase ratings and revenue for the network.

“It’s about ratings and ratings ultimately become revenue, and that’s the name of the game,” Cameron said.

Since the release of the COVID vaccine, some Republicans and right-wing figures have pushed back against the Biden administration’s initiatives to increase vaccinations. Carlson has been one of the most prominent figures fueling conservative fears about getting vaccinated, which has limited the effectiveness of the vaccination campaign to thwart the virus.

“Whoever gets the most clicks on social media, makes the most money, gets the most fame, gets the most attention and that type of activity is not journalism,” Cameron continued. “It’s not news. It’s gaslighting. It’s propaganda.”

Cameron also noted the dangers of public figures disputing the scientific community’s work despite solid evidence that exists to support their concerns and claims about the coronavirus. He also offered a metaphor explaining how he views their actions.

“It makes no sense whatsoever,” he said. “This is literally the metaphor of the lemmings running to their own slaughter. People who are listening to that sort of stuff instead of the science that goes way way back.”

He continued, “It is the opinion hosts who aren’t journalists per se, they’re talking heads, and their job, their reward is bringing eyeballs on television, and all they really gotta do is keep people watching until it’s commercial time, and then it’s ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching for the networks. And it works really well in prime time, but it’s not news.”

You can watch the video below via YouTube:

How worried should we be about the delta variant? Scientists weigh in

On Tuesday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced sobering news: COVID-19 fatalities have increased by nearly 48 percent over the past week, to an average of 239 deaths per day.

While that number is still much lower from the 5,000 COVID-19 deaths in one day the U.S. experienced at the height of the pandemic, health officials suspect the rise is linked to the surge in cases dominated by what is known as the delta variant, a nascent mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. In the same briefing, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said the variant first identified in India now makes up an estimated 83 percent of all COVID-19 cases.

“This is a dramatic increase from — up from 50% for the week of July 3rd,” Walensky said in a hearing before the Senate Health Committee. “In some parts of the country, the percentage is even higher, particularly in areas of low vaccination rates.”

This news follows a restored mask mandate in Los Angeles county, which became the first major county in the U.S. to require masks for all people indoors in public spaces after lifting the mandate a little over a month ago. Subsequently, officials in the San Francisco Bay Area urged people to wear a mask indoors regardless of vaccination status.

Yesterday, on July 19, the Dow Jones Industrial Average saw its biggest single-day drop of the year over fears that the delta strain could trigger a new lockdown. Are investors right that the U.S. is on the precipice of a fourth wave of the pandemic, and that restrictions and lockdowns could be reinstated as the delta strain takes hold?

“If you’re in a place where a lot of your high-risk population is fully vaccinated, you’re going to see cases of the delta variant, invariably, but they’re not going to translate into hospitals worrying about their capacity,” said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. “So you’re going to see most of the United States be able to handle it that way, but they’re going to be regions like, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, where there may be certain parts of the state where there are enough high-risk individuals who are not fully vaccinated where you may see regional stress on hospitals in those areas.”

Health experts like Adalja unanimously tell Salon that the delta variant poses a clear threat to unvaccinated adults, especially those who are considered to be high-risk for COVID-19, and communities with more unvaccinated people than vaccinated people. The good news is that unlike previous surges, vaccines are readily available. A recent study from Scotland showed that 14 days after receiving the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the vaccine was at least 79 percent effective in protecting against the delta variant. While that isn’t as high as the initial 95 percent effectiveness against the original strain, health experts are satisfied with how the vaccines stack up against the variant.  A study from Canada suggested that the Moderna vaccine was 72 percent effective against the delta variant after one dose. There is little data on the efficacy of how the Johnson & Johnson single-shot vaccine protects against the delta variant, but a new study posted on Tuesday states it is less effective; that study is at odds with the results from a separate study published by Johnson & Johnson earlier this month stating their vaccine holds up well against the new mutation.


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


Specifically what makes the delta variant a “variant of concern” among unvaccinated individuals is how its mutations are more dangerous than other variants. The virus is believed to be far more contagious and transmissible due to how it generates more copies of itself in the respiratory tract.

Indeed, the delta variant “has different mutations and has now been linked to 1,000-fold more copies of the virus in people who are infected compared to the early strains, so it’s a much more contagious version of the virus; that’s the main issue,” said Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at Scripps Research Institute. “It also has an ability to some extent to evade the immune response developed against COVID, naturally, or even with vaccines, to some extent.”

But is the variant more deadly? Experts still don’t have an answer to that question.

“That’s not entirely clear, because there’s lots of confounding factors like the vaccines,” Topol said. “The fact that when something is so much more transmissible and there are more deaths and hospitalizations, you don’t know whether it’s because it’s spreading more or because it’s the virus, per se.”

Topol emphasized that unvaccinated adults who never had COVID-19 to provide them with some immunity should be concerned about the delta variant spreading across the country.

“It’s very likely, more likely than ever before, that they’re going to get it,” Topol said. “So getting vaccinated is really imperative; if you’re vaccinated, the risk of getting delta is markedly diminished and if you do get it, it’s likely to either be without symptoms or it can be mild symptoms.”

