Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Mystery disease linked to more than 100 deaths in Democratic Republic of Congo

An unknown disease has been spreading in a rural part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in Central Africa, killing a high number of people. The deputy provincial governor, Rémy Saki, told The Associated Press that between 67 and 243 people died from the mysterious disease, many of them children. It has flu-like symptoms including fever, headache, cough and anemia.

According to the AP, the deaths were recorded between November 10 and November 25 in the DRC’s Panzi health zone of Kwango province. The AP reports that the World Health Organization is aware of the situation and has sent a team to work with local officials to collect samples.

The outbreak may be complicated by other illnesses spreading in the country. As reported by Salon before, the DRC has been the center of an mpox outbreak. The crisis first attracted attention earlier this year in the DRC where most cases were concentrated. But it soon began to spill over into at least 13 neighboring countries. At the time, sources told Salon spread of mpox across the world could have been avoided if the DRC had the resources to contain the spread of mpox in the first place, pointing to health disparities between the East and the West.

Earlier this year, a Marburg virus outbreak in Rwanda resulted in at least 66 infections and 15 deaths, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Thanks to the quick-acting surveillance of public health authorities in the African country, the outbreak seems to be under control, with no new cases reported since Oct. 30.

Paul Atkins tapped as crypto-friendly SEC chair

President-elect Donald Trump said Wednesday he plans to nominate Paul Atkins, former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, to lead the agency. The move paves the way for a crypto-friendly administration that could loosen regulations.

Atkins, CEO of financial services consulting firm Patomak Global Partners, would succeed Gary Gensler, a Biden nominee who cracked down on crypto after taking the helm in 2021. Gensler said in November he plans to resign on Jan. 20, the day Trump will be inaugurated. Trump had pledged on the campaign trail to remove him. 

Atkins served as SEC commissioner from 2002 to 2008 under President George W. Bush. 

Atkins, a lawyer and co-chair of the Token Alliance, has been helping to draft "best practices" for crypto trading platforms, The New York Times reported

Besides being pro-crypto, Atkins has criticized some of the reforms that emerged from the financial crisis in 2008, including Dodd-Frank legislation aimed at the banking industry, CNBC reported

Trump announced his nomination on his Truth Social platform, where he wrote that Atkins "recognizes that digital assets & other innovations are crucial to Making America Greater than Ever Before." The nomination needs Senate confirmation. 

The crypto market has surged since the November election sent Trump and hundreds of other pro-crypto candidates to Washington, D.C. The industry funded their campaigns with tens of millions of dollars. 

But there are concerns over who will keep crypto donors in check and consumers safe. An industry-wide collapse in 2022 resulted in several executives punished for misleading consumers.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is serving a 25-year prison sentence after he was convicted of defrauding customers.

Alexander Mashinsky, founder and former CEO of the failed cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to federal fraud charges in a scheme that netted $48 billion.

 

“People were ready to laugh”: “Fargo’s” Allison Tolman on why “St. Denis Medical” is so appealing

If, instead of becoming an actor, Allison Tolman had become a nurse, you would have wanted her to be your nurse. As Alex on NBC's new hit mockumentary sitcom "St. Denis Medical," the Emmy- and Golden Globe-nominated performer plays a dedicated and conscience-driven health care worker. And in real life, she's equally firm in her convictions and confident in her skill.

In the wake of her breakout role as Molly in "Fargo" a decade ago, Tolman — with her quick comic timing and down-to-earth persona — could have slid into a reliable supporting role career. Instead, she met the moment with confidence. "I knew coming off 'Fargo' that I was never going to be closer than that to being like, 'I'm a leading lady, and you should treat me a leading lady,'" Tolman recalled during our recent "Salon Talks" conversation. Ten years on — and after starring in acclaimed series like "Downward Dog," "Why Women Kill" and "Emergence," Tolman still holds firm on what she wants and how she works. 

"If they mention the character's body type," she says, "I pass immediately. It's lazy and weird." And on the set of "St. Denis," even though she and her colleagues, like David Alan Grier and Wendi McLendon-Covey, are sketch comedy and improv veterans, "We're pretty disciplined," she says. "As funny as the cast is and as varied as their backgrounds are, we don't improvise off-subject and waste everyone's time." No wonder then, that Tolman seems uniquely suited to lead a show that gently pokes fun at one of the nation's most frustrating, body-shaming, time-wasting industries. "There's very little snark," Tolman says, "Every episode is funny, but it also has these tender, sweet human moments."

Watch my "Salon Talks" episode with Tolman here, or read the conversation below, to hear more about how her father's illness impacted her decision to do "St. Denis," the Cher quote she lives by, and why she has a soft spot for holiday horror movies.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Can you introduce us to "St. Denis Medical" and the character you play? 

