Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Republicans have become the Death Wish Party

“Death Wish” was a hit movie in 1974, starring Charles Bronson as a violent vigilante. Now it’s the primary motivation for the Republican Party. As of this week, in 13 states you have a legal right not merely to have a death wish but to inflict it on others by refusing to get vaccinated against COVID. In 21 more states, bills have been introduced that would limit any requirements that individuals produce evidence that they have been vaccinated. In six of those states, the laws specify that schools, including public primary and secondary schools and public colleges, cannot require coronavirus vaccines, even while the same schools continue to require vaccinations against whooping cough, polio, measles and chicken pox. 

“It seems to be kind of a mixed bag of all the things going on here — there’s the limiting of requiring proof of vaccine, there’s the limiting of requiring the vaccination itself, the prohibition of the mandates. So, there’s a lot,” Lori Tremmel Freeman, chief executive officer of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, told CNN.

These bills are being called “vaccine freedom laws,” as in, you have a right to be free of the vaccines against COVID. What’s not a mixed bag is the political leaning of the states. All the states where such laws are in effect are controlled by Republican governors and legislatures: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. 

You could call them the death wish states, or the Kevorkian states, after the infamous Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who was jailed for eight years after assisting a man to commit suicide who suffered from ALS, otherwise known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. So if you want to enjoy your freedom to catch COVID and possibly die, those 13 states are the states for you. In six of them, you are guaranteed the freedom to subject your unvaccinated children to the virus as well. 

At the same time the Republican Party is moving to protect your right to refuse the COVID vaccine, rates of infection are on the rise across the country. According to Johns Hopkins University, the new case rate is 10 percent higher in 46 states than it was last week. According to CNN, “In 31 states, new cases this past week are at least 50% higher than new cases the previous week.”

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told CNN that more than 99 percent of deaths from Covid in June were unvaccinated patients. CNN reports that “the vast majority of new Covid-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths … are among unvaccinated people, doctors say.”

The Delta variant of the virus is causing more infections among children and young adults than before. In Missouri, where just 39 percent of the population has been fully vaccinated, the situation is so bad that the CDC and FEMA have sent teams of specialists to the state to help stop the spread of the disease. “We’ve been seeing a much younger population,” Dr. Harold Jarvis, an emergency physician in Springfield, Missouri, told CNN. “We’re seeing a lot of people in their 30s, 40s, early 50s. We’re seeing some teenagers and some pediatric patients as well.”

Missouri is one of the states that has passed a law forbidding the requirement of a COVID vaccine or evidence of vaccination such as a so-called vaccine passport.

In Mississippi, where the vaccination rate is only 33 percent, seven children are in intensive care with COVID disease and two are on ventilators, according to the state health officer, Thomas Dobbs. On Monday, Dobbs tweeted “Pretty much ALL cases in MS are Delta variant right now. Vast majority of cases/hospitalizations/deaths UNVACCINATED.” By Wednesday, Dobbs was tweeting that the state had suffered a “Big jump,” and reported 641 new cases and five deaths in one day, along with 36 new outbreaks of the virus in long-term care facilities such as nursing homes and rehabilitation centers. 

Mississippi has three bills pending before the state legislature that would prohibit issuing a “vaccine passport” and prohibit businesses and state facilities from requiring proof of vaccination.. One bill has passed both houses of the legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature.

But it’s in Tennessee that promotion of the Republican death wish has reached its nadir. On Monday, the state fired its top immunization official for her efforts to get teenagers vaccinated against the COVID virus. “This is about a partisan issue around covid vaccines and around people in power in Tennessee not believing in the importance in vaccinating the people, and so they terminated the person in charge of getting it done,” Michelle Fiscus told the Washington Post. She was director of all immunization programs at the Tennessee Department of Health. “The government is sacrificing public health to be in the good graces of our legislators; it’s a horrid dereliction of duty,” she said on Monday. The Tennessean, the state’s largest daily newspaper, reported on Tuesday that the state would stop promoting vaccinations for all teenagers, and would cease sending out reminders for teenagers who had received one vaccination to get their second dose.

That’s more than a death wish. With 99 percent of all deaths from Covid among the unvaccinated, that is more like the organized and state-sanctioned killing of children.

I’ve been reading these stories all week and trying to figure out what’s driving this madness. The evidence is out there for everyone to see. There can’t be a state legislator or governor in this country who isn’t aware that virtually all people who come down with COVID today, and 98 or 99 percent of those who die from the disease, are unvaccinated. They have to be aware of the fact, and it is a fact, that if you want to avoid being hospitalized with this disease and dying from it, a vaccination will not only help, it will absolutely prevent both outcomes.

They’re not just standing up and speaking out against the COVID vaccines, they are passing laws with the express purpose of making it easier for people to refuse vaccinations. In some cases, these laws are specifically aimed at school-age children. It’s one thing to put your adult neighbors and employees and fellow workers at risk. It’s quite another to put not only your children, but all children at greater risk of getting sick with a virus that, with the spread of the Delta Variant, is showing signs of being deadly to children as well as adults.

The only answer I’ve been able to come up with is the obvious one. It’s about politics, and not just any politics. These Republican death wish laws have one purpose: they are designed to make President Biden’s push to get all Americans vaccinated fail. Republicans at the CPAC gathering last week in Dallas were laughing at references to Biden’s goal of vaccinating 70 percent of the population by the Fourth of July. One speaker received an ovation when he told the crowd, “The government was hoping they could sucker 90% of the population into getting vaccinated. And it isn’t happening.” 

“The government,” of course, is no longer being run by the man the whole CPAC conference was designed to celebrate, former president Donald Trump. It’s run by the man who beat him, Joe Biden, and the Republican Party seems determined to do as much damage to his vaccination program as they can, even if that means enacting laws that will surely cause more people to get sick from the virus and die.

Republicans have become the death wish party. Unsatisfied with passing laws to take away people’s right to vote, they have moved on to passing laws that will, without a doubt, take away people’s right to life.

Corporate giants have been lobbying against their own emissions targets: report

Corporate America has made a slew of pledges to reduce its emissions over the past few years. Today, 92 percent of the companies on the S&P 100, an index of leading U.S. stocks, have announced intentions to reduce at least some of their carbon emissions, according to the corporate sustainability advocacy nonprofit Ceres. 

But do these companies actually plan to change their business practices, and in some cases their entire business models, to meet the scale of the challenge? Or are these pledges just greenwashing? 

A telling way to assess how serious companies are about meeting their own goals is to look at whether they are lobbying in statehouses and in Washington for the policy changes that would make reducing emissions easier and cheaper. But a new report from Ceres published on Tuesday finds that over the past five years, only 40 percent of those S&P 100 companies have engaged with lawmakers at the state or federal level to advocate for science-based climate policy.

“Those companies that are not actively lobbying for science-based climate policies are effectively working against themselves,” said Steven Rothstein, managing director of the Ceres Accelerator for Sustainable Capital Markets, in a statement. Rothstein said they were “risking both their reputations and their financial performance.”

The report also looked at companies’ memberships in trade groups that have actively fought climate policy, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Nearly three-quarters of the companies were members of that group, and only 7 percent of companies disclosed that they have pushed the Chamber to change its position on climate change. Apple is the only company that left the group over its climate positions.

Many of the companies on the list are oil and gas companies and utilities, whose lack of enthusiasm for climate policy is unsurprising. But companies’ low engagement across the board is significant. Earlier this year, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island told Grist that the absence of corporate lobbying in favor of climate policies on Capitol Hill makes passing them much more difficult because there’s no counterbalance to the aggressive and deep-pocketed campaigns against such policies by the fossil fuel industry. 

In June, an Exxon lobbyist was caught on tape describing the company’s aggressive fight to scale back the climate provisions in the infrastructure bill that President Joe Biden is trying to pass, including weekly meetings with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. By contrast, companies like Apple and Google tend to sign letters supporting climate policy organized by groups like Ceres, like a recent one calling for a clean electricity standard. But there’s no evidence these corporations are whispering into influential senators’ ears about the burning planet on a regular basis. Ceres found that out of the 40 percent of the S&P 100 companies that have engaged with policymakers on climate since 2017, 14 percent have done so solely as a part of corporate cohorts, not taking the time and effort to engage with lawmakers directly. 

In some cases, companies aren’t just silent on climate — they have actively lobbied against science-based climate policies like federal fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and methane regulations for the oil and gas industry. The analysis identified 17 companies whose lobbying has run counter to their internal goals to reduce emissions, including UPS, Ford, and Honeywell. 

Since the data covers the past five years as a whole, it doesn’t capture the fact that some companies that previously worked against climate goals have shifted in recent years as pressure from the public and investors has mounted. Ford, for example, is on that list in part because it previously supported former President Donald Trump’s efforts to weaken federal fuel efficiency standards. But the company changed its tune in June 2019 when it agreed to comply with California’s more stringent standards

It’s also unclear how much corporate climate lobbying will change now that there’s a sympathetic ear in the White House. “There is a notable difference among company’s willingness to be climate advocates under President Biden,” said Anne Kelly, Ceres’ vice president of government relations. Earlier this year, Ford unveiled its new electric version of the iconic Ford F-150 pickup truck with a cameo from the new president himself

While the overall trends reflected in the new report are not revelatory, the careful analysis of each company’s lobbying history is helpful for investors who are becoming more concerned about the risk of climate change to companies’ bottom lines. 

“This report provides a clear roadmap for investors who are demanding that businesses adopt science-based lobbying fully aligned with the Paris Agreement, and companies must take note,” said Adam Kanzer, head of stewardship for the Americas at BNP Paribas Asset Management, in a statement.

Right-wing student group Turning Point USA struggles to bar white nationalists from gathering

Turning Point USA, the conservative student organization led by Charlie Kirk, kicks off its summer “Student Action Summit” on Saturday morning in Tampa. But the group now faces a battle to ward off white nationalists who hope to infiltrate the gathering, whose headliners include Donald Trump Jr. and former White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. 

Far-right youth activist Nicholas Fuentes hopes to lead a group of his white nationalist supporters, known as the “groyper army,” into the Tampa conference, despite TPUSA organizers’ attempts to ban Fuentes and his followers.

After Fuentes’ attempts to derail or disrupt the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) event last weekend in Dallas, TPUSA staffers have begun to connect the dots on “groypers” who had previously been invited to the Tampa conference, and are informing them they’re not welcome. 

One such individual is a 15-year-old ally of Fuentes who often live-streams on the internet and goes by the Twitter handle @OneYoungPatriot. This person was uninvited to the TPUSA summit in an email reviewed by Salon. 

“We regret to inform you that your SAS 2021 invitation has been revoked,” reads the email sent to @OneYoungPatriot. “This decision is final. This revocation does not impact applications to future events, and we hope that you will consider applying again in the future. Please do not attempt to attend the summit as any attempt to disrupt may affect consideration for future participation.” Several other people associated with Fuentes, along with another person who has expressed support for him on social media, were informed this week they would not be welcome at TPUSA’s Tampa conference. 

In group chats on the messaging platform Telegram, various Fuentes’ followers claim they will be at the TPUSA summit, anyways, and have floated the idea of disrupting the event.

“Defidently getting a fat ‘groyper’ chant going while I’m down there,” wrote one user. Another user replied, “Let’s link and make it happen.” A third groyper responded, “Let’s get loud.” 

Fuentes, who has been accused of being a Holocaust denier over comments he has said were “jokes,” didn’t return Salon’s request for comment.  

TPUSA supporters and Fuentes followers have feuded in public over the past two years, beginning in late 2019, when white nationalists appeared on college campuses across the country to challenge Kirk during Q&A sessions.

Ben Lorber, a research analyst at Political Research Associates, a progressive think tank that studies right-wing movements, told Salon that Fuentes’ followers have long targeted TPUSA gatherings as a recruitment opportunity.  

“The white nationalist groyper movement has long viewed TPUSA as a strategic site for recruiting and spreading their ideology among conservative youth,” Lorber said. “Since 2019, the groypers have pursued a dual strategy of publicly pressuring TPUSA to move further rightward while quietly infiltrating its chapters to effect change from within. In the 2021 school year, white nationalist movements like the groypers continue their efforts to target right-wing college students in order to further radicalize the next generation of conservative leaders.”