Breakthrough cases, meaning infections among vaccinated people, are occurring — but not at a high enough rate to be a cause for concern, experts say. According to the CDC, there are reports of 5,492 patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections that led to hospitalizations; 1,063 of those cases died. That is a small percent of the more than 159 million people in the United States who have been fully vaccinated. While the CDC is still working on collecting data and identifying patterns of breakthrough cases, a small study from Israel found that 94 percent of 152 breakthrough infections causing hospitalizations were in patients with some sort of underlying condition.

It is unclear whether the delta variant is causing more breakthrough cases. But some studies have found that many breakthrough cases are in patients with the delta variant. Yet given that the majority of new COVID-19 cases in some countries are caused by the delta variant, that may not be entirely surprising.

Still, doctors like Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, are much more worried about unvaccinated adults than vaccinated ones.

“I’m worried for the unvaccinated adults,” said Gandhi. “I’m not worried about the vaccinated, and I’m not worried about children.”

Gandhi said that she had co-authored an analysis in the Wall Street Journal that found that the delta virus does not, at the moment, appear to be more virulent than earlier variants.

“I can’t say that I’m as worried as the headlines are saying we should be worried,” Gandhi said. “It’s really the unvaccinated I’m worried about.” 

Indicted Trump official may have given prosecutors evidence that can be used at future trial: report

The Trump Organization executive indicted in the long-running tax evasion scheme offered a defense of his high-end car and luxury apartment perks while in police custody.

Allen Weisselberg, the company’s chief financial officer, justified the unreported perks, which prosecutors say hid $1.76 million in taxable compensation, by whining about rush-hour traffic as he sat for arrest processing on July 1, reported the Washington Post.

“In sum and substance, defendant Allen Weisselberg stated that the commute to work from Long Island was difficult,” two investigators said a defendant statement disclosure filed in New York Supreme Court after the arrest.

The comments were likely made without prompting and could be used as evidence at a future trial, the newspaper reported.

Weisselberg was in custody and had an attorney as his arrest was processed, which involves fingerprinting and collecting biographical information, and law enforcement officers are legally prohibited from interrogating suspects about the charged crimes in that scenario.

 

Would you eat a green bean sandwich? The internet is divided

Crunchy, crispy, and vibrant as can be, green beans are practically one of the seven wonders of the world. Right? Right. We’re obsessed with them year-round, but especially during spring and summer, when they’re at their peak (like . . . right now!). But frankly, the same dish of sautéed green beans with slivered almonds and lemon zest can get a little boring time and time again. We’re always looking for new ways to highlight seasonal produce to change things up a bit. Food editor Emma Laperruque does this time and time again, asking questions like “What If Latkes Were Made With…Asparagus?” and baking feta with fresh strawberries. Leave it to recipe developer and frequent Food52 contributor Caroline Lange to come up with a totally new and innovative way to serve green beans — in the form of a sandwich!

To make this beautiful bite, slices of focaccia are topped with the slices of mozzarella and are baked until the bread is toasted and cheese has melted. Then, a generous scoop of the marinated oily, vinegar-y beans are piled high on the bread for a vegetarian sandwich that balances the texture of creamy cheese, soft bread, and crisp beans. Simple and easy, right?

Yes . . . and no. Turns out, our Instagram followers were pretty divided over the concept of a green bean sandwich. One user commented, “I’m reporting this,” to which Patrick Moynihan, our Director of Social Media, wrote “please don’t, it’s just a sandwich.” Seriously people, It. Is. Just. A. Sandwich!

Some commenters said while they weren’t totally sold on the idea, they would try to keep an open mind. “I don’t hate this,” wrote Instagram user petervourloumis. Others didn’t seem to have strong opinions about the sandwich in general, but they were proud to see the Food52 social media team defending the sandwich — and clapping back at what we’d consider some pretty aggressive takes for what is ultimately vegetables inside of bread. (Oh, and for the last time, social media accounts like Instagram and Facebook are not run by interns!).

Fortunately, there were plenty of users on the right side of history. “Just ate this last night and it’s stupid good,” said user bexbakesalot. Another recalled eating a similar sandwich from Fra’s, an Italian sandwich shop in Rhode Island that actually served as the inspiration for Caroline’s creation: “I remember this sandwich from Fra’s! I only had it once and have always wanted to recreate it at home. Thanks!” You’re welcome, stacey_bodz.

Love the idea or hate it (but let’s be honest, there’s really no reason not to love it), don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it . . . and especially don’t come for poor Patrick in the comments section.

More drama at Turning Point USA: Convicted felon seen at conference; congressional candidate tossed

“conservative porn star” was banned from the four-day Turning Point USA gathering in Tampa over the weekend, but a notorious right-wing felon and fraudster was allowed to participate in the conservative youth summit. 

Jonathan Lee Riches, a 44-year-old convicted felon known for filing absurd and frivolous lawsuits while serving a 10-year sentence for fraud and conspiracy, now spends his time leading right-wing harassment campaigns and posing as the uncle of a mass shooter. He attended the TPUSA gathering, recording video of himself walking around the event and photographing other attendees, in addition to being seen at a late-night after-party where Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe danced the night away. 