St. Denis Medical is a safety net hospital in a medium-sized town in Oregon. I play Alex, who has recently been promoted to be the head nurse in the ER department, which she's excited about. It's a tiny, tiny pay bump, but she likes responsibility, and she thinks she does things right all the time. She's happy to be able to teach other people how to do things her way. 

That's the world that we live in, by the nature of the fact that it's a hospital that's really underfunded. The patients coming in are from all different walks of life. It's a little bit like the island of misfit toys. Everyone who's in there and everyone who works there has made the choice that this is where they want to spend their time and spend their career. 

You're up-front about being choosy with new projects. What was it about this show and Alex that attracted you to it?

It's funny because I have been so choosy about the things that I do. I also never pictured myself on a network sitcom at all. I feel like I've been chasing "Fargo" and working towards more prestige television. I want to get another Emmy nomination. I want to fire a gun, and be cool, and run around.

I did not see myself on a network sitcom, but the script came along, [and] I've always wanted to do a mockumentary. I love mockumentaries. My father had been sick the year before, so I had spent more time in the medical industrial complex than I ever had. I was feeling close to the subject matter.

"You can spend hours on a set watching two people improvise at each other and thinking, 'This will never make it into anything.'"

Also, while my father was sick, my mom would come home from spending all day in the hospital visiting him, and all she could do was watch a sitcom. All she could really stomach was half-hour comedy. Nothing scary, nothing sad. So I'd been watching a lot of sitcoms when this came across my desk, and I was really like, "Actually, this is what I want to do," which I could not have been more surprised by. 

I ended up in the dreamiest job. It was close to home. It was the happiest set. This was picked up during the writer strike, and we started shooting the rest of the season as soon as the actor strike ended. We were one of the only shows working in town. It ended up being this really special dreamy job for me.  

You said you're a fan of mockumentaries. What's your favorite? 

"Waiting for Guffman" is my favorite, because I did community theater. I was always a little community theater gal when I was younger. All the Christopher Guest movies are master classes, but "Guffman" is my favorite, just because of the subject matter. 

You come from Second City and sketch comedy, and you're working with other people who come from improv and the sketch world. How does that inform the relationships and dynamics that you have with this cast? 

It's a funny cast. I studied theater and then moved into sketch comedy, Kahyun [Kim] went to Juilliard, so there's this mishmash of where people come from. It's such a funny show and it's such a funny set, but we have a disciplined cast. As funny as the cast is and as varied as their backgrounds are, we don't improvise off-subject and waste everyone's time when it's time to go to lunch. We're pretty disciplined about, "What if I said this this way?" It's an extra 15 seconds, the end. Which is awesome, because you can spend hours on a set watching two people improvise at each other and thinking, "This will never make it into anything. Why are you wasting everyone's time?" We don't have that problem on this show.

On top of that, it's just a joyous set, because this crew has been together, a lot of them, since "Superstore." Justin [Spitzer] and Eric [Ledgin] are really good showrunners, and they keep people around, so the crew loves each other. They're like a well-oiled machine, and we just laugh a lot. 

The show is a hit, it's been critically acclaimed and the ratings are great. It premiered one week after the presidential election. Do you think there is something about this moment we are living through that this story and these characters speak to us? 

My castmates and I talked about it ahead of time. We felt like no matter what happened with the outcome of the election, it had been such a stressful time in America that we thought, "No matter what happens, people are going to be ready to laugh." One of the lovely things about our show is that there's almost no edge to it. There's very little snark. It's just earnest and lovely. Every episode is funny, but it also has these tender, sweet human moments, which I know is what I feel like watching.

I restarted "Parks and Recreation" the night of the election from the beginning. I was like, "I want something yummy, and I know how I'm going to feel afterward. It's going to be sweet, and it's going to make me laugh." It was nerve-racking to see what would happen because one week right after this intense election cycle is a lot of pressure. Now that we're on the other side, I think, "Well, of course people were ready to watch that. Of course, people were ready to laugh and feel good." 

Some of your decision to do this show was informed by your own experiences with your family in and out of the health care system. Were there nurses you wanted to base Alex a little bit on?

I didn't spend as much time with my dad's nurses when he was in the hospital because I went every so often to sit with him while my mom had errands to run or just to see him for a little bit. For me, the medical professional that I was just blown away by was his surgeon in Houston. Surgeons have a reputation of being like [trauma surgeon] Bruce [played by Josh Lawson] on the show, having a God complex, and being full of themselves. That could not have been further from my experience with my dad's surgeon, who was so kind, who answered every question that each one of my dad's children had, who came to visit my father, reassured him, and made him feel better when he was scared and worried about what was going to happen. 