Last week, Fuentes continued to attack TPUSA, specifically deriding TPUSA employee Alex Clark, who hosts a daily politics show called “Poplitics.” 

Amid a tirade after his eviction from the CPAC gathering in Dallas last weekend, Fuentes complained about being called a “sexist … by so-called right-wing women, like, for example, you know, Alex Clark. Man, she is ugly.”

TPUSA spokesperson Andrew Kolvet didn’t return Salon’s request for comment on this story. 

TPUSA organizers continue to hawk tickets to the Student Action Summit even as they try to detect possible Fuentes followers and prevent them from showing up. 

“LAST CALL on tickets for this historic event,” read an email sent out by TPUSA on Thursday night. “Join us July 17th – 20th in Tampa, FL, to hear from the nation’s top leaders such as Governor DeSantis, Kayleigh McEnany, Donald Trump Jr., Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and dozens more. We are near capacity, so don’t miss out as we continue to make history with the largest event of the summer!”

It isn’t just Fuentes and the groypers who are trying to outflank Turning Point USA on the right. Lorber told Salon that another group of far-right activists is planning a competing “American Populist Union” event, where a loosely affiliated group of extremists and white nationalists will attack TPUSA as fake conservatives or “cucks.”   

“Leaders and followers of the American Populist Union, most of whom are college-age or younger, slander feminists and LGBTQ people as ‘degenerate,’ argue for a moratorium on all immigration, view themselves as victimized by ‘anti-white hatred’ in universities and popular culture, and oppose a conservative establishment they view as weak and ineffectual,” Lorber said. “Multiple movement leaders have signaled alignment with and organized alongside Nick Fuentes and the groyper movement. In their private chat rooms and servers, open support for the groypers and their white nationalist agenda isn’t hard to find.”

The four-day TPUSA event is definitely drawing high-profile speakers from the conservative movement and the MAGAverse, including Fox News host Dan Bongino and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., as well as those mentioned above. Whether it can prevent incursions by far-right extremists and overt racists remains to be seen.  

This post has been updated. 

Newsmax trashes Fox News for being “woke” as right-wing cable wars escalate

Former Fox News personality Eric Bolling blasted his former network for being “woke” on Friday night.

The network parted ways with Bolling in 2017 after an investigation of reports of sexual harassment by the conservative host.

“Speaking of blowing woke smoke, I have to call attention to Fox News,” he said.

“They seem to hate the ‘woke’ cancel culture agenda as much as I do, but do they really?” he asked.

Bolling went on to discuss Major League Baseball moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta to Denver to protest the voter suppression bill passed by Georgia Republicans and signed into law by Gov. Brian Kemp.

Bolling falsely claimed that it would hurt Black-owned businesses because Atlanta is 51% Black. But the “Atlanta” Braves moved out of the city in 2017 to Cobb County — a place that experienced rapid growth due to “white flight” and is 62.4% white.

“I’m not racist,” Bolling said, after playing a clip of him storming off-set after being called out on a BBC program.

He finally returned to his criticism of Fox.

“So Fox News, they raged — rightly so — about Coke going woke. But where were they after MLB canceled the All-Star Game over being woke?” he asked, playing a clip of a Fox News panel dubbed with the sound of crickets.

“Now I wonder why Fox was so quiet on the All-Star Game flip-flop, after all, they claim to be against the leftists ruining the country by constantly playing the race card here, there, and everywhere. And against the cancer that cancel culture is,” he said.

“Why were they silent when it came to the All-Star Game. Look no further than their program guide, turns out Fox was broadcasting that Major League Baseball All-Star Game,” he said.

Sen. Joe Manchin heading to Texas for fundraiser hosted by GOP donors

WASHINGTON – West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin — a key Democratic holdout over efforts to pass federal voting rights legislation — is expected to head to Texas on Friday for a fundraiser with a host committee that includes several wealthy Republican donors.

The fundraiser comes just a day after Manchin met with Texas House Democrats on Capitol Hill who are desperate for his support of the congressional efforts which could preempt the statewide GOP’s push to pass bills that would restrict voting access for Texans.

Manchin is also one of two Democratic senators, along with Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have proven to be obstacles to moving voting rights legislation through the U.S. Senate. At the center of the impasse is their opposition to eliminating or changing the filibuster, which requires 60 senators to put a bill on the floor.

“We invite you to join us for a special evening supporting our friend, U.S. Senator Joe Manchin,” according to the invitation’s cover letter, which went on to call Manchin “a longtime friend since his days as Governor of West Virginia.”

The host committee includes titans of the Texas oil and gas industry — many of whom donate almost exclusively to Republicans. But there is a prominent Democrat included among the hosts: former Houston Mayor Bill White. White was the 2010 Democratic nominee for governor, and declined to comment on this story. All of the other hosts could not immediately be reached for comment.

Manchin is the chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the most powerful perch on Capitol Hill when it comes to oil and gas policy. He will be up for reelection in 2024.

Among the hosts are oil billionaires like Jeff Hildebrand, who cofounded the energy company Hilcorp, and Richard Kinder, a cofounder of Kinder Morgan, an energy infrastructure company. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry appointed Hildebrand to the University of Texas Board of Regents for a six-year term beginning in 2013.

The fundraiser will take place late Friday afternoon in the River Oaks area of Houston, one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Texas. An invitation obtained by The Texas Tribune encouraged donors to contribute $5,800 to Manchin’s reelection campaign and $5,000 to his leadership PAC. Organizers anticipate more than 150 people to attend, according to a source familiar with the event.

Manchin’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Many of the hosts are prolific donors to past GOP nominees, including former President Donald Trump, and to organizations like the Republican Party of Texas, the Republican National Committee, state parties, GOP candidates across the country and Republicans in U.S. Senate and House leadership. Hosts have also contributed to Gov. Greg Abbott, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and House Speaker Dade Phelan.

When it comes to federal donations over the last 40 years, the Republican hosts gave an aggregate of $1.3 million to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s presidential super PAC. Additionally, they donated high six-figure totals to the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and former President Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign.

Even so, some of these donors have made occasional contributions to Democrats who are either moderate or serve on committees with oversight of the energy sector. Energy is a key driver of the Houston economy.

Some of the Democrats over the years who are on the receiving end of these donations include U.S. Rep. Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, the West Houston congresswoman who serves on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, former U.S. Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and former U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinksi of Illinois.

“We basically are just getting some people together to show our support,” said Darren Blanton, a Republican donor who planned to attend the event.

He pushed back on the notion that this is a wholly Republican event.

“It’s just people that respect and support him,” he said.

Democrats flew to Washington, D.C., on Monday in a bid to break the House’s quorum and prevent the passage of the GOP’s priority voting bill.

In their time in Washington this summer, Manchin and his staff have been receptive to the state’s Democratic legislative and Congressional delegations, taking meetings with the Texans both in June and this week. Texas Democrats interviewed after a June meeting praised Manchin for being receptive to their arguments.

They vow to stay outside of Texas until the special legislative session ends Aug. 6, but Abbott has said he’ll continue to call special sessions until the bill is passed.

Democrats have said they chose the nation’s capital for their decampment largely so they could urge Congress to take federal action, given that Republicans have majorities in both chambers of the Legislature and are poised to push through their priorities.

Carla Astudillo contributed to this report.

Right-wing fumes after Hyde Amendment falls short in appropriations bill

The decades-old Hyde Amendment took one step closer to falling Friday, as the House Appropriations Committee passed a funding bill for the fiscal year of 2022 without the controversial provision — which, if passed, would allow for the allocation of resources from the federal government to fund abortion procedures if the patient is on Medicaid. 

In a post-committee meeting summary, the appropriations committee said the current bill will advance the “equal treatment for women by increasing funding for the range of health services, including family planning, covered by Title X and repealing the discriminatory Hyde Amendment.” 

The proposed amendment to preserve Hyde failed on a 27-32 vote. 

In the wake of the vote, a right-wing messaging campaign was in full swing, with the conservative media apparatus and politicians all hopping on board to decry the “radical” move.

Former Trump administration Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tweeted, “Washington Democrats have launched an all-out assault on the right to life, and they believe YOU should fund abortions. Support H.R. 18 to make the Hyde Amendment permanent. #HydeSavesLives.” 

Other right-wing and conservative voices chimed in as well, many using the hashtag “#HydeSavesLives.” 

Top-ranking House Republican lawmaker Steve Scalise joined in on the outrage: “For 40+ years, the Hyde Amendment has made sure taxpayer money doesn’t fund abortion-on-demand—and it’s always had bipartisan support. But now Democrats are working hard to eliminate it completely. That’s how radical they’ve become,” he stated. “Disgusting. #HydeSavesLives”

Others, including GOP Senator Tim Scott, South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, and numerous others, further fumed over the Hyde Amendment’s failure to pass alongside the appropriations bill:  

Conservatives freak out after Biden says Facebook is “killing people” with misinformation

As the coronavirus pandemic surges in the U.S. again, a clearly frustrated President Joe Biden made a remarkable statement on Friday, accusing giant social media companies of “killing people” by allowing vaccine-related misinformation to proliferate on their platforms. 

“They’re killing people,” he said of Big Tech, noting that: “The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated.”

Biden’s comments come amid a striking pressure campaign by the White House against Facebook, in particular, with Biden press secretary Jen Psaki telling reporters this week that the administration is in “regular touch” with social media platforms and actively flags “problematic posts” for Facebook higher-ups. During a press conference on Friday, Psaki even went so far as to suggest that platforms should coordinate with each other to enforce user bans across social media platforms. The White House press secretary pointed out several conspiracies the administration finds particularly concerning, including the false premise that COVID-19 vaccines can cause infertility.

“This is troubling, but a persistent narrative that we are seeing,” she said. “We want to know that social media platforms are taking steps to address it.”

The comments incensed right-wing media, which exploded Friday with claims both pointed and, at times, disingenuous. Take for instance, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy, who asked during Friday’s press conference: “How long has the administration been spying on people’s Facebook profiles looking for vaccine misinformation,” seemingly suggesting that reading public figures’ public posts amounted to “spying.”

“This is how Communism starts,” wrote freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene,  R-GA, in a falsehood-filled Facebook post that would later become the most-interacted-with vaccine post in Facebook’s U.S. market, according to data available through the company’s publicly available analytics tool, Crowdtangle. “The White House is working with Facebook to censor your post which is violating your free speech because people want to discuss (on FB) a NON-FDA approved vaccine that the Biden admin wants to force you to take.”

“This is a lie,” complained Fox News contributor Ben Domenech on Friday. “I want him to find one example, one person in this country who has died because of the misinformation.” As a study by left-leaning media watchdog group Media Matters found, Fox News has “undermined vaccination efforts in nearly 60% of all vaccination segments in the last two weeks.” 

In a statement, Facebook reacted to Biden’s call-out on Friday by touting the fact that “more than 3.3 million Americans have also used our vaccine finder tool to find out where and how to get a vaccine” to argue that “Facebook is helping save lives.”

The controversy over Facebook’s role in amplifying misinformation began in full earlier this week when the White House shared a blockbuster study from this past May, based on similar data compiled from Crowdtangle by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which showed that just 12 accounts were responsible for 73% of the anti-vaccine content Americans interacted with on Facebook. The company disputed the report’s methodology in a statement and highlighted its efforts to cut down on the spread of vaccine-related misinformation on its platform. 

In fact, much of the Biden administration’s frustration with Facebook appears to stem from the limits Crowdtangle presents — the same limits the company often touts when analyses show how the platform’s algorithm privileges right-wing content: Crowdtangle only measures “interactions” on select posts (amounting to the number of “likes,” comments and shares), but not the number of people the post itself has reached. In essence, the company is at least somewhat right — it is impossible to measure the full influence of a Facebook post, but only because the company does not share that data publicly.

In her comments Friday, Psaki also hit on this point, asking for greater “transparency” from social media companies, and calling on Facebook specifically to “measure and publicly share the impact of misinformation on their platform, as well as the audience it is reaching.”

Yet recent reports suggest that Facebook executives are looking at shutting down Crowdtangle completely over the spate of bad press the division has generated over the last few years. The team of people working on Crowdtangle, which had been running semi-independently since being acquired by Facebook in 2016, was broken up in April and reassigned to the company’s “integrity” division, according to a New York Times report this week. It was a development seen by some as a clear sign that the C-suite had soured on Crowdtangle’s mission of transparency.