The gathering is billed on TPUSA’s website as an event where “thousands of student activists between the ages of 15 and 26 will be invited to attend.” The site describes the Student Action Summit as “an invite-only event primarily intended for students between the ages of 15 and 26.” 

TPUSA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet declined to comment on Riches’ presence at the summit in the wake of Brandi Love’s expulsion. 

There was more drama at the TPUSA conference as well. Salon has learned that Matt Tito, a Republican congressional candidate in Florida, was kicked out of the gathering on Sunday morning. This may be because of Anna Paulina Luna, another Republican running for the open seat in Florida’s 13th district, who recently claimed in court documents that Tito played a role in an alleged murder plot meant to “take her out,” according to The New York Post. Luna is a former TPUSA employee, and was also present at the weekend conference, even interviewing Donald Trump Jr. at one point. 

Another candidate accused by Luna, William Braddock, recently told The Tampa Bay Times, “This woman is off her rocker and she does not need to be representing anyone.”

In a call with Salon on Monday night, Tito characterized Luna’s allegation as a “total political hit job,” while claiming that Luna had used her influence with TPUSA to get him tossed from the youth summit, even though TPUSA events director Lauren Toncich had given him and several associates free tickets.  

Luna’s campaign did not respond to an email inquiry from Salon. 

“Five security guards come up, and they surround me, and they are like, ‘You are going to have to leave, sir,'” Tito said. “Instead of coming to me and finding out the facts, they just kicked me out! ‘Cause it’s easier to kick out Matt Tito, who they don’t know, than deal with crazy Luna.” 

Kolvet, the TPUSA spokesperson, declined to comment on this situation as well.  

CORRECTION: This story has been edited since its initial publication to remove unsupported allegations about Jonathan Riches’ conduct made by unnamed sources. That material should not have been included in the first place. Salon regrets the error.

An Oregon wildfire is so intense it is literally creating its own weather system

Southern Oregon is currently being consumed by a conflagration known as the Bootleg Fire. It has already devoured more than 606 square miles at the time of this writing (an area larger than the city of Los Angeles) and has only been 30 percent contained. The behemoth blaze is accelerating its growth, and has been growing by 80 square miles per day or more.

It is also doing something that makes it much more difficult to manage: creating its own weather.

“The fire is so large and generating so much energy and extreme heat that it’s changing the weather,” Marcus Kauffman, a spokesman for the state forestry department, told The New York Times. “Normally the weather predicts what the fire will do. In this case, the fire is predicting what the weather will do.”

What exactly is the Bootleg Fire doing?

For one thing, the wildfire is creating pyrocumulus clouds. These are dense clouds that form in a cumuliform manner (meaning they develop vertically) and are associated with volcanic eruptions or fires. When the extreme heat from a wildfire’s flames cause the air to rise rapidly, the moisture on smoke particles produced by the fire condense and cool. This process ultimately causes the clouds to produce high winds and even lightning, in a sense becoming their own thunderstorms. USA Today described the tops of the clouds as looking like anvils. This is not only because of their shape but their color: they tend to be dark and gray because of the ash and other fire-related particles contained within them.

There is a feedback loop that can come into play here, as these tall clouds generated by the fire can then stoke the fire more, as history attests. The Tennant Fire in California, which began this month and is now fully contained, produced fire clouds so massive (also known as pyrocumulonimbus clouds) that strong winds caused them to rotate, producing a tornado (or fire whirl). Such clouds are also capable of shooting matter from the wildfire as high up as 10 miles above the Earth’s surface. NASA refers to these as the “fire-breathing dragon of clouds” because of their dangerous and literally fiery properties.

If this wildfire seems scary, expect more similar ones in the future. Experts agree that extreme wildfires are going to become more common as climate change worsens. As the Earth’s temperature warms, forests face an increased fire threat from what are known as fine fuels — meaning dead tree matter and other organic detritus that has a high surface-area-to-volume ratio and dries quickly. When these fine fuels are left in unusually parched and hot conditions, they are more susceptible than usual to combusting. As Professor Francis E. Putz, a botanist at the University of Florida, told Salon previously, approaches to this problem that do not address climate change (including former president Donald Trump’s infamous suggestion that we rake the forests) will not be effective.


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


“If we do not address the climate change issue, no amount of forest management is going to avoid this sort of situation in the future — and note that the rate of change has increased, not decreased or stabilized,” Putz explained.

This is not the only future extreme weather event that can be linked to climate change. Large areas of the planet are expected to become too hot and/or too dry to live in; there will be more thunderstorms, hurricanes, and droughts; and sea levels will rise, displacing millions of people who live along coasts.

Naomi Osaka exposes Megyn Kelly’s ignorance about media: “Do better Megan”

On Monday, tennis super star and mental health advocate Naomi Osaka graced the cover of Sports Illustrated’s 2021 issue, alongside Megan Thee Stallion, who made history as the first rapper on the magazine cover, and Leyla Bloom, its first trans model. Osaka herself is also the first Haitian and Japanese woman on a cover. 

As widely celebrated as this year’s covers have been, conservative political commentator Megyn Kelly had an unsolicited thought or two to share. The former Fox News host, known for previous takes like the necessity of Santa Claus being white, criticized Osaka for gracing the cover of a magazine despite her much publicized departure from the French Open two months ago so she could abstain from the competition’s media requirements due to her mental health.