My entry point at that time was these medical professionals who have so much influence over how a person is feeling and doing during often the worst times of their lives, on the worst days of their lives. But I didn't spend as much time with his nurses, because my mom was there every day, all day with him and his nurses. That's what made my dad feel better, to have my mom there. 

I want to go back 10 years. Everything changes for you very quickly because of "Fargo." What is it like for you as a woman who maybe thought she was going to have a different kind of professional career as an actor? 

I think about this a lot, and I always say that this was not my goal ever. I didn't have my aims on being a television actress. I would've taken a role in something if they offered me something, but I was never thinking that it was going to be my full-time job. I just wanted to make commercials, and do improv and theater, and have a day job so that I could have health insurance. That's what I thought I was going to do. I was in Chicago. I loved Chicago, and it wasn't even on my radar that this could be my future. 

"Women in this industry are already doing complicated math in our brains all the time to see if we're good enough."

Now, we're in year 10 since "Fargo" and year 10 of me living in Los Angeles. I've been doing a lot of reflecting back on that this year. I know you can only get struck by lightning if you stay in the storm, but I still feel like I was so lucky. I was so lucky that "Fargo" came along, that they opened up the casting to the Midwest, that my agent got me to tape something. The odds are just astronomical that that would've happened to someone who was not hustling, who was not trying to get on television, who was not in Los Angeles trying to get into that business. It's just insane that that is how it worked out for me. 

There's a moment when someone has a breakthrough, where I imagine everybody wants a piece of you. Maybe you want to get in that big blockbuster and be the wife, the best friend. You said, "I don't want to do that." 

No, because I've always been a character actress. In college, character actresses are cast as the 60-year-olds, even though you're 22 like everyone else. And so I was like, "I don't want to do this version of that." I knew coming off "Fargo" that I was never going to be closer to being like, "I'm a leading lady, and you should treat me a leading lady." But it would only work if I treated myself like a leading lady and said, "No. I want my own show. I can run a show now. I can anchor a show. I should be the one who has a romantic interest. I should be the one who's getting to do these things." 

The huge benefit to me was that I had had a day job up until the day I was cast in "Fargo." So I was like, "My resume is still current. I'll be OK. If this was the end of this ride, what a crazy ride. I'll take it, but I'm not going to get desperate now and go backward. I'd rather just wait." That was hugely beneficial. I was also older. I just had a little bit more steadfastness than a lot of people when they break young.

 
Even now, when you're looking at a script or you get offered something, what is something that makes you go, "Hard pass. Absolutely no"?

If they mention the character's body type, I pass immediately. It's lazy and weird to [write], "She's a little overweight." I'm like, "Oh, go f**k yourself." That's how I feel. It makes me insane. It's lazy. Also, sometimes, I think they add that in like, "Oh, Allison's reading this. Let's make sure she knows we're describing her." I'm like, "Well, I actually don't use that word for myself. So you've really, really missed the mark here." I just hate it. I think it's a bummer.

I've actually expanded that now to, I don't like when scripts call out anybody's physical [description]. "There's three nurses. One of them's the skinny nurse, and one of them's the nurse with glasses." This is deeply, deeply weird. And they do it mostly with female characters. To describe people's characters with body attributes is so bizarre. It's bizarre for the casting process. It's super bizarre when you get the role, and then that's what it says on your trailer, like, "Fat woman in theater." Don't do that to people.

Give them names, and if you can't name them, say that she has blonde hair. Say that she's dressed loudly. Figure something else out. I just think it's lazy. Sorry, writers, but you should stop doing that. 

"I don't need to get married, and I don't need to have someone take care of me. I take care of myself."

I actually bring this to most of the writers that I work with when I see it. I'm like, "Hey. Can you not do this? I really don't like it. For the following reasons, it's really upsetting and hard for actresses to read these things about themselves or about other characters. If she's the skinny nurse, then I'm not skinny enough. Because she was cast as the skinny nurse. So what am I?" 

Women in this industry are already doing complicated math in our brains all the time to see if we're good enough, and if we're aging alright, and if enough people want to have sex with us that we'll be able to book roles in the future, which is basically what it comes down to. I just think that writers can be kind and take some of that off our plate by not pitting us against each other and comparing us in those ways, inadvertently, but that's what happens.

I love that you are very upfront about describing yourself as a "cat lady and rich man." I assume that's a Cher reference.

That's a Cher reference, yes. 

Why is it important for you, especially right now at this moment, politically, socially, economically, patriarchally, to put that out there and have people who approach you through your social media know that, "This is who I am"?