“People were enthusiastic about the transparency CrowdTangle provided until it became a problem and created press cycles Facebook didn’t like,” Brian Boland, a former Facebook vice president in charge of partnerships strategy and a longtime advocate for greater transparency, told the Times’ Kevin Roose. “Then, the tone at the executive level changed.”

Roose also noted that the company has experimented successfully with changes to its “News Feed” algorithm to cut down on the spread of election-related misinformation following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, but reversed those changes after the company decided the threat of violence had passed. 

It’s unclear what the future holds for these tools, especially following this week’s high-profile back-and-forth between Facebook and the White House. Boland, for his part, told the Times he wouldn’t be surprised if the company killed off the division entirely, or slowly starved it of resources. 

“Facebook would love full transparency if there was a guarantee of positive stories and outcomes,” he said. “But when transparency creates uncomfortable moments, their reaction is often to shut down the transparency.”

“Black Widow” challenges treating women as disposable, especially those without biological families

It feels reductive to call “Black Widow” a highly satisfying female revenge fantasy — not when the movie goes to great lengths to treat its male, human trafficking antagonist as a small and ultimately unimportant man. The real story of “Black Widow” is one of women’s liberation, and family — biological or not — in all its loving, dysfunctional forms.

In the Cate Shortland-directed film, Scarlett Johansson reprises her role as Natasha Romanoff, an agent and assassin trained by Russia’s all-female Black Widow special ops program at the covert Red Room base. She defected to the U.S. and eventually joined the Avengers before her iconic — and controversial — death in “Endgame.” As a prequel, “Black Widow” takes place between “Captain America: Civil War” and “Avengers: Infinity War,” during the years the Avengers disband and Natasha is on the run. In that brief window of time, Natasha receives a cryptic package from her long-lost adoptive sister, the formidable Yelena (Florence Pugh), launching the two on a journey to free the latest generation of Black Widows who are subject to total physical and biological control by General Dreykov (Ray Winstone).

Womanhood beyond reproduction

While “Black Widow” is the story of the physical liberation of the Widows, it also tells a story of liberation from society’s narrow definition of womanhood, and women’s worth and morality as tied to reproduction. Early on in the film, we return to the controversial revelation from “Avengers: Age of Ultron” that as part of her “graduation” from the Red Room, Natasha was forced to undergo an unwanted hysterectomy as part of her transformation into, in her own words, a “monster.” The phrasing was more than a little offensive to people with fertility struggles or women who just don’t want to be parents, and shouldn’t be deemed “monsters” for it. 

But sexist throwaway line aside, the Red Room’s rationale for this violating act was that the only thing a Widow could supposedly have more loyalty to than her mission is a baby; her infertility is what supposedly allows her to transition from human woman with a conscience to an unencumbered killing machine. This premise in itself relies on patriarchal assumptions and gendered essentialism about women, that there is nothing more innate to us than the desire to be mothers, that motherhood is instinctive, and we are mothers, foremost, before friends or anything else.

Throughout the movie, we see up close how Dreykov’s unsaid numbers of Widows and victims — women and girls of all backgrounds who were stolen or bought — are treated as nothing, empty vessels to be filled. They are programmed and designed to be story-less, feeling-less weapons, and their gender is no accident. Beyond the obvious choice of a superhero franchise creating a fictional, all-female, catsuit-clad Russian espionage agency to appeal to horny male fantasies, we learn Dreykov started the program because, as he tells Natasha, “the one natural resource the world has too much of [is] girls.” 

Parallels between the story of the Widows and real-life human trafficking are rampant and obvious, and it’s impossible to ignore the gutting feeling of sexual violation watching Dreykov exert total control over his Widows’ bodies, and program away their ability to fight or resist him. Moreover, these women aren’t even merely “objectified” — objectified women are often looked upon, sexually admired. Rather, the Widows are this man’s tools for violence, expendable weapons to be thrown at any number of dangerous situations, exposed to extreme violence and cruelty, without care.

“To him we are just things, weapons with no face that he can just throw away because there is always more,” Yelena tells Natasha. 

The Black Widow program is specifically gendered; it not only takes advantage of how patriarchy treats women without families as societally useless and expendable, but also takes this misogynistic conception to an extreme wherein women’s bodies are “natural resources.” While the program itself may be fictional, the disdain for non-mothers and violent patriarchal control of women’s bodies are all too real. 

In our own non-Marvel world, women and pregnant-capable people are scorned for lacking “maternal instincts,” for having abortions, for being selfish if they don’t want kids, while also being shamed for miscarriages and fertility issues. A state legislator from Oklahoma justified his nightmarish abortion bill by non-ironically calling women and pregnant people “hosts.” Abortion bans and birth control restrictions are passed at the same time that conservatives treat even small declines in the national birth rate as the literal apocalypse, because women remain regarded as “natural resources,” incubators, even here in the US.

The cultural and political coercion, control, and violence to which women are routinely subjected is so intense, so ingrained, so prevalent, that most of us could at least on some level relate to Yelena’s joy at having the freedom for the first time in her life to do something as small as buy a vest. When Natasha can’t understand how Yelena could treasure such an abjectly ugly clothing item, Yelena explains, “I’ve never had control over my own life before and now I do. I want to do things.”

The Widows’ stripped reproductive abilities are most overtly discussed when Natasha and Yelena’s crude adoptive father Alexei (David Harbour), with whom they reunite after nearly two decades on their quest, jokingly suggests they’re being cold to him because they’re on their periods. In response, Yelena hisses, “I don’t get my period, dipsh*t. That’s what happens when the Red Room gives you an involuntary hysterectomy. They just go in and rip out all of your reproductive organs, chop them all away.” Her rebuke and candor are far and away funnier than any misogynist period joke ever told, making Alexei wonderfully uncomfortable — and reminding how many women and survivors like the Widows can find liberation from trauma through humor.

Family beyond biology

Reuniting with Yelena brings forth a reckoning with how she and Natasha were raised – in a “The Americans”-style sleeper family in which matriarch Melina (Rachel Weisz) is a Red Room graduate herself, assigned to play wife to Alexei and mother to the girls. When their cover is blown in 1995, the two young girls are put into the Black Widow program, never to see their parents again until now, as adults.

In a quietly rueful yet otherwise humorous sisterly conversation while they stop for dinner outside a car repair shop, Yelena discloses the fake story about her family that she often gives to strangers. “You’re a science teacher. You’re working part-time, though, especially after you had your son,” she tells Natasha, who responds, with a small smile, “That is not my story.”

It’s not — because it literally can’t be. 

Natasha’s death in “Avengers: Endgame” drew fierce debate since it was set up as a choice: the death of Natasha or Clint Barton, aka Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), as a sacrifice, in order to obtain a crucial Infinity stone. The two fight each other to be the sacrifice, and in the end she “wins” and rationalizes the decision because Clint will be able to return to his family. 

On the one hand, the act showed Natasha’s fearless and sacrificing nature, her commitment to The Mission until the very end. On the other, it treated her as the more expendable one by emphasizing Clint’s family, since society adores family men as much as it loathes childless women. And while the events of “Endgame” can’t be undone, “Black Widow” offers a rebuke to its MCU predecessor, asserting that Natasha’s two families — her adoptive Russian spy one and the Avengers — are families, even if they’re not biological. No one type of family is more valid, more valuable, than another.

“Black Widow” is a complex ode to modern feminism, exploring the chilling ways women are socialized and, in this movie, literally wired to harm other women under patriarchy. Yet, the movie ultimately concludes that the most essential part of being a liberated women is liberating other women, which Natasha and Yelena risk their lives to do. It’s an affirmation that women who don’t or can’t have kids, and broadly, women and girls who lack biological families, are not disposable. Family, children and certainly not reproductive organs aren’t what make a woman a whole human being, and our humanity and worthiness can’t be measured by this patriarchal standard.

“Absurdly cruel”: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slams Joe Biden for upholding U.S. sanctions against Cuba

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez released a statement yesterday calling on President Joe Biden to lift the United States’ decades-long embargo against Cuba.

In a press release shared through her Twitter account, Ocasio-Cortez expressed solidarity with the marchers who took to the island nation’s streets to protest the food and medicine shortages, economic inflation, and blackouts that have rocked the island over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We condemn the anti-democratic actions led by President [Miguel] Díaz-Canel,” the statement said, referring to the head of Cuba’s communist government. “The suppression of the media, speech and protest are all gross violations of civil rights.”

But Ocasio-Cortez also took aim at what she calls “the U.S. contribution to Cuban suffering: our sixty-year old embargo.”

“The embargo is absurdly cruel and, like too many other U.S. policies targeting Latin Americans, the cruelty is the point,” the statement read. “I outright reject the Biden administration’s defense of the embargo. It is never acceptable for us to use cruelty as a point of leverage against everyday people.”

After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the United States passed a series of trade and travel restrictions that critics argue has economically crippled the nation. President Barack Obama began to gradually roll back certain restrictions during his two terms in office, but most of the embargo was restored under the Trump Administration. While Biden has expressed a willingness to ship COVID-19 vaccines to Cuba, he has not explicitly stated that he would rescind the Trump era restrictions.

The statement from Ocasio-Cortez, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, stands out from statements made by left-wing organizations like DSA and Black Lives Matter, which also call for the end of the embargo but do not criticize Díaz-Canel or Cuba’s authoritarian government.

“We look to President Biden to end the embargo, something Barack Obama called for in 2016,” a statement released via Black Lives Matter’s Instagram said. “This embargo is a blatant human rights violation and it must come to an end.”

Nicolas Cage’s revenge thriller “Pig” is more about loss than bringing home the bacon

Nicolas Cage may be aiming for a(nother) comeback of sorts with his latest film, “Pig,” but inasmuch as he’ll get cred for playing against type, this film is woefully mediocre. 

Cage stars as Rob (Robin) Feld, a once-famous chef now living in the Oregon woods hunting truffles with his beloved pet pig. He provides his findings to Amir (Alex Wolf), a young, Portland city slicker who offers Rob a cell phone and a shower. The film’s early scenes depict Rob as a solitary man with unkempt hair. Cage whispers his few lines of dialogue. (Don’t worry, he yells a bit later.) The actor, who has been prone to wild, manic performances, is more “internal” mode here, and it is nice for him to take a serious project, or a project seriously. He digs into the earth and tastes its loamy richness; this is not the Nicolas Cage eating a cockroach as he did in “Vampire’s Kiss” decades ago.

However, director Michael Sarnoski, who cowrote this revenge thriller with Vanessa Block, does not maintain this Kelly Reichardt-style quietude very long. Less than 12 minutes in, Rob is attacked, and his pig is stolen. (Props to the sound designer who capture the stickiness as Rob lifting his wounded head out of pool of congealed blood.) Rob may be injured and angry, but he really just wants his pig back. (Expect this to become the new/latest Nic Cage meme).

“Pig” is pretty much a facile parable about loss as Rob and various characters he encounters mostly come to acknowledge that they have lost what they love. Sarnoski’s film is not much deeper than the ground where the prized truffles are hiding, which is disappointing. 

Rob’s isolation from society is his form of coping with loss. (See Robin Wright’s superior “Land” for more poignant portrait of grief.) While Cage tries to capture Rob’s inchoate despair with his reflective performance, his efforts never quite stick the landing. Rob is righteous when he needs to be humble, and too hellbent on serving revenge — hot or cold — to warrant any real sympathy. In contrast, Amir is just a douchebag who feels obligated to his cash cow, and Wolf plays him as flashy and whiny. It is always a relief when Amir is off screen. 

Rob’s journey takes him to Edgar (Darius Pierce) and an underground fight club where Rob gets pummeled. He asks Amir to secure him a lunch reservation at an exclusive restaurant run by Finway (David Knell), who used to work for Rob. With his face bashed in and still sporting the unwashed Grizzly Adams look, Rob is served “emulsified locally sourced scallops encased in flash-frozen seawater on a bed of foraged huckleberry foam bathed in the smoke of Douglas Fir cones.” He takes a bite and demands to see the chef. As they talk, Rob punctures Finway so effortlessly that “Pig” forces viewers to suspend disbelief. Even if Rob was once a demanding star chef who fired Finway for overcooking pasta, could he really break down his now successful protégé with a single reality check about not opening the English pub Finway dreamed of? Apparently so. 