“Let’s not forget the cover of (& interview in) Vogue Japan and Time Mag!” Kelly said in a smug quote tweet ignorantly accusing Osaka of hypocrisy. The needless feud initiated by Kelly notably comes just weeks before “The Megyn Kelly Show” talk show is set to air on Sirius XM. This would be her first full-time journalism job since her 2019 exit from NBC, Insider reports.

In a now-deleted tweet, Osaka responded by setting the record straight — and pretty much proving she knows more about journalism than a “journalist” like Kelly. “Seeing as you’re a journalist I would’ve assumed you would take the time to research what the lead times are for magazines. If you did that, you would’ve found I shot all of my covers last year. Instead, your first reaction is to hop on here and spew negativity, do better Megan [sic],” Osaka wrote.

As Osaka points out, media appearances like cover shoots, or collaborations like the Naomi Osaka Barbie doll, are planned and created months if not over a year in advance before being made public. Osaka’s Sports Illustrated covers, Netflix documentary series, and Barbie doll — all of which have been catching heat from mostly conservative critics — were created long before her recent, escalated mental health struggles that barred her from completing the French Open’s media requirement, and participating in the tournament itself.

That said, Kelly’s critical tweets of Osaka are hardly the slam dunk she seems to think they are, considering Osaka has never said she never plans to participate in media or work with journalists. Quite the opposite, in her statement from the end of May, she brought up her desire to “make things better for the players, press and fans.”

Of course, not one to take a hint, Kelly felt the need to continue the feud she’d initiated, even after Osaka had opted for the high road and deleted her tweet and blocked Kelly. “Poor @naomiosaka blocked me while taking a shot at me (guess she’s only tough on the courts),” Kelly wrote. “She is apparently arguing that she shot her many covers b/4 publicly claiming she was too socially anxious to deal w/press. Truth is she just doesn’t like Qs she can’t control. Admit it.”

Kelly, of course, isn’t the only media personality who felt the need to mock and belittle someone struggling with mental illness. English TV personality Piers Morgan tweeted of Osaka’s Sports Illustrated cover, “ANOTHER magazine cover for brave inspiring Naomi! No wonder she had no time for beastly media press conferences!” Following Kelly’s self-important announcement that she’d been blocked by Osaka, Morgan chimed in via tweet: “Yep, and she just blocked me too. The only media Ms Osaka wants to tolerate are sycophantic magazine editors telling her how perfect she is.”

Morgan and Kelly were just two of many mostly white, middle-aged right-wing media personalities who felt compelled to dunk on a 23-year-old Black and Japanese athlete for a magazine photoshoot she shot months ago. It’s unclear what point if any they were trying to make here. Rather than make a point, Kelly and Morgan’s tweets come off as a desperate and racist ploy for attention through tearing down a trailblazing Black woman, who’s courageously been open about her struggles with anxiety and depression. If Kelly is so desperate to talk about the “truth,” it’s as simple as this: Kelly is a right-wing “journalist” who was fired from NBC three years ago after defending blackface as appropriate for Halloween, and Morgan himself left ITV’s “Good Morning Britain” after backlash for his racist harassment of Meghan Markle, another Black woman who’s openly struggled with mental health and suicidal ideation. In contrast with these two, Osaka is one of the most decorated and talented athletes in the world.

Where Kelly and Morgan share a long history of tearing down women of color, and especially Black women, and generally spewing racist conspiracy theories and gossip on the interwebs, Osaka has been paving the way for other athletes not just through her brilliant tennis abilities, but also her championing of the importance of prioritizing mental health. The dominant sports culture has long taken advantage of athletes’ labor, and bred entitlement among media and fans to total, unfiltered access to athletes. In challenging this culture, Osaka is inspiring athletes around the world and all people with mental health struggles to be unapologetic about doing what they need to do to take care of themselves, and be unafraid to ask for what they need.

As cruel and heinous as Kelly’s attacks on a woman who’s been open about her mental illness may be, her ultimate insignificance can be summed up by Osaka’s flippant misspelling of Kelly’s name. “Do better Megan,” indeed.

Dr. Fauci goes off on “lying” Rand Paul: “You don’t know what you’re talking about!”

Dr. Anthony Fauci on Tuesday unloaded on Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for suggesting that the National Institutes of Health funded research at a Chinese lab that could have sparked the COVID pandemic.

Paul, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee who has repeatedly clashed with Fauci during pandemic hearings, suggested that the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases lied to Congress in May when he denied that the NIH funded so-called “gain of function” research to mutate animal viruses to infect humans at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Paul previously alleged that Fauci has “moral culpability” for the outbreak and on Tuesday cited a 2017 paper from researchers at the Wuhan lab looking at bat coronaviruses to suggest Fauci misled senators.

“Dr. Fauci, knowing it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement?” Paul asked.

“I have never lied to Congress and I do not retract that statement,” Fauci replied. “This paper that you are referring to  judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain-of-function.”

Paul interrupted Fauci to insist that he was right, prompting Fauci to blow up at the senator.

“Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly, and I would like to say that officially,” Fauci fumed. “You do not know what you are talking about.”

Paul insisted that the research described in the paper met the NIH’s definition of “gain-of-function” research, accusing Fauci of “dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for 4 million dying around the world.”

“I totally resent the lie you are now propagating, senator,” Fauci shot back, adding that it is “molecularly impossible” that the viruses described in the paper could have caused COVID-19.

“No one is saying those viruses caused the pandemic,” Paul insisted. “What we’re alleging is that gain-of-function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it. You can’t get away from it, it meets your definition and you are obfuscating the truth.”

“I’m not obfuscating the truth, you’re the one,” Fauci responded. “You are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals. I totally resent that. And if anybody is lying here, senator, it is you.”

The Wuhan lab has been under increasing scrutiny amid allegations that Covid may have leaked from the research facility, though there has been little new evidence to support the theory. The World Health Organization investigated the virus origin but said China concealed raw data from investigators.

“China to be transparent, open and cooperate, especially on the information, raw data that we asked for at the early days of the pandemic,” WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said last week, saying it was “premature” to rule out the lab leak theory.

President Joe Biden has ordered an intelligence community review into the origins of the virus and Congress is working on legislation that would ban US funding for the Wuhan lab. Fauci said in May that he is “fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China.”

Fauci has frequently clashed with Paul during HELP Committee hearings on the pandemic.

“This is a pattern that Senator Paul has been doing now at multiple hearings based on no reality,” Fauci complained on Tuesday. “I have never lied certainly not before Congress. Case closed.”

Last September, Fauci upbraided Paul for suggesting that New York City had enough infections to approach herd immunity.

“You’ve misconstrued that, senator, and you’ve done that repetitively in the past,” Fauci told Paul before complaining that “this happens with Sen. Rand all the time.”

“If you believe 22% is herd immunity, I believe you’re alone in that,” Fauci scolded.

Paul, who refuses to be vaccinated because he already tested positive for the virus last year, during an exchange in March charged that masks for the vaccinated and those who have already had Covid were just “theater.”

“Here we go again with the theater,” Fauci exclaimed. “Let’s get down to the facts. Let me just state for the record that masks are not theater. Masks are protective.”

Fauci went on to warn that new variants, like the highly transmissible Delta variant, were another “good reason for a mask.”

“I’ve been dealing — this is not the first time we’ve clashed at a Senate hearing. You know, there is always — as is always the case — a kernel of truth in what he says about that there is protection to some extent after you get infected, there’s no doubt about that,” Fauci complained during an interview with CNN after the hearing. “He completely does not take into account the variants.”

Fauci said that he has been aggressive in pushing back on Paul’s claims because he worries about the public health implications.

“If people hear what he says, and believe it, and you have an elderly person who has been infected, and they decide, well, Rand Paul says, ‘Let’s not wear a mask,’ they won’t, ” Fauci told the network. “They could get reinfected again and get into trouble. So that’s the thing that bothers me about that type of an interchange.”

Not just Joe Biden: America has an accountability problem

America has an accountability problem. In fact, if the Covid-19 disaster, the January 6th Capitol attack, and the Trump years are any indication, the American lexicon has essentially dispensed with the term “accountability.”

This should come as no surprise. After all, there’s nothing particularly new about this. In the Bush years, those who created a system of indefinite offshore detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, those who implemented a CIA global torture program and the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance policy, not to mention those who purposely took us to war based on lies about nonexistent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, were neither dismissed, sanctioned, nor punished in any way for obvious violations of the law. Nor has Congress passed significant legislation of any kind to ensure that all-encompassing abuses like these will not happen again.

Now, early in the Biden era, any determination to hold American officials responsible for such past wrongdoing, even the president who helped launch an assault on the Capitol, seems little more than a fantasy. It may be something to discuss, rail against, or even make promises about, but not actually reckon with — not if you’re either a deeply divided Congress or a Department of Justice that has compromised itself repeatedly in recent years. Under other circumstances, of course, those would be the two primary institutions with the power to pursue genuine accountability in any meaningful way for extreme and potentially illegal government acts.

Today, if thought about at all, accountability — whether in the form of punishment for misdeeds or meaningful reform — has been reduced to a talking point. With that in mind, let’s take a moment to consider the Biden administration’s approach to accountability so far.

How We Got Here

Even before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, the country was already genuinely averse to accountability. When President Obama took office in January 2009, he faced the legacy of the George W. Bush administration’s egregious disregard for laws and norms in its extralegal post-9/11 war on terror. From day one of his presidency, Obama made clear that he found his predecessor’s policies unacceptable by both acknowledging and denouncing those crimes. But he insisted that they belonged to the past.

Fearing that the pursuit of punishment would involve potentially ugly encounters with former officials and would seem like political retribution in a country increasingly divided and on edge, he clearly decided that it wouldn’t be worth the effort. Ultimately, as he said about “interrogations, detentions, and so forth,” it was best for the nation to “look forward, as opposed to looking backward.”