It's such a massive part of who I am, and as I've gotten older, I just don't feel ashamed about it at all. I feel much more like people who don't understand that concept should be ashamed. I'm not really very aggressive, especially on social media, I don't engage in a super pointed way, but that's the truth. I don't need to get married and I don't need to have someone take care of me. I take care of myself. Part of it is just funny, and part of it is just really true.

You don't do a lot of films, but you were in the film "Krampus." 

'Tis the season. 

You've described yourself as a horror fan. What is it about Christmas that lends itself so well to this genre?

Christmas is the most propped up, idealized time of how beautiful it is, family's all together, the decorations are gorgeous, we're in an Amblin movie. So when you take that and you add a slasher into it, or a creature, or a monster, and things fall apart, that's just inherently funny. It's just ironically very funny to have a beautiful Christmas dinner be ruined by a chainsaw. The juxtaposition is just really yummy.

“I may quit”: Bill Maher would rather quit show than have to keep covering Trump

Bill Maher is sick of talking about Donald Trump — so much so that he's considering quitting "Real Time" rather than be forced to make weekly commentary during the president-elect's second term.   

During an episode of Maher's “Club Random” podcast on Sunday, he spoke of his frustrations in a chat with Jane Fonda, who seemed to be in very much the same boat when it came to feeling sick of a seemingly endless Trump news cycle.

“I mean I may quit,” Maher told Fonda. “I don’t want to do another . . . I did Trump. I did all the Trump stuff before anybody. I called him a con man before anybody. I did, ‘He’s a mafia boss.’ I was the one who said he wasn’t going to concede the election. I’ve done it."

When Fonda questioned why Trump has been more "hostile" to other hosts than to Maher, he offered a quick reply, saying, “He’s very hostile to me. He tweets about me every week. Every week he accidentally watches my show and goes, ‘Low ratings loser!’ I’m bored with it. The show is the politics. There is no other thing. And he’s going to dominate the news like he always does.”

As Variety points out, whether Maher is really serious about quitting or not, Warner Bros. Discovery and HBO renewed “Real Time” for two more seasons back in March.

“Outrageously powerful and incredibly secret”: Yes, Trump can wield CIA, FBI for his own ends

Donald Trump's war against the "deep state" and his political opponents appears to be on a collision course with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Those familiar with Trump's plans say that after his incoming administration takes power next month, these agencies could be used to further Trump's personal interests abroad and to create an unprecedented domestic surveillance apparatus wielded for political ends. 

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 offers a glimpse into the playbook for Trump’s second term and the changes to the U.S. intelligence apparatus that the new administration hopes to make.

Much of the document envisions a right-wing "whole of government" approach to positioning the U.S. against what it calls “the generational threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.” Dustin Carmack, author of the "Intelligence Community" section of Project 2025, also writes of the importance of allowing “dissenting views” on topics like Beijing’s alleged intent to influence the 2020 and 2022 elections and the "origin of COVID-19," two topics of particular importance to MAGA loyalists.

According to Carmack and the Heritage Foundation, the job of ensuring that “dissenting viewpoints” like these make their way to the president belongs the director of national intelligence. Carmack himself served in the DNI’s office in the first Trump administration under then-director John Ratcliffe.

In Carmack's vision, the incoming DNI will be responsible for controlling members of the intelligence community who, the document argues, made “backchannel attempts to change or suppress analytic views," such as alternative theories on the origin of COVID-19 or about the 2020 election. Carmack also recommends that the DNI should be primarily responsible for the President’s Daily Brief, a duty traditionally vested in the CIA. 

Michael Hayden, a former CIA director who has also held senior positions in the DNI's office, predicts a power struggle between the office of the DNI and the CIA over who gets information in front of the president. Hayden also said that he’s concerned about a potential disconnection between what the CIA actually does and what the DNI tells the president.

So far, Trump has nominated former congresswoman turned Fox News host Tulsi Gabbard for the DNI position, which would theoretically give her primary responsibility for the intelligence and analysis that makes it to Trump’s desk. Ratcliffe, the former DNI, has been nominated as director of the CIA and would be subordinate to Gabbard, according to this plan.

What those two have in common, despite having served in Congress as members of different parties, is their loyalty to the president-elect. Gabbard was a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate before leaving the party in 2022. She becaming a Republican two years later after endorsing Trump and has built a MAGA following based on her criticism of Democrats and her appearances with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Ratcliffe’s political identity is similarly linked to Trump. He was first elected to Congress from a deep-red Texas district in 2014, but dramatically raised his profile in the GOP by attacking special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and by serving on Trump’s advisory team during his first impeachment hearings.