The episode is as dubious as a later exchange Rob has with Amir’s father, Darius (Adam Arkin). A powerful food supplier who may know the whereabouts of Rob’s precious pig, Darius has the upper hand. But Darius still allows Rob to serve him a dinner that will trigger his emotions and sympathies. Why? 

Even a scene where Rob meets a young boy, Bryce (Davis King), who lives at the home where Rob once did is head-scratching. They talk about a removed persimmon tree. Yes, it’s about loss, but it is kind of creepy that Bryce lets in this stranger who looks like a homeless person. (Where are his parents?) Better is a scene where Rob visits a baker he once knew, and they share a quiet intimacy and mutual respect.

Alas, Sarnoski, who should have featured more scenes like that, often goes for the obvious not the ambiguous. Amir is defined by his flashy yellow Camaro, and his fear of and anger towards his father. Amir’s speech about the dinner Rob served that gave his parents what may have been their only moment of happiness is more dispiriting than inspiring. 

Perhaps the best way to read “Pig” is as a metaphor for Cage’s uneven career. Darius tells Rob, “I remember a time when your name meant something. . . .  You have no value. . . .  You don’t exist anymore.” Likewise, in his exchange with Darius, Rob is told “You had your moment. There is nothing here for you anymore.” If only these remarked were delivered with impact or emotion. Instead, they ring hollow. (Viewers can just watch the comedy skit: Nicolas Cage’s Agent for this kind of messaging). Moreover, Rob throws a version of those lines back at Finway, telling him that his customers “don’t see him,” and he needs — and needs to give his customers — “something to care about.”

“Pig” doesn’t give viewers much to care about, other than perhaps the title character. Sarnoski’s film is undercooked.

“Pig” is in theaters beginning July 16.

Former Trump official: GOP now a bigger national security threat than “ISIS, al Qaeda and Russia”

On Thursday, a Trump administration official called the Republican Party the nation’s “No. 1 national security threat,” suggesting that the party surpasses that of ISIS, al Qaeda and Russia. 

“I’ve spent my whole career not as a political operative. I’ve never worked on a campaign in my life other than campaigning against Trump. I’m a national security guy,” said former DHS official Miles Taylor in a Thursday interview on MSNBC. “I’ve worked in national security against ISIS, al Qaeda and Russia.”

He added: “And the No. 1 national security threat I’ve ever seen in my life to this country’s democracy is the party that I’m in: the Republican Party. It is the No. 1 national security threat to the United States of America.”

Taylor specifically condemned the actions and rhetoric of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarhty, R-Calif., warning that if the hardline conservative were to become speaker of the house, “Trump’s hand” would be “on that speaker’s gavel.”

“If Kevin McCarthy continues to pay homage to a twice-impeached presidential loser,” he added, it “should give all Americans pause and make them worry about the future of this country and national security.”

Over the last several years, Taylor has been a vocal opponent of former President Trump’s undying hold over the Republican Party. Last year, the ex-official launched an anti-Trump GOP group dubbed “Republican Voters Against Trump.” Taylor also formed the “Republican Political Alliance for Integrity and Reform,” another Never Trump organization dedicated to reshaping the Republican Party. 

During his time in government, Taylor allegedly witnessed Trump personally offer DHS staff pardons if they were to be criminally prosecuted for actions that violated immigration law, prompting the GOP official to formally resign from his post in 2019. 

A year later, Taylor explained his decision not to speak out in a PBS NewsHour interview:  “If I had come out and talked about Donald Trump a year ago, when I left the administration, he’s a master of distraction. He would have buried it within a day, and it wouldn’t have mattered to voters.”

He added: “But, right now, American voters are reviewing the president’s resume … so, I think there’s no more important time for me or other ex-Trump officials to come out and actually talk about what the experience was inside the administration and what kind of man sits behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.”

Back in October of last year, Taylor admitted to being the anonymous author of a tell-all op-ed detailing internal “resistance” within the Trump administration.

Two charged in terror plot to avenge Trump’s election loss: “I want to blow up a democrat building”

Two California men disgruntled by Donald Trump’s election loss have been charged by the Justice Department for attempting to blow up the California Democratic Party’s headquarters in Sacramento. 

The development, revealed in a newly unsealed indictment on Thursday, centers on Trump supporters Ian Benjamin Rogers and Jarrod Copeland, both of whom believed their attack would spark a “movement” to enlist an army of followers to their cause. Having settled on a plan of attack last December, Rogers asked his partner: “Do you think something is wrong with me how I’m excited to attack the [D]emocrats?”

The plan developed over the ensuing weeks, prosecutors alleged. 

On January 4, just two days before the Capitol riot, Copeland told Rogers that he was excited to “become outlaws for real” if the 2020 election was certified in President Biden’s favor. 

Following the riot, Rogers sent Copeland a flurry of texts. “REVOLUTION,” he wrote. “I’m f—ing juiced!!!!!” he said, adding: “I’m bout to throw my gear on and drive around and punish [sic] sombitces.”

“Sad it’s come to this but I’m not going down without a fight,” Rogers later added. “These commies need to be told what’s up.”

Days following their exchange on January 11, Napa County Sheriff’s deputies arrested Rogers. Authorities seized between 45 and 50 firearms, including a number of assault rifles, machine guns, and three pipe bombs. Law enforcement also found approximately 15,000 rounds of ammunition.

At Rogers’ personal place of business, law enforcement found copies of “The Anarchist Cookbook” and a “Homemade C-4 A Recipe for Survival,” as well as “U.S. Army Improvised Munitions Handbook.”

This week, the FBI also arrested Copeland, who attempted to scrub his text exchanges following his friend’s arrest. Prosecutors noted that Copeland had joined the military back in 2013, but was twice arrested for desertion. Following his “other than honorable” discharge from service, Copeland joined the Three Percenters, a far-right, anti-government militia – several of whose members were indicted by grand jury last June for participating the Capitol riot. 

“Copeland’s membership in an anti-government militia, and his motivations for planning these attacks are relevant because they are not fleeting or the product of a single, but past, perceived affront,” prosecutors said in court documents. “His sentiments are deeply felt and long-standing and reflect a [sic] believe that the government is illegitimate.”

Last October, one of the suspects involved in a failed plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was determined to be the second-in-command of Three Percenters’ Wisconsin branch. A Three Percenter was also arrested three years earlier over a failed plot to detonate a car bomb attack on a bank in Oklahoma City. The plan was inspired by the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

In “Mama Weed,” Isabelle Huppert is a stylish drug dealer with a twist: “She’s a female Robin Hood”

Isabelle Huppert exudes an air of mystery that entrances. She can be seductive and intimidating. Characters like her vengeful rape victim in “Elle,” or her giddy villain in “Greta,” allow her to be devious and mischievous, but Huppert has sly comic verve, too. It may be this mercurial quality which keeps people guessing — that makes her so spellbinding on screen. 

Her latest film, “Mama Weed” is a spry comedy that allows Huppert to let loose as Patience, a translator for the police. She listens to wiretaps of Arab drug dealers to help Philippe (Hippolyte Girardot), the Chief, solve crimes. However, when Philippe is about to nab Afid (Yasin Houicha), Patience manipulates the situation so Afid is caught without the drugs he is transporting. She does this because Afid is the son of Kadidja (Farida Ouchani), a nurse at the assisted living facility where Patience’s mother (Liliane Rovère) resides. 

Patience acts because she needs money. Donning the disguise of a wealthy Moroccan woman, Patience becomes “Mama Weed,” and using contacts from her police work, goes about selling the ton and a half of hashish Afid hid. The money she earns (and launders) pays for her mother’s care as well as a lawyer for Afid. Patience is nothing if not altruistic. “Hard times is done gone!” she says at one amusing moment. Watching Huppert sing in a car in another scene is also very funny. 

Huppert is irresistible in the film and relishes the duplicity that helps her get one over on the cops. During a cozy moment with Philippe — who is also her lover — he observes that Patience is a paradox: so fragile, and yet has a self-confidence that impresses. This line captures Huppert’s allure perfectly. The actress chatted via Zoom with Salon about “Mama Weed” and misbehavior. 

You strike me as being a workaholic, like Patience. What drives you to work so much?

I don’t think I work more than some other people. I don’t feel like I work constantly. I haven’t worked for the past five months. I am doing two plays in a row now, but that’s due to a situation — I was doing “The Glass Menagerie” in Paris when confinement occurred, so we stopped, and we resumed doing it recently. And now I am rehearsing “The Cherry Orchard,” which I begin next week. So, it was a little bit of a jam recently for the theatre, but I don’t feel I’m a workaholic. It’s a myth. [Laughs]

Patience says life finds its path. What observations do you have about your career and finding projects that challenge you? 

I feel lucky, but maybe it’s not luck. I know how to make good choices, and I have the privilege to have good opportunities. Sometimes, you do whatever comes your way — but this is not my situation. I have the ability to make choices, so I try to make good choices. For me, a good role is as different as possible from the previous one, but gives you the opportunity to create your own person around the role. It’s a mixture between fiction and autofiction. That was the case with “Mama Weed.” Not that I am a drug dealer myself — of course not! But I think the film is interesting because it’s a portrait of a woman. It is a comedy, and people laugh — the gap between me and the wealthy Arabic woman I disguise myself as is so big, that it creates laughter. But it’s a woman who is solitary, like a lonesome cowgirl. She is seen taking care of her daughters and her mother, and she is seeking something. I’m not sure what she is looking for. The end of the film is quite revealing, on this matter. The whole film revolves around this persona. She grabs the opportunity to win with such velocity and courage, she put herself in quite dangerous situations. She has nothing to lose.

There’s a mischievous quality to the role, from the drug dealing and lying to a scene of shoplifting. What do you think motivates Patience to misbehave? 

She’s a translator, so she’s quick. She hears a line and has to jump into [her work]. When she realizes that the man she’s supposed to spy on [Afid] is the son of the nurse who takes care of her mother, that’s a coincidence — but movies are full of coincidences. Sometimes life is, too. She jumps at the opportunity. At first, she wants to save him. She doesn’t think of taking the money. But gradually, she realizes there will be a good amount of money to take, and she jumps on that opportunity. But the whole process is initiated by friendship. Because she wants to protect the son of the nurse, who is caring for her mother, and therefore protect her mother. I like that idea it comes from friendship, not greed. She’s a female Robin Hood, you know. She gives some of the money to her daughters, to Kadidja. She takes care of people. Even when she’s confronted by the bad guys, she makes fun of them. She has a good sense of humor.

Patience faces some ethical situations — she launders money and manipulates things to her advantage. What did you think of her character’s desperate measures?

Undoubtedly. She’s a real crook. There’s no attempt to legitimize what she does, she’s a drug dealer. But that’s the subject of the film. The film is based on a very good book by Hannelore Cayre [“The Godmother”]. I heard her on the radio, she had just won a literary prize. I was interested in what she was saying about the book and the character. I ran and bought the book and then I met the director, and he acquired the rights and wanted to do it with me. It was a happy coincidence. Cayre is a lawyer herself. I didn’t ask if the story was based on truth or something she grabbed from reality. 

I recall from our previous chats that you love to read. What are you reading these days?

I am not reading now. I miss reading because I have “The Cherry Orchard,” which I am performing in four days. I will resume reading after I start the play. Right now, I cannot read.  

Have you had any encounters with the law? 

No. So far, not yet. Who knows?

Can I ask about your attitudes to drugs? 

Well, [pauses] No.

Mama Weed takes some risks in her life. What risks have you taken?

Not as many risks. I took a risk as an actress facing that big dog in the film. I had to practice making friends with him. He was a good dog, but I’m not a dog person.

What did you think about Patience’s relationship with Phillippe? She teases him, and leads him on, romantically and professionally. How do you play seductive and sinister?

I don’t know if it’s a quality, but it’s part of my DNA to always put some irony in any situation, and a little bit of mystery. I don’t think you make films with good feelings. You make films with edgy feelings. It’s my tendency to always put this lightness in whatever role I do. Maybe one day I’ll do a role of a completely idealized character who cares for everyone with tenderness and kindness. That would be a real challenge for me, because that’s not my tendency as an actress. I put a mischievous side to it. 

Lastly, what are your thoughts on your fanbase, legacy, and body of work?