True to the president’s word, the Obama administration refused to hold former officials responsible for violations of fundamental constitutional and legal issues. Among those who escaped retrospective accountability were Vice President Dick Cheney, who orchestrated the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq based on lies; the lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, John Yoo, who, in his infamous “Torture Memos,” justified the “enhanced interrogation” of war-on-terror prisoners; and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who created a Bermuda triangle of injustice at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In terms of reform, Obama did ensure a degree of meaningful change, including decreeing an official end to the CIA torture of prisoners of war. But too much of what had happened remained unaddressed and lay in wait for abuse at the hands of some irresponsible future president.

As a result, many of the sins that were at the heart of the never-ending response to the 9/11 attacks have become largely forgotten history, leaving many potential crimes unaddressed. And even more sadly, the legacy of accountability’s demise only continues. Biden and his team entered office facing a brand-new list of irregularities and abuses by high-ranking officials, including President Trump.

In this case, the main events demanding accountability had occurred on the domestic front. The January 6th insurrection, the egregious mishandling of the pandemic, the interference in the 2020 presidential election, and the use of the Department of Justice for political ends all awaited investigation after inauguration day. At the outset, the new government dutifully promised that some form of accountability would indeed be forthcoming. On January 15th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announcedthat she planned to convene an independent commission to thoroughly investigate the Capitol riots, later pledging to look into the “facts and causes” of that assault on Congress.

Attorney General nominee Merrick Garland similarly promised, “If confirmed, I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on January 6th.” Meanwhile, signaling some appetite for holding his predecessor accountable, during the presidential campaign, Joe Biden had already ruled out the possibility of extending a pardon to Donald Trump. In that way, he ensured that, were he elected, numerous court cases against the president and his Trump Organization would be open to prosecution — even as Noah Bookbinder, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, recently suggested, reviving of the obstruction of justice charges that had been central to the Mueller investigation of the 2016 presidential election.

Reluctance in the Halls of Accountability

Six months after Joe Biden took office, there has been no firm movement toward accountability by his administration. On the question of making Donald Trump and his allies answer for their misdeeds, the appetite of this administration so far seems wanting, notably, for example, when it comes to the role the president may have played in instigating the Capitol attack. Sadly, Pelosi’s call for an independent commission to investigate that insurrectionary moment passed the House, but fell victim last month to the threat of a filibuster and was blocked in the Senate. (Last week, largely along party lines, the House passed a select committee to investigate the insurrection.)

Trump’s disastrous mishandling of the pandemic, potentially responsible for staggering numbers of American deaths, similarly seems to have fallen into the territory of unaccountability. The partisan divisions of Congress continue to stall a Covid-19 investigation. National security expert and journalist Peter Bergen, for instance, called for a commission to address the irresponsible way the highest levels of government dealt with the pandemic, but the idea failed to gain traction. Instead, the focus has turned to the question of whether or not there was malfeasance at a Chinese government lab in Wuhan.

It matters not at all that numerous journalists, including Lawrence WrightMichael Lewis, and Nicholson Baker, have impressively documented the mishandling of the pandemic here. Such disastrous acts included early denials of the lethality of the disease, the disavowal of pandemic preparedness plans, the dismantling of the very government office meant to respond to pandemics, the presidential promotion of quack cures, a disregard for wearing masks early on, and so much else, all of which contributed to a generally chaotic governmental response, which ultimately cost tens of thousands of lives.

In truth, a congressional investigation into either the Capitol riots or the Trump administration’s mishandling of the pandemic might never have led to actual punitive accountability. After all, the 9/11 Commission, touted as the gold standard for such investigations, did nothing of the sort. While offering a reputable history of the terrorist threat that resulted in the attacks of September 11, 2001, and a full-scale summary of government missteps and lapses that led up to that moment, the 9/11 report did not take on the mission of pointing fingers and demanding accountability.

In a recent interview with former New York Timesreporter Philip Shenon, whose 2008 book The Commission punctured that group’s otherwise stellar reputation, Just Security editor Ryan Goodman offered this observation: “[An] important lesson from your book is the conscious tradeoff that the 9/11 Commission members made in prioritizing having a unanimous final report which sacrificed their ability to promote the interests of accountability (such as identifying and naming senior government officials whose acts or omissions were responsible for lapses in U.S. national security before the attack).”

Shenon added that the tradeoff between accountability and unanimity was acknowledged by commission staff members frustrated by the absence of what they thought should have been the report’s “most important and controversial” conclusions. In other words, when it came to accountability, the 9/11 Report proved an inadequate model at best. Still, even its version of truth-telling proved too much for congressional Republicans facing a similar commission on the events of January 6th.

Note, however, that the 9/11 Commission did lead to movement along another path of accountability: reform. In its wake came certain structural changes, including a bolstering of the interagency process for sharing information and the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

No such luck today. And signs of the difficulty of facing any kind of accountability are now evident inside the Department of Justice (DOJ), too. Despite initial rhetoric to the contrary from Attorney General Merrick Garland, the department has shown little appetite for redress when it comes to those formerly in the highest posts. And that reality should bring to mind the similar reluctance of Barack Obama, the president who originally nominated Garland unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court.

For anyone keeping a scorecard of DOJ actions regarding Trump-era excesses, the record is slim indeed. While the department did, at least, abandon any possible prosecution of former National Security Advisor John Bolton for supposedly disclosing classified information in his memoir on his time in the Trump administration, Garland also announced that he would not pursue several matters that could have brought to light information about President Trump’s abuse of power.