I’m not sure when you do as many films as I do that you are aware of the sum it represents. As a spectator, I know I can be attracted to an actor and in total admiration. Luckily, I don’t have that view about myself, but sometimes when I talk to people, I realize that as an actress how much you get into people’s lives and how important you are for them. But I am more immersed in what I’m doing at the moment, so I don’t really think about what I have done. Maybe I should, I would be more confident — not that I’m not confident — but it’s not something I carry constantly in my mind, luckily. If you have an idea of what you are, or what you think other people think about you, that is not good. I don’t think I completely vanish in my films. I feel I put something of myself in each role. There is something very different in each but something in common, too. I don’t use external tools, except when I disguise myself with the help of a costume. But most of the time it is not that I compose something radically different, it is more about subtle changes.

“Mama Weed” is in theaters July 16 and available on demand on July 23.

Bill O’Reilly threatens to sue over report that his tour with Trump isn’t selling out

Former President Donald Trump is struggling to sell tickets to his upcoming interview tour with conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly, according to a Politico report that prompted the former Fox News host to threaten a lawsuit threat.

Trump and O’Reilly last month announced that they would join forces for something called “The History Tour,” which will feature interviews that  “provide a never-before-heard inside view of his administration — which will be historical in and of itself.” Trump vowed that the interviews would be “hard-hitting sessions” but also “fun, fun, fun, for everyone who attends.”

Tickets for the tour, which will start with four cities in Florida and Texas, have been on sale for a month and range from $100 to $300, though the pair is also selling a “VIP Meet & Greet Package” that includes a 45-minute reception before the show and backstage photos with Trump and O’Reilly. That will cost you $8,500.

But despite both men repeatedly promoting the tour, ticket sales have reportedly been struggling.

“There’s still a lot of tickets open,” a box office employee at Orlando’s Amway Center told Politico, noting that a Bad Bunny concert that won’t actually happen until next spring had sold out in two days.

A “large number of seats” remain available for the pair’s event at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Politico also reported, while 60% to 65% of seats remain unsold for the tour stop at the Toyota Center in Houston.

It’s unclear how many tickets are still available for the duo’s first appearance, scheduled for Dec. 11 at the BB&T Center in Sunrise, Florida. A box office employee told the outlet that they had expected sales would be “definitely higher” by now.

“It hasn’t been [selling] like crazy,” the employee said, adding that events for comedians Katt Williams and Joe Rogan sold “significantly” better.

This is a somewhat unusual problem for a former president given how popular other events led by former residents of the White House have been in recent years. Former first lady Michelle Obama’s 2018 “Becoming” book tour sold out within two days, including an event in Chicago that sold out within minutes, as Politico noted. A 2018 tour by former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sold out within two weeks, though their venues were smaller.

Trump and O’Reilly disputed the Politico report. A Trump aide told the outlet that he has not “promoted the events very much,” and claimed that “many tickets” haven’t been made available.

“The History Tour has already sold over $5 million of tickets, and the excitement and enthusiasm is unlike anything we’ve seen before,” Trump spokesperson Liz Harrington told Politico. “Come December, the sold out shows will be a memorable night for all.”

O’Reilly called the report “false” and “totally ridiculous,” declaring that ticket sales have already brought in $7 million, a figure even higher than the Trump camp claimed.

“We haven’t spent a nickel on marketing, nothing,” he said. “All those 7 million for four shows were done on the announcement. Marketing will start in about a week. Nobody has sold tickets this fast at this price, and VIPs are sold out at 3 of the 4 venues.”

O’Reilly told Politico that the Sunrise event is nearly 75% sold out and said that not all the seats in Houston will be available. He said it was “bullshit” that Orlando sales have been sluggish, while admitting he didn’t know how many had been sold.

Mediaite pointed out, however, that a simple Ticketmaster search shows many tickets still available for the Orlando event.

O’Reilly threatened to sue Politico reporter Daniel Lippman over the article. “You put one word in there that’s not true, I’ll sue your ass off and you can quote me on that,” he told Lippman. “You’re just a hatchet man and that’s what you are.”

Despite claims that there has been little or no marketing so far, both men have aggressively promoted the event. Trump and O’Reilly both plugged the event as a “great” Father’s Day gift last month and O’Reilly has urged his podcast subscribers to become paying members in order to get early access to the events.

O’Reilly now hosts the “No Spin News” podcast. He was forced out at Fox News in 2017 after a New York Times report that he and the network had agreed to at least six settlements with women who accused him of sexual harassment, including a $32 million settlement with a woman who alleged a “nonconsensual sexual relationship.”

Trump has also been accused of sexual misconduct, sexual assault and rape by more than a dozen women, though it’s his role in stoking the Jan. 6 Capitol riot with lies about the 2020 election that has made him a mainstream pariah since leaving office. While Barack Obama has earned as much as $400,000 per speech and Bill Clinton has earned up to $750,000 per appearance, there appears to be little appetite among private companies to host Trump.

“For the past administration, there has been very little demand for former members, starting from the top, and it’s largely because it’s a very polarizing environment,” the head of one of the largest speaking agencies in the country told Politico. “Companies don’t want to get associated with anything that smells like Jan. 6 or questioning the election. That doesn’t help them at all.”

Britney Spears’ plight reveals the justice system’s bias against those who live with mental illness

When a judge granted Britney Spears the right to hire her own attorney, the iconic pop star was very clear in stating that she wants to end her father’s conservatorship over her. After telling Judge Brenda Penny that she is “extremely scared” of Jamie Spears, the 39-year-old pop singer informed reporters that she was “here to get rid of my dad and charge him with conservatorship abuse.” She also called for an investigation into how her father allegedly abused and controlled her after being appointed as her conservator in 2008.

In a similar vein, Spears’ new layer, Mathew Rosengart, told the court on Wednesday that he hopes Spears’ father will prove he loves her by stepping aside. Either way, Rosengart expressed serious doubts as to whether it was ever appropriate for Spears to be put into conservatorship.

Salon spoke with experts who all said the same thing: There are too many people in conservatorships right now, but the victims don’t have a voice. Many echoed concern about the decision to put Spears in conservatorship in the first place.

“I think that Britney absolutely did the right thing in seeking mental health treatment; it’s just that I don’t think immediately going for a conservatorship was the right answer,” Haley Moss, an autism advocate and the first openly autistic female attorney in Florida history, told Salon. “I think it was very predatory on behalf of her father.”

While some of the people who supported that decision probably had good intentions, Moss added, “what people don’t realize about conservatorships and guardianships is the very permanent nature of them. They’re very difficult to get out of, as we’ve been seeing we’re 13 years down the line here, and Britney Spears still is not out of it.”

She added, “Just imagine that knowing that how difficult it must be for your average disabled person.”

Shira Wakschlag, senior director of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc — an organization that helps people with intellectual and developmental disabilities — told Salon that one of the problems in the Spears case, and for disabled people more generally (it is unclear whether Spears herself is disabled due to mental health issues), is that they simply are not taken seriously. This is evident in the fact that Spears is merely asserting basic constitutional rights, like being able to choose her own counsel or make choices about her own body, and has to go to such lengths to convince people to receive them.

“One of the guiding principles of the work of The Arc, and in general, of the disability advocacy community is that people with disabilities must be presumed competent,” Wakschlag explained. “Of course you would assume someone is competent to assess whether [they can] make their own decisions, or make their decisions with assistance, or do other things with assistance. But actually that’s an important principle to state and guide our advocacy because it’s often not presumed, whether by the general public or courts or in other settings.”

Anna Krieger, senior attorney at the Center for Public Representation, said that this distrust toward people with mental illnesses is compounded by a system that is biased toward medical professionals.

“The scales are tipped towards trusting doctors, towards trusting experts, and not trusting the words of the people who have the living experience of either having a mental health disability or being labeled as having a mental health disability,” Krieger observed. “Those are the folks who are the experts in their own lives.”

Krieger recalled cases in which her clients tried to get released from involuntary detention at hospitals. Her clients could often explain in great detail how they could take care of themselves but were ignored because they would display their mental illness.

“They were having symptoms, something like a hallucination or some other symptom of their mental illness, and that was given more importance than the very fact that mattered under the law, which was the client telling the judge, ‘I can take care of myself,'” Krieger noted. “So I really do think there’s a deference to doctors in our system overall that needs some unpacking.”

Wakschlag pointed out that there are alternatives to conservatorships and guardianships for people with disabilities who need help. The Arc recently released a statement with other disability rights groups (including the Center for Public Representation) advocating for one of those alternatives: supported decision-making.

“That’s become a more widely recognized less restrictive alternative to guardianship that can be utilized by anyone who is facing a restriction on their rights,” Wakschlag explained. “Also it can be used within a guardianship or conservatorship to help ensure that the person is having the least restrictive restriction on their rights.” It allows people who need assistance in managing aspects of their own lives to choose people they trust as supporters who can advise them as they make important life choices. This ensures that disabled individuals still have their decision-making autonomy, which is denied under abusive conservatorships.

“The big issue with conservatorship, and guardianship more broadly, is that a lot of folks can lose civil rights,” Moss told Salon, listing everything from the right to vote and choose where you live to your ability to get a driver’s license. “When we’re talking about abuse here, the thing is that at least for people with psychiatric disabilities, it’s important to see is that guardians and conservators may not may not always act in the conservatee or the ward’s best interest.” In Spears’ case, that is compounded by the fact she has a lot of money and assets.

“You also just don’t have a lot of oversight from courts,” Moss said. “Conservatorship and guardianship proceedings are typically confidential and private. So the fact that we have as much access to what’s going on in Britney’s case, it’s very unusual.”

Likewise, there is little public knowledge as to the extent to which conservatorships and guardianships are being abused. The necessary statistics simply aren’t there.


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


“One of the systemic challenges with this broader issue is that we really lack good data on it,” Wakschlag observed. “I think that’s one of the keys, getting more data to have a better understanding of how many guardianships and conservatorships are out there. Making sure that monitoring systems are in place, and that rights reviews are in place, and due process protections are in place. Most state laws, or pretty much all states, do have a number of rights protections in place, but it’s also sometimes a question of whether those rights are being enforced.” Similarly states need to make sure that the institutions it has in place to help disabled people are accessible to them.

“Is it actually something that people with disabilities can access and utilize?” Wakschlag asked. “A lack of data makes it somewhat challenging to have a clear picture.”

Yet the Spears case is not merely an example of someone who previously had a mental illnesses not being taken at their word. Spears is a woman and, unfortunately, is also facing prejudice because of sexism.

“There is this stereotype that women are ‘crazy,’ and I’m not capable of handling stress or adult responsibility to the same extent that men are,” Salon’s Amanda Marcotte explained when discussing the 2008 public “meltdown” that landed Spears in a conservatorship. “Her cracking up was taken as proof of this notion. But in reality, I don’t think anybody could have really held it together under that level of stress. And the fact of the matter is we see men in Hollywood have mental episodes all the time, and it’s rarely held against them in any kind of permanent capacity as evidence that they are incapable of being an adult who makes adult decisions for the rest of their lives.”

Moss agreed with Marcotte’s reflection.

“When Britney was younger we expected her to be very mature, very grown up, very much ahead of her time,” Moss recalled. “Now that she’s older and she’s under a conservatorship, we’re treating her like a little kid. And yet we treated her like a grown woman when she was a little kid. That to me just is completely baffling and shows so much about how we also treat women. We expect women to act older, to be more mature. And then we also treat them like less at times too, once they are older and more mature.”

“McCartney 3, 2, 1” is Hulu’s engaging series delving into the Beatles’ songwriting magic

Hulu’s “McCartney 3, 2,1” is, quite simply, the most engaging documentary ever made about the songwriting exploits of popular music’s most successful composer. Directed by Zachary Heinzerling — the filmmaker behind Beyoncé‘s “Self-Titled” web doc — the six-part series finds Paul McCartney and producer Rick Rubin deconstructing one great Beatles tune and McCartney solo composition after another.

With Rubin acting as the former Beatle’s bearded guru, “McCartney 3, 2,1” is served up in half-hour, bite-sized episodes. Often standing in front of a mixing desk, which he uses to great effect throughout, Rubin draws McCartney in conversation about the nuts and bolts of music-making, Beatles- (and post-Beatles) style.


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


The result is an insider’s look at the musical composition and recording artistry behind history’s most vaunted pop-music catalogue. “McCartney 3, 2,1” is chockful of warm-hearted asides from the Fab Four’s pre-fame years, including Paul and John Lennon‘s playful, early spats, when they’d chide each other as “four-eyes” (Lennon) and “pigeon-chest” (McCartney). Thinking back to those days, McCartney wistfully observes that “at the time, I was just working with this bloke called John. Now I look back, and I was working with John Lennon” [emphasis added].

In its finest moments, “McCartney 3, 2,1” highlights the Herculean efforts of producer George Martin‘s collaboration with the Beatles. In many ways, the band’s 1960s-era recordings make for extended case-studies in problem-solving during a time when Lennon and McCartney’s musical dreamscapes often outstripped the technical capabilities of the contemporary recording studio. 

McCartney rightly attributes many of the Beatles’ most profound recordings to Martin’s workarounds, including the producer’s “wind-up” piano technique that made the spirited guitar-piano duet in “A Hard Day’s Night” possible. He also credits Martin for elevating both the Beatles and popular music alike with the producer’s innovative string arrangements for such classic songs as “Yesterday” and “Eleanor Rigby.”

With Rubin carefully prodding McCartney along the way, we are treated to stories about the origins of the songwriter’s work, as well as the nuts and bolts that went into making them possible. By highlighting key aspects of Beatles recordings, Rubin teases out McCartney’s splendid bass line on “With a Little Help from My Friends,” pronouncing it as a “lead bass” part, if ever there were one. In other instances, McCartney shares his joy over playing “Lady Madonna” on Abbey Road Studios’ upright piano, whimsically known as “Mrs. Mills” in honor of the music-hall performer who used to tickle her ivories on that selfsame piano all those years ago.

While “McCartney 3, 2,1” may stumble, at times, over the composer’s faulty memory — at one point, he seems to confuse a session with horn player Alan Civil with yet another involving trumpeter David Mason. But such slips are eminently forgivable as we look back through the mists of time — and especially for the now 79-year-old McCartney, who has known global fame for nearly the entirety of his adult life. 

In some of the series’ most heartwarming moments, viewers will no doubt enjoy McCartney’s solo acoustic performances of such pre-fame confections as “I Lost My Little Girl,” penned after the untimely loss of Paul’s mother Mary in 1956, and “Thinking of Linking,” a corny, but truly lovable song about adolescent romance. In such instances, “McCartney 3, 2,1” provides welcome glimpses of the magic that eventually made the Beatles possible.

“McCartney 3, 2,1” is now streaming on Hulu.

​Prosecutors shocked as witness directly implicates Trump in “explosive interview”: report

A witness directly implicated Donald Trump in the tax fraud scheme that landed his family business and longtime accountant under indictment.

Jennifer Weisselberg, the former daughter in law to indicted Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, told investigators last month in New York that Trump personally guaranteed he would pay school tuition for her two children instead of increasing a salary that could be taxed, reported The Daily Beast.

“Weisselberg [on June 25] provided key details for investigators,” the website reported. “In January 2012, inside Trump’s office at Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, Jennifer Weisselberg watched as Trump discussed compensation with her husband and her father-in-law, both company employees. Her husband wouldn’t be getting a raise, but their children would get their tuition paid for at a top-rated private academy instead.”

“Weisselberg allegedly relayed to prosecutors that Trump turned to her and said: ‘Don’t worry, I’ve got it covered,'” the report added. “Prosecutors were astonished, according to one source.”

The Trump Organization was indicted five days after Jennifer Weisselberg’s interview on tax fraud charges related to unreported fringe benefits like those she described, and her claims would directly tie the twice-impeached one-term president to the running scheme.

Some of the charges were based on sworn testimony from Jennifer Weisselberg’s divorce from Barry Weisselberg, which showed that Trump himself signed a check for tuition payments that she would hand deliver to the school.

Sen. Mike Lee throws a fit after witness criticizes Justice Samuel Alito: “That’s not fair!”

On July 14, election law expert Rick Hasen was among the people who testified during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on voting rights. Hasen has been critical of right-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s ruling on voting rights in the case Brnovich v. the Democratic National Committee. And when Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah took exception to his criticism of Alito and demanded an apology, Hasen doubled down on his views.

Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California, questioning Hasen, noted that Alito considers himself a champion of “textualist judicial philosophy” but argued that when he wrote the majority opinion in Brnovich, Alito “abandoned textualism altogether” because his opinion was “divorced” from the intent of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And Hasen agreed with Padilla, saying that Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in Brnovich was more “textualist” than Alito because she considered that law’s intent.

Hasen said of the Brnovich ruling, “This opinion abandons textualism. They came up with these guideposts that have absolutely no connection to the text of the statute or even to precedent, which is something that textualists will often look to…. What Justice Alito did was smoke and mirrors.”

Lee, however, had a hissyfit following Hasen’s testimony, saying he was “stunned” to hear someone say that Alito abandoned textualism in order to defend “reprehensible voting practices.” The Utah Republican ranted that Hasen’s intent was to “assail one of the finest justices to ever serve.”

Don’t come in here say and that you think [Alito] is using [the ruling] as a veneer, as a pretext, to getting away with something reprehensible. That’s not fair! That’s not accurate. You cheapen this entire process when you do that! I hope that those who made that suggestion will apologize and retract what they say. Because it it’s wrong! Not just factually incorrect, but it’s morally wrong! Don’t do that. That’s not what happened. You know that’s not what happened.” Lee declared. “The arguments that we’ve just heard about Justice Alito are patently wrong and unfair.”

But when Hasen testified some more, he didn’t back down in his views on Alito — reiterating that the High Court justice and George W. Bush appointee disregarded textualism in Brnovich.

Voting rights activists have been vehemently critical of the High Court’s Brnovich ruling. In an official statement on the decision, LaTosha Brown and Cliff Albright — the co-founders of Black Voters Matter — said, “The Court’s decision in Brnovich v. DNC is not only dangerous; it’s a political attack on voting rights. Today’s ruling, which allows states to make discriminatory rule changes in our elections as long as they can argue that they didn’t intend to discriminate, guts a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and sets the stage for yet another wave of Jim Crow-era voter restrictions.”

Got broccoli? Don’t toss the stalks

Big Little Recipe has the smallest-possible ingredient list and big everything else: flavor, creativity, wow factor. That means five ingredients or fewer — not including water, salt, black pepper, and certain fats (like oil and butter), since we’re guessing you have those covered. Psst, did you hear we’re coming out with a cookbook? We’re coming out with a cookbook!

* * *

Raise your hand if you’ve ever thrown away a broccoli stalk. Go on. No one’s looking.

Nowadays, this part of the vegetable is often seen as a scrap. Look no further than the supermarket, where the produce aisle boasts broccoli crowns and microwaveable bags of florets, as if the stalks are an inconvenience.

They are not. In fact, they used to be the whole shebang. As Kenneth F. Kiple and Kriemhild Coneè Ornelas put it in “The Cambridge World History of Food,” “Like all cabbages, broccoli was originally eaten for its stems, with the flowering heads a later development.”

Indeed, broccoli stalks are as down-to-party as florets, even if they are not treated as such. After their fibrous outer layer is trimmed and tossed, they can be sizzled with anchovies and garlic. Or tossed with feta and raisins. Or, as we’re doing today, put toward a superlative broccoli pasta salad that is more broccoli than pasta.

This, I’ve found, is the secret to any pasta salad good enough to bring to a picnic and later get a text from a friend asking for the recipe: The pasta must be self-assured enough to stand back and let the mix-ins steal the show, like Katy Perry and Left Shark at the 2015 Super Bowl.

Usually this show-stealing happens with respect to quantity. Take, for example, this Genius pasta salad from Cook’s Illustrated. There is pasta, and then there is arugula, basil, tomatoes, olives, salami, mozzarella, pepperoncini, and a caper-chile-anchovy dressing. The pasta is outnumbered. And it’s all good with that.

But quantity can come into play in another way. In this recipe, beyond the pasta, you need only three other ingredients: broccoli, chives, and Pepper Jack (plus Big Little staples oil and salt). But the amount of broccoli is — how do I put this? — audacious. You start with half a pound of bow ties, then invite four times the amount of broccoli.

The stalks are shaved into ribbons with a vegetable peeler, or sliced and diced with a knife, dealer’s choice. Some florets take a dip in boiling water, where they become buttery and savory. The rest are tossed with oil and salt, then chucked into an aggressive oven, where, eventually, they resemble potato chips more than anything else.

Tossed with a glowy-neon chive oil and unshy amount of cheese, the result is a broccoli pasta salad to write home about. Or maybe it should be called a pasta broccoli salad? Not that such a technicality matters when you’re sitting in a park, drinking wine in the afternoon sun.

***

Recipe: Triple-Broccoli Pasta Salad

Prep time: 10 minutes
Cook time: 35 minutes
Serves: 3 to 6

Ingredients

Chive Oil

  • Kosher salt
  • 1 1/2 ounces chives
  • 3/4 cup neutral oil, such as grapeseed

Broccoli Pasta Salad

  • 2 pounds broccoli
  • Kosher salt
  • Neutral oil, such as grapeseed
  • 8 ounces bow-tie pasta (aka farfalle)
  • 4 ounces Pepper Jack (or Monterey Jack), cubed

Directions

  1. Turn on the oven to 425°F. Set a large pot of water over high heat to come to a boil. 
  2. When the water is boiling, generously season it with salt. Add the chives and blanch for 15 seconds (this helps preserve their awesome color). Use a spider to transfer to a towel and dry as well as you can. (You can lower or turn off the heat at this point, but leave the pot of water where it is — we’re using it again soon.) 
  3. Add the blanched, dried chives to a blender with the oil. Blend until the mixture is smooth as can be and bright green, scraping down as needed; this will take a couple minutes, depending on your blender, so be patient. 
  4. Pour the chive oil into a strainer set over a glass and let it leisurely strain while you work on the rest of the pasta salad. 
  5. Use a knife to remove the tough outer layer of the broccoli stalks. Now use the knife to halve the broccoli heads crosswise, separating the stalk-y bottoms from the floret-y tops. 
  6. Use a vegetable peeler to shave the stalks into ribbons; any stragglers you can’t get with the peeler can be thinly sliced with a knife. (Alternatively, you can skip the peeler and finely chop with a knife.) Add these pieces to a big bowl and sprinkle with salt. 
  7. Use a knife to cut the rest of the broccoli into florets. Add half of these florets to a rimmed sheet pan. Generously drizzle with oil and sprinkle with salt. Toss with your hands. Roast for about 25 minutes, until crispy and browned. 
  8. Meanwhile, bring the water back to a boil and add the remaining broccoli florets. Blanch for 1 to 2 minutes, until barely tender and bright green, then use a spider to transfer to a sheet pan where the broccoli can spread out and cool. 
  9. Bring the water back to a boil and add the pasta. Cook for 2 minutes past al dente (just trust — or learn more about this trick in the headnote). When the pasta is totally tender, strain into a colander in the sink and immediately shock with cold water until it’s cool. Pat dry. 
  10. Turn your attention back to the chive oil. The strainer should contain a green chive mush — add this to the bowl with the broccoli stalks. 
  11. Now add the pasta to the bowl, plus 1/4 cup of the strained chive oil. (There will be about 1/2 cup of leftover chive oil. You’re welcome! Store in the fridge for about 1 week and drizzle on everything.) Toss until the pasta is coated. 
  12. Add the blanched broccoli and cheese cubes to the pasta and toss again. Season with salt to taste and add more chive oil if you’d like. Add the roasted broccoli on top and give a meager toss so some gets incorporated but most stays on top. If you have chive blossoms around, sprinkle those on top.

This is the only way to store sweet potatoes

Oh sweet potato, oh sweet potato, how lovely is your orange flesh, fibrous skin, and bright, slightly earthy flavor. We could go on and on with a list about our favorite uses for sweet potatoes (in fact, we already have!), but today we are just here to talk about how to shop for and store sweet potatoes. Most root vegetables like raw sweet potatoes, carrots, and hearty winter squashes have a pretty long shelf life. As a rule of thumb, most raw root vegetables can be stored at room temperature for at least a week or two before they show any signs of bruising and spoiling. There are at least five different varieties of sweet potatoes, and they can all be stored the same way. The key is to start with very fresh sweet potatoes purchased from the grocery store or farmers market. They should be firm to the touch and free of decay, according to the United States Sweet Potato Council (yes, this is a very real, very wonderful organization).