In May, for instance, the department appealed a court-ordered call for the release of the full version of a previously heavily redacted DOJ memo advising then-Attorney General Bill Barr that the evidence in the Mueller Report was “not sufficient to support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the President violated the obstruction-of-justice statutes.” In fact, the Mueller Report did not exonerate Trump, as Mueller himself would later testify in Congress and as hundreds of federal prosecutors would argue in a letter written in the wake of the report’s publication, saying, “Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would… result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.”

Adding fuel to the fire of disappointment, Garland pulled back from directly assessing fault lines inside the Department of Justice when it came to its independence from partisan politics. Instead, he turned over to the DOJ inspector general any further investigation into Trump’s politicization of the department.

The Path Forward — or Not?

These are all discouraging signs, yet there’s still time to strengthen our faltering democracy by reinstating the idea that abuses of power and violations of the law — from inside the White House, no less — are not to be tolerated. Even without an independent commission looking into January 6th or the DOJ prosecuting anyone, some accountability should still be possible. (After all, it was a New York State courtthat recently suspended Rudy Giuliani’s license to practice law.)

On June 24th, Nancy Pelosi announced at a news conference that a select Congressional committee, even if not an independent 9/11-style commission, would look into the Capitol attack. That committee, she added, will “establish the truth of that day and ensure that an attack of that kind cannot happen and that we root out the causes of it all.” True, she didn’t specify whether accountability and reform would be part of that committee’s responsibilities, but neither goal is off the table.

And Pelosi’s fallback plan to convene a House select committee could still have an impact. After all, remember the Watergate committee in the Nixon era. It, too, was a select committee and it launched an investigation into abuses of power in the Watergate affair that helped bring about President Nixon’s resignation from office and helped spark or support court cases against many of his partners in crime. Similarly, the 1975 Church Commission investigation into the abuses of the intelligence community, among them the FBI’s notorious counter-intelligence programCOINTELPRO, was also a select committee project. It led to significant barriers against future abuses — including a ban on assassinations and a host of “good government” bills.

Pelosi rightly insists that she’s intent on pursuing an investigation into the Capitol attack. Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler are similarly determined to investigate the government seizure of Internet communications. Local court cases against Trump, Giuliani, and others will, it appears, continue apace.

Through such efforts, perhaps the potentially shocking facts could see the light of day. Continuing such quests may lead to anything but perfect accountability, particularly in a country growing ever more partisan. Above and beyond the immediate importance of giving the public — and history — a reliable narrative of recent events, it’s important to let Americans know that accountability is still a crucial part of our democracy as are the laws and norms accountability aims to protect. Otherwise, this country will have to face a new reality: that we are now living in the age of impunity.

Copyright 2021 Karen J. Greenberg

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

Report card: six months into Biden’s presidency

Joe Biden has a good chance of getting America back to where it was before the pandemic. Covid-19 is in retreat. So far, almost half of the adult population has been fully vaccinated. The economy is roaring back – still 7 million jobs short of where it was in January 2020 but on track to return to the starting gate by the end of the year. Biden’s “American Rescue Plan” is a major success.

But it’s not clear Biden will get America back to where it was before Trump. His initial slew of executive orders erased most of Trump’s executive orders, but he hasn’t yet demolished all of Trump’s cruel immigration policies. Trump’s xenophobic rhetoric is gone but Biden hasn’t repaired relations with China. Many of Trump’s tariffs are still in place. And even with a bare Democratic majority in the US Senate, there’s little chance Congress will repeal all of Trump’s tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.

What about Biden’s big plans to remake America? Depending on your point of view, they’re either on hold or stalled. He’ll likely get bipartisan support for over half a trillion dollars of new spending for “hard” infrastructure. That’s not nothing. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess what Senate Democrats will agree to on legislation covering childcare, the environment, and healthcare and education that can circumvent a Republican filibuster.

The biggest potential disaster concerns voting rights. As Republican-dominated states continue to restrict voting on the basis of Trump’s big lie about 2020 election fraud, and the Supreme Court signals its reluctance to get in the way, the only hope lies in what was supposed to be the Democrats’ highest priority – the For the People Act, setting minimum national standards for voting, and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, restoring the potency of the old Voting Rights Act after the Court gutted it in 2013. But Senate Republicans won’t go along, and the refusal of a few Senate Democrats to alter the filibuster rule to allow them to be passed by a bare majority has condemned them to limbo.

Biden’s failure to make the right to vote his highest priority  – to visibly fight for it, make it his own personal cause, and go on the road to take that cause to the American people – is not only bad policy for the nation. It’s also bad politics. It may cost Democrats dearly in next year’s midterm elections, and beyond.

As “Ted Lasso” returns, its rosy depiction of soccer contrasts with the sport’s real-life racism

As beloved Apple TV+ comedy “Ted Lasso” celebrates its Season 2 return just one week after earning a whopping 20 Emmys nominations, the real-life English soccer world in which it’s set is in turmoil.