How to store sweet potatoes

The best way to store your sweet potatoes is in a cool, dry, and dark area, like your pantry or the back corner on your kitchen countertop. Keep them in a bowl or basket so that they’re self-contained, and always thoroughly wash and scrub their skin before you cook them. Don’t store potatoes of any variety in the refrigerator, as the cold air can activate their sugars and starches, causing them to spoil faster. A simple sign of this structural change is when tiny white specks appear in raw sweet potatoes. Store them away from a heat source, too, per the U.S. Sweet Potato Council. And while you shouldn’t put sweet potatoes in the refrigerator, you can, surprisingly, freeze sweet potatoes. Frozen sweet potatoes may be stored for up to 12 months. You must start with cooked sweet potatoes, which should be peeled and boiled. Once a fork can easily pierce their flesh, slice or mash the cooked sweet potatoes and top them off with a small amount of freshly squeezed lemon juice, which will preserve their vibrant orange color. Place the potatoes in the freezer in plastic bags and lay them flat.

Come dinnertime, Thanksgiving, or any other holiday where sweet potatoes are wanted on the table, thaw the potatoes for 24 hours in the freezer-safe bag in the refrigerator and then reheat them in the microwave. Better yet, add them to a casserole dish, top with marshmallows, and make the fastest-ever sweet potato casserole.

Storing cooked sweet potatoes

If you have leftover roasted or mashed sweet potatoes, store them in an airtight container for 3 to 5 days. You can even precook and store baked sweet potatoes in the refrigerator the same way, or in a plastic bag if you don’t have a container large enough to accommodate their rotund size. Then simply rewrap the taters in aluminum foil and bake them in the oven until they’re warmed all the way through.

Have they gone bad?

The good thing about all produce is that it lets you know when it’s gone bad. There’s no guessing game. When it comes to figuring out if sweet potatoes have gone bad, look for obvious signs of discoloration, smooshed spots, or other rotting areas. If a sweet potato is wrinkled or shrinking, that’s another sign that it’s past its peak. Oh, and it will smell pretty funky, too. On the other hand, if a potato is sprouting eyes, that does not mean that it’s gone bad. All you need to do is remove the sprouts by trimming them with a paring knife or sharp vegetable peeler. From here, they’re free to be mashed, roasted, and baked for both savory and sweet dishes.

From country music to “Kevin Can F**k Himself,” the politics of pop culture’s meat and potatoes man

In the most recent episode of “Kevin Can F**k Himself,” AMC’s dark dramedy about a housewife named Allison (Annie Murphy) who has had enough of her infuriatingly self-centered husband (Eric Peterson), it’s Kevin’s birthday. In typical sitcom fashion, Kevin has double-booked himself. He’ll spend part of the evening with Allison at a fancy hotel restaurant, and occasionally duck across the street to an arcade where he and his goofy best friend will gorge on wings and play skee ball.

The idea is that neither party will know about Kevin’s other engagement, and he will get by doing everything he wants to do. After all, he is the 30-something-year-old birthday boy, and in his universe, he’s never had to make a sacrifice. He wasn’t written that way. 

Alas, there’s a snag. When Kevin sits down in the dining room with Allison, he realizes that Sean Avery of the New York Rangers is at the table across from him. Moments after talk turns to Boston-versus-New York sports, Avery challenges Kevin to finish the Mighty Moo, a restaurant meal featuring a 32-ounce steak, two baked potatoes, all the fixings, a jumbo shrimp cocktail . . . and a roll. 

Keep in mind, Kevin has dozens of appetizers waiting for him over at the arcade. But here’s the thing: He commits — in front of God, Sean Avery and the citizens of Dorchester — to eating this comically oversized slab of meat and the accompanying potato, and his fragile ego hangs in the balance. 

It may be that the creators of “Kevin Can F**k Himself” were simply satirizing the unbelievable bravado of sitcom husbands. If these characters have nothing else, they have the audacity. But the choice of meal is interesting here. When people talk about the “meat and potatoes” of an issue or item, they’re referring to its ordinary but fundamental properties. 

However, the “meat and potatoes man” is a trope and social shorthand that has long been pervasive in popular culture and politics — and speaks to a particular kind of masculinity bolstered by complicated, often idealized values like simplicity, wholesomeness and success. 

In 2000, country star Alan Jackson released “Meat and Potatoes Man.” The conceit of the song is simple; it’s a melodic list of the things that he likes (hot women, cold beer, Wrangler jeans, cornbread, beans) and dislikes (the IRS, caviar, phony stars). The refrain is a self-aware shrug, of sorts: “It’s just who I am, a meat and potato man.” 

On the surface, Jackson’s song could be billed as an easygoing reflection on personal preferences, devoid of an agenda — he even lists “politics” as one of his dislikes — but there’s an inherent dichotomy in the characters presented. There are the meat and potato men like Jackson, and then there are the “folks who dress their poodles like kids” and spend their evenings at sushi bars. 

In contrast, those people are fussier and more frivolous, and there’s ostensibly humor to be found in plumbing those differences. After all, they’re the basis of almost every odd couple and stranger in town sitcom that’s ever existed. Food has long been a striking, though easily understandable, lens through which to assess them. 

Almost four decades prior to the debut of Jackson’s song, the second season of “The Andy Griffith Show” was finding its rhythm. In the 1962 episode “Andy and Barney in the Big City,” the pair, played by Andy Griffith and Don Knotts, leave the comforts of Mayberry to pursue a jewel thief in Raleigh. The swanky hotel dining room has a menu that’s primarily in French, leaving them flustered. 

Ever-pragmatic, Andy wants to flag down a waiter to ask some questions about what the words on the menu mean. Barney fears looking less than cosmopolitan, however, so he tries to convince Andy just to point something out and let fate decide his dinner. 

“Nah, I don’t like to gamble like that Barn,” Andy responds. “Besides, a little plain talk never hurt anybody.” 

Andy summons a waiter and asks, “Have you got a nice steak on here somewheres?” They do, and he asks for a baked potato to accompany it. Barney opts to follow his own advice and points at two items on the menu. As the French waiter finishes jotting down their orders, he confirms their selections. 

“Steak, baked potato and green beans,” he says, looking at Andy. He turns to Barney: “Snails and brains.” 

The laugh track swells because, here, Barney is the rube and other cultures’ foods are a punchline, much like when Alan Jackson proclaimed his disdain for sushi. In Barney’s effort to look sophisticated, he made the wrong choice (at least in Andy’s mind) and will pay for it when his food arrives. 

“There’s worse things than being a plain hick,” Andy says to Barney. “Like being a hungry one.”

“The Andy Griffith” show itself is both steeped in and perpetuates a certain type of nostalgic Americana where, as Gabe Bullard wrote in his “Bitter Southerner” piece “The Weird History of Hillbilly TV,” the series’ characters are “living in modern times, but they have a simplistic, wiser way of life achieved through a rejection of outside agitation — like, say, passing comedians — and inextricable from its rural setting.” 

In this case, the plate of meat and potatoes is emblematic of what, in that TV universe, is perceived to be some of the best facets of America: plain talk, honesty about what you want and the self-assuredness needed to get it. By ordering and consuming that dish, Andy embodies those characteristics as a man. 

Also woven throughout the meat and potatoes man narrative is commentary about sustenance and strength. It’s real food for real men — not the “rabbit food” that’s reserved for ladies and lesser men. Pop culture has toyed with this belief in everything from children’s movies — Disney released a collectible “Hercules” plate in 1997 that features the character flexing his giant biceps with the caption, “I’m a Meat and Potatoes Kind of Guy” — to dark comedies. 

In Tig Notaro’s 2015 series “One Mississippi,” for instance, Tig’s brother Remy (Noah Harpster) goes on a strict diet in order to lose some weight. While at a church potluck, the congregants, including Remy, stand for prayer before the meal, and his stomach audibly growls. A blonde woman named Desiree (Carly Jibson) smirks and proceeds to bring him a full plate of food when she spies him later picking at a salad. 

“Lettuce? No wonder your stomach is growling,” she coos. When he reveals that he’s trying to lose weight, she further strokes his ego: “A diet? What on earth? You don’t need that. You are a big, strong man.” 

Food and diet companies capitalize on the “big, strong man” flattery all the time. Hungry-Man Frozen Dinners (tagline: “Eat Like a Man”!) recently released a series of double meat bowls, one of which includes two Salisbury steak patties packed onto a bowl of mashed potatoes and gravy. When Charles Barkley appeared in a series of advertisements for Weight Watchers, he assured male viewers that they would still be able to eat “man food” while seeing results. 

This exact conflation of meat and masculinity is also soundly interwoven throughout American politics. As a Texas Tribune assessment of the state’s 2019 legislative session put it, when politicians promise they care about “meat and potato issues” on the campaign trail, they’re trying to communicate that they prioritize the things that directly affect their constituents — not fussy “social and culture war issues.” However, the people most impacted by those so-called social war issues — like the Texas “bathroom bill” that attempted to dictate which restroom transgender individuals could use — are members of marginalized communities. Put another way, they aren’t the target market for “Hungry-Man Frozen Dinners.” 

Meat and potatoes masculinity is, however, perhaps slightly more subdued than straight-steak masculinity. For instance, the “carnivore diet” has become intensely popular among so-called men’s rights activists. Created by Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, the diet was like extreme keto — only beef and water. When he appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast in 2018, Peterson claimed that he’d lost 50 pounds and curtailed his depression and gum disease. In the wake of that appearance, he became something of a right-wing celebrity. 

“Peterson is also particularly appealing to disaffected young men,” Zack Beauchamp wrote for Vox. “He’s become a lifestyle guru for men and boys who feel displaced by a world where white male privilege is under attack; his new best-selling book, ’12 Rules for Life,’ is explicitly pitched as a self-help manual, and he speaks emotionally of the impact his work has had on anxious, lost young men.” 

Whereas the carnivore diet appeals to men who feel that their masculinity is intensely under threat, meat and potatoes masculinity is more for men who feel like they have a lifelong membership card to the Good Ol’ Boys Club. They’re the kind of men who — as Alan Jackson sings — would describe themselves as apolitical while still benefiting from the age-old systems that allow them to be so. 

It’s the same system that the creators of “Kevin Can F**k Himself” are satirizing. As Allison dryly observes, everyone loves Kevin — no matter how backwards, petulant or ignorant he may be. That’s why, when his Mighty Moo arrives, some viewers may hope that he chokes as he takes a bite — even if just momentarily.

It’s time to recast anti-vaccination governors as mass murderers

Twitter argument, which often seems to serve as a substitute for longer-term peer research, neatly captures the science versus ideological governor about the current state of coronavirus.

The would-be debate pits the judgments of Dr. Ashish K. Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, who has argued consistently for more government measures to stop disease, and the actions of South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who basically has resisted most governmental intervention in the pandemic as abridging personal liberties.

She is not named, but she has come to represent a whole lot of Republicans who put individual choice before government efforts at prevention. But the argument suggests that the policies of  Noem and other Republican governors who have resisted aggressiveness towards first masks and lockdowns, and now vaccinations, have caused a lot more hospitalization and deaths. Indeed, analyses by The New York Times, CNN and others all show that there is a strong correlation between whether states voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and low vaccination rates.

Of course, Noem would resist any notion that her policies have killed people, but instead has supported the right of individuals and businesses to stay open, alive and free to make whatever decisions they wanted. Other Republican governors in Texas and Florida even barred cities from ordering more contained lockdowns or mask-wearing policies.

In that regard, covid has proved the kind of medical and political opposite of say, abortion, which, though not an epidemic, prompts strong feeling among liberals for individual choice and a desire among Republicans to insist that government policy reflect what has come to be seen as a partisan policy against abortion.

South Dakota and Vermont

Specifically, Dr. Jha compares the experience over the last two months of Vermont and South Dakota. They are two states with Republican governors and similar populations, demographics and median incomes that took completely different routes to get to their low current rates of coronavirus infection and hospitalization.

What distinguishes them is that Vermont got there by vaccinating 75% of its population, and South Dakota about 50%. Conclusion: South Dakota reached similar current-day infections by higher immunity—from more cases of coronavirus before May. Vermont has seen 258 covid deaths; South Dakota, 2,039.

“You can see it in the suffering of the people of the two states, deaths per capita from covid in Vermont versus South Dakota,” said Jha.

It’s not hard to conclude that it must have been considered perfectly okay in South Dakota to have higher death and hospitalization numbers, so long as no one was forcing preventive measures on the population.

Is it fair to call Noem a killer by failing to address the coronavirus with aggressive public policy? When New York Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo was found to have undercounted dying coronavirus patients in nursing homes, Republicans were quick to call him a killer, and even called for criminal charges.

Did Noem and others commit murder? She’d counter, as she and followers of Donald Trump have, that lockdowns and the rest kill in their own way, and that the state cannot legally enforce masks, lockdowns or vaccines.

“So, yes, [both] vaccines or infections work for population immunity,” tweeted Dr. Jha. “One is much better.”

The Twitter discussion, like all of them, was mixed, and reflected no shortage of partisanship.

Several suggested comparing other states in like fashion, while others cautioned that plenty of people are continuing to get sick while even having been vaccinated. One poster insisted that “one [approach] is science, the other is genocide,” but most offered sufficiently respectful comments to make it a discussion.

Covid Still Looms

While most in the United States are ready to move on from coronavirus, Japanese officials are barring spectators from the Olympics and mutations of covid are still alive and causing mayhem among younger adults who have declined vaccinations. Joe Biden is begging local officials to undertake yet more aggressive, even personal neighborhood appeals for Americans to vaccinate.

And the rest of the world reports a whole lot of anxiety about the virus without access to vaccination and confusion about a third of the US population that is resisting the cure that they themselves want.

New data analysis by researchers at Georgetown has identified 30 clusters of unvaccinated people, most of them in the southern United States, that are vulnerable to surges in covid cases and could become breeding grounds for even more deadly variants. The areas all show low vaccination rates and significant population sizes across large swaths of the southeastern United States and a smaller portion in the Midwest.

It’s a repeat of the Vermont-South Dakota debate, over and over. Just this week, we saw Republican reaction in Congress to Biden and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra calling for an effort to go “door-to-door” to campaign for vaccines as an abridgment of civil liberties.

Republican governors see a political upside to supporting a partisan view of the pandemic and science. The majority of the country sees the opposite. So, increasingly the disease map is a patchwork of neighborhoods or larger areas where vaccination programs deal with continuing medical uncertainty, worry about vaccination for the very young, racial or ethnic hesitance and committed political opposition to government programs.

We’re still hearing arguments that people can be somehow magnetized or indoctrinated by vaccinations that stimulate an immunological response. Or that government is using vaccines to subdue their political independence.

This Twitter debate shows that it is better to be here, alive to continue arguing, than is to die when ideology substitutes for science.

Trump Organization indictment and the downside of having no independent oversight

A Manhattan grand jury on July 1, 2021, indicted the Trump Organization and one of its top executives, Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg, over his failure to pay taxes over 15 years. The company and Weisselberg pled not guilty.

I’m a scholar in corporate leadership and governance. While I can’t comment on the specifics of the case, I do know that private companies like the Trump Organization lack the safeguards of public corporations – like outside ownership and independent oversight.

Moreover, impulsive decision-making by an individual or small, isolated group of followers, without those safeguards, can and often will lead to disastrous results.

That appears to be what the ongoing criminal investigations into the Trump Organization show.

Public ownership

Several years ago, I explored the distinction between public and private companies in detail when the American Bar Association invited me to write about what young corporate lawyers needed to understand about how business works. Based on that research, I want to point to an important set of distinctions between public and private corporations, and what it all means for the Trump Organization.

Public corporations are those businesses that trade their stock on a public market, such as the New York Stock Exchange. They are regulated by the Security and Exchange Commission and affected by a number of important federal laws, most notably the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act, popularly known as Sarbanes-Oxley.

Private companies like the Trump Organization do not trade their stock publicly. Ownership is tightly held by a limited number of chosen investors. As such, they escape the scrutiny of these public overseers.

Outside oversight

The CEO of a public company is subject to an array of constraints and a varying but always substantial degree of oversight.

There are boards of directors, of course, that review all major strategic decisions. And there are separate committees that assess CEO performance and determine compensation, composed entirely of independent directors who don’t have any ongoing involvement in running the business.

In addition, public shareholders are entitled to vote directly on the compensation awarded to top executives. Whole categories of CEO decisions, including mergers and acquisitions, international expansions and changes in the corporation’s charter are subject to the opinion of shareholders and directors.

The composition of the board of directors is also regulated by law. Half of the directors must be independent of the company. And the board committees charged with conducting audits, hiring and firing the CEO and determining executive pay must be 100% independent. Company insiders and close family members may sit on public boards but are not counted as independent.

Full disclosure

The SEC requires the CEOs of public corporations to make full and public disclosures of their financial performance. Regular reports require disclosure of operating expenses, significant partnerships, liabilities, strategies, risks and plans.

Additionally, public companies must hire an independent auditing firm approved by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to conduct and verify the thoroughness and accuracy of those financial statements. Any fraudulent reporting can result in criminal charges against the CEO and chief financial officer.

These rules are all intended to safeguard the integrity of corporations, to help make them transparent to public investors and to guard against corruption. They are far from perfect, but they are helpful. And private corporations are not required to comply with any of them.

How “Trump Inc.” operated

Well-governed companies, such as Microsoft and PepsiCo, tend to outperform poorly governed ones, often dramatically. That’s largely due to all the factors noted above, including accountability.

Management at the Trump Organization, on the other hand, was accountable to no one, other than Trump himself. The executive team of the Trump Organization – a limited liability company that has owned and run hundreds of businesses involving real estate, hotels, golf courses and much else – is made up entirely of his children and people who are loyal to him. And his decision-making authority was unconstrained by any external oversight or internal constraints.

Decisions concerning what businesses to start or exit, how much money to borrow and at what interest rates, how to market products and services, and how to pay suppliers or treat customers were made centrally and not subject to review.

Trump, it should be noted, made one stab at a public company in the mid-1990s: Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts. That was an unmitigated disaster, leading to five separate declarations of bankruptcy starting in 2004, all during a period when other casino companies thrived.

As a private company, the Trump Organization was under no obligation to follow the guidelines of good governance. Because, in my view, it voluntarily decided to ignore such guidelines, the indictment may be only the first of many.

Bert Spector, Associate Professor of International Business and Strategy at the D’Amore-McKim School of Business, Northeastern University

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

“Flagging” misinformation isn’t enough: COVID is resurging because the right gobbles up lies

On Thursday, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy did something no surgeon general has done before: He issued a warning — not about what people are consuming with their bodies — but with their minds.

“I am urging all Americans to help slow the spread of health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond,” Murthy asked in the health advisory titled “Confronting Health Misinformation.” At a White House press conference Thursday, Murthy reserved his harshest criticism for tech companies, who he said “allowed people who intentionally spread misinformation — what we call disinformation — to have extraordinary reach” and whose algorithms are “pulling us deeper and deeper into a well of misinformation.” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said: “We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s Office. We are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

This advisory may not seem like it, but it’s a very big deal.

From the highest levels of the federal government, such a warning is an official recognition of how, now that vaccines are widely available, COVID-19 spreading should be understood more as a social phenomenon than a biological one. Murthy also wisely centered how much this false information is being deliberately spread by bad actors and zeroed in on the fact that the tech companies are letting lies spread on social media because it’s profitable to do so.

But that last point really underscores why the spread of disinformation is such a sticky problem, and why fact-checking and better health information is probably not enough to convince people, especially Republicans, to get vaccinated. Misinformation isn’t really the cause of people refusing the COVID-19 vaccination. It’s just the excuse people are wielding to justify an extremely stupid choice to risk their own health to demonstrate their tribalist loyalties to the Republican Party and their hatred of the Democrats. In this particular chicken-and-egg situation, the rejection of the vaccine comes first, and the lies are spread to rationalize a decision that’s already been made. 


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


In much of the media coverage of anti-vaxxers, the tendency is to frame them as passive victims of misinformation, as if they saw some scare story on Facebook about vaccine dangers and decided, based on that, to reject the vaccine. The Washington Post, for instance, published a piece on Thursday about the COVID-19 outbreak in Springfield, Missouri, which is happening because of widespread rejection of vaccines in the area. Folks who spoke to the reporters had a million excuses for why they weren’t vaccinated yet, and all were presented in the article at face value. One 30-year-old man claims he’s safe because he “works an overnight shift at Walmart and has little interaction with other employees or customers.” Another (who died of COVID-19) was “worried about side effects as a result of her complicated medical history.” Another who is “pregnant with their second child, declined to get vaccinated because she wasn’t sure how the shots would affect the pregnancy.” But her husband, who is not pregnant, insisted he also didn’t need the vaccine because “it’s no worse than the flu,” which is something that health experts also recommend vaccinating against annually. 

I’m not a mind reader, but let’s face it: This is honking nonsense. Folks aren’t getting vaccinated because they have real concerns. It’s because they live in right-wing America and have been made to feel that getting the vaccine is disloyal to Donald Trump, disloyal to Fox News, and above all else, a great way to stick it to the liberals. That’s why political affiliation predicts anti-vaccination sentiment better than pretty much any other factor. What the Washington Post reporters diligently recorded from these Missouri anti-vaxxers was not reasons, but rationalizations. And that, more than any other factor, is why misinformation about vaccines is so wildly popular on social media.

People, especially conservatives, love reading and sharing lies that justify their worldview. And, by and large, they aren’t too concerned about the moral implications of lying or spreading lies. On the contrary, the widespread victim mentality on the right allows many of them to feel justified in spreading lies, as it feels like some sort of payback to know-it-all liberals. 


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


Murthy is right that lies tend to be profitable for social media companies and this is why: Lies are in strong demand, especially on the right. Conservatives who share this stuff aren’t passive consumers. They tend to reward people who tell them lies, which is why someone like Tucker Carlson has such high ratings and only gets more popular the more full of shit he is. 

A recent study out of MIT confirms this frustrating reality about why people spread misinformation. Researchers fanned out on Twitter, looking for people sharing “any one of 11 frequently repeated false news articles.” With excruciating politeness, the researchers corrected the false information, with replies like, “I’m uncertain about this article — it might not be true. I found a link on Snopes that says this headline is false,” with a link to the true information. 

How did people react to being politely corrected?

Not like folks who mean well and are embarrassed at being caught mistakenly spreading a falsehood, that’s for sure. Instead, as researcher Mohsen Mosleh noted, “they retweeted news that was significantly lower in quality and higher in partisan slant, and their retweets contained more toxic language.” In other words, people know that what they’re sharing online is garbage. They just don’t care, and, in fact, they will double down as a defensive reaction if they’re called out for it. 

As the researchers found, this problem was shared across partisan identities, which shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has gently tried to correct a progressive friend who is a fan of some of the more noxious #resistance grifters out there. But there should also be no doubt that the misinformation problem is much worse on the right, as other research has consistently shown. And when it comes to misinformation about vaccine safety, it’s almost exclusively a right-wing problem.

So Murthy is right that social media companies need to do more to crack down on misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine spreading rampantly on their platforms. Putting little disclaimers on posts that send people to the CDC website ain’t it. That would work if people were sharing bad information in good faith, and were open to being gently corrected by more scientifically sound information. But the reason that lies perform well on social media is not that people are being duped, but because people — especially conservatives — love lies and gobble them down like candy. The only thing that will work is cutting them off entirely. 

Misinformation is not the cause of anti-vaccination sentiment, but that doesn’t mean that stopping lies is a waste of time.

Conservatives are using these vaccination lies — like propaganda is generally used — to stiffen their resolve, reaffirm their tribal identity, and develop talking points to bat away concerns from relatives and friends who are trying to get them to protect their health. Understanding how such misinformation functions is crucial to combat its effect. The real issue here is that vaccines are being talked about in ways that are politicized and emotional, instead of as a banal bit of health care. As long as getting the vaccine is associated with liberalism, huge swaths of the country will be dug in against doing it. Crushing misinformation is crucial, but only part of what needs to be a larger effort to de-politicize the COVID-19 pandemic.