The country has had to come to terms with the racism faced by their Black soccer players – including Bukayo Saka, Marcus Rashford, and Raheem Sterling. Like all athletes, they’re beloved by fans when they play well, and torn to shreds on their off-days. But for Black athletes, like the Black players on England’s men’s team, these attacks from rabid, embittered “fans” take on the added dimension of racism and anti-Blackness.

Earlier this month, when Saka missed a critical kick for the English team against Italy for the Euro final, his social media accounts were flooded with monkey and banana emojis — a popular, white supremacist attack on Black people that dehumanizes and compares them to primates. Rashford also missed a penalty kick, and a mural depicting him was defaced with hateful messages. And while England had somewhat of an awakening during the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, and again with the treatment of Meghan Markle, now one of its most popular sports is driving home that the country’s racism cannot be remedied overnight or confined to just elites like the royals.

Meanwhile, “Ted Lasso” stars Jason Sudeikis in the title role as an American amateur football coach who is recruited to coach the English Premier League team, AFC Richmond – nevermind that he doesn’t even know the rules for soccer. It’s a fun, plucky show with the occasional piece of gender commentary with a dominant performance from Hannah Waddington as Rebbeca Welton, owner of the team.

AFC Richmond comprises a mix of players, including several Black players, from Great Britain and around the world. However, the charming series has largely shied from wading into the political and racial realities of the sport of soccer and the cultural milieu in England, a predominantly white country. Only once was there a hint of race acknowledged when Sam (Toheeb Jimoh), a player from Nigeria, returns a gift of a toy soldier to Ted Lasso, explaining, “I don’t really have the same fondness for the American military that you do.” Ted mumbles something about imperialism, and that’s it.

But in light of recent events, the show can no longer hide from the racism of the real world. This was especially made clear when at a recent premiere event for the second season Sudeikis chose to wear a t-shirt in support of the English men’s soccer team’s Black players. When the show first premiered last year, many praised it for its bipartisan appeal simply because it eschewed politics. And yet comedy, like sports, can only serve as escapism for privileged people, shielding them from the real-life, violent bigotry they would rather ignore. For comedy and sports to have real impact, or serve real purpose, this requires uncomfortable, necessary conversations about identity and lived experience.

While “Ted Lasso” often includes rabid fans who call the team’s optimistic coach a “wanker” or boo the occasional player, it’s done in a lighthearted, even loving manner. It downplays the harsh reality of how the vitriol from fans often especially targets Black athletes as the perfect scapegoats for any kind of disappointing outcome. This mindset is one of entitlement — entitlement to the labor and victories of Black athletes, which “fans” claim as their own when things are good, and are quick to denounce once things go south. They have no real allegiance to their beloved teams’ Black players, and see them instead merely as objects of entertainment, a means to a desired sports outcome.

Even prior to these attacks in response to the players’ performances, the English team was subject to racist attacks when its players kneeled before games to take a stand against racism, and were met with boos from fans. English political leaders like Boris Johnson declined to defend the players from this racism, while Home Secretary Priti Patel dismissively called these protests from the athletes “gesture politics.” 

After Patel and other conservatives who had initially shamed the players for kneeling and protesting racism suddenly, performatively came to their defense, Tyrone Mings, also on the English team, vocally criticized this hypocrisy. “You don’t get to stoke the fire at the beginning of the tournament,” Mings said, “and then pretend to be disgusted when the very thing we’re campaigning against happens.”

The erasure of the so-called “politics” of sports isn’t new, especially when it comes to Black athletes challenging the day-to-day racism and anti-Black vitriol they face even as powerful and influential star athletes, and speaking up about societal issues like police violence. The pressure on Black athletes to be silent and either quietly shoulder racist attacks on themselves and their communities, or be harangued by “fans,” political leaders and media commentators if they do speak up, is the subject of the documentary series “Shut Up and Dribble.” The series is notably named after a racist comment from Fox News anchor Lauren Inghram of basketball star and racial justice activist LeBron James.

This erasure is meant to ensure sports can comfortably be consumed by white and privileged audiences, who would otherwise prefer to ignore the realities of police killing and brutalizing Black people, or in other cases, fans’ own participation in racist, online attacks on Black athletes. The upcoming Tokyo Olympics has banned athletes from any kind of political commentary, whether through kneeling or any other form of political protest. This requirement of Olympic athletes is undeniably dehumanizing, reducing athletes to their performances and splicing their intersecting identities and values from the Olympics’ neat, white-washed presentation of sport as apolitical. Yet, this requirement hardly an isolated move in a culture that endlessly polices athletes and especially Black athletes — and a culture that treats entertainment like sports and television as supposedly nothing more than escapism. 

Case in point: “Ted Lasso.”

The show is undeniably funny, and not meant to be taken too seriously. But at a time when real-life, English soccer players are being subject to vile racism from fans, the comedy’s detachment from reality is noticeable and disappointing. In one memorable scene, Ted Lasso quoted Walt Whitman: “Be curious, not judgmental,” a mindset the show could apply to reflecting the experiences of real players instead of choosing to downplay them. If the show’s second season continues in this direction, the contrast between its insulated storytelling bubble and the actual English soccer could become deeply, stiflingly uncomfortable.

The second season of “Ted Lasso” premieres Friday, July 23 on Apple TV+.