Former CIA director Michael Hayden expressed concern that a political loyalist like Tulsi Gabbard might skew the intelligence that makes it to the president, for instance by downplaying negative intelligence about Russia and emphasizing intelligence collected on Ukraine.

Ratcliffe was named to the DNI position in 2020 to replace acting director Richard Grenell, who was seen as both profoundly unqualified and a loyal Trump henchman. According to Larry Pfeiffer, who was chief of staff to former CIA director Michael Hayden and now directs the Hayden Center at George Mason University, Ratcliffe was confirmed by Congress because “it meant getting Grenell out of the job.”

Pfeiffer observed that the U.S. intelligence community "is outrageously powerful and incredibly secret, and it's natural for people to be suspicious of that.” Given that environment, he added, it's crucial that intelligence agencies act in an "apolitical" and "antiseptic" way. Pfeiffer said he hoped Trump's picks would "be parking their politics at the door," but that he had concerns on that front.

Pfeiffer agreed with the general assessment that Trump is seeking loyalty as the main qualification for jobs in the new administration, and said these picks signal an injection of political concerns into the work of the intelligence community. He cited Gabbard as an example, noting that she has little or no national security experience or managerial experience but is perceived as a Trump loyalist. 

“She’s been very, very political, and I'm not sure she's prepared to not be political,” Pfeiffer said. 

For his part, Hayden, who was CIA director from 2006 to 2009, said that he was concerned that a political loyalist such as Gabbard might skew the intelligence that makes it to the president: For instance, by downplaying negative intelligence collected about Russia and emphasizing intelligence collected on Ukraine. He also wondered whether Gabbard or other intelligence officials might not be willing to offer Trump information that he didn't want to hear.

“I talked to the president many times," said Hayden, referring to George W. Bush, under whom he served. "He was a good man. Sometimes we agreed and sometimes we disagreed. Trump is not a good man." 

It's ultimately up to the president what to do with the intelligence he receives, Hayden noted, adding his concerns that Trump could wield intelligence in his personal interests rather than the national interest.

Both Hayden and Pfeiffer said they were alarmed by Trump's potential nomination of Kash Patel as FBI director. (Trump will first have to fire current director Christopher Wray, who nominally holds a 10-year term that runs into 2027.) Pfeiffer said of Patel, "He’s so far shown that his greatest attribute is to do anything and everything that Donald Trump wants him to do. … He’s jumping before he’s asked to jump."

Pfeiffer speculated that Trump is "on a revenge tour" with respect to the intelligence community, noting that one of Trump's "early experiences" as president came when then-FBI director James Comey "put the Steele dossier in front of him" — and was fired not long afterward.

Trump’s prioritization of loyalty could change the character of the intelligence community and the FBI rapidly, according to both Hayden and Pfeiffer. Most members of the U.S. intelligence apparatus and all agents and employees of the FBI are part of the “excepted service,” meaning they do not enjoy many of the civil service protections afforded in other administrative agencies.

Potential FBI director Kash Patel has "so far shown that his greatest attribute is to do anything and everything that Donald Trump wants him to do. He’s jumping before he’s asked to jump."

Pfeiffer explained that employees of the FBI and CIA are in the excepted service because of concerns about espionage, criminal activity and malfeasance. That effectively means "they can be fired at will." In most cases, such dismissals would go through an agency-specific review process, but Trump or his appointees will have the latitude to fire anyone they see as disloyal with little pushback. 

Pfeiffer said the main thing standing in Trump’s way, if he chooses to install loyalists in agencies like the CIA, will be the realistic timeline he faces: "To dramatically bend those institutions to the will of the president, you have to replace three or four layers deep in those organizations, and that’s going to take time. It’s hard to turn an aircraft carrier 90 degrees in the middle of the ocean."

Patrick Eddington, a former CIA analyst who is now a national security and civil liberties fellow at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, said he shared Hayden and Pfeiffer’s concerns about the FBI but identified a different set of key players in the incoming administration: the leaders of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Legal Counsel. Those positions, he said, could be leveraged to institute sweeping changes much faster at the FBI than at other agencies, and with little or no input from Congress.

"People who are talking about individual nominations and Cabinet departments are chasing the shiny object," Eddington said, "rather than focusing on where the nexus of power is."


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


Trump’s nominee to lead OMB, Russell Vought, also held that post in the first Trump administration and will have the power, in Eddington's assessment, to “wave a hand” and inflict “radical” change on the federal bureaucracy.

Eddington added that Vought and Patel will have the freedom to make substantial changes to the FBI, which has no legislative charter, meaning that major alterations to the way it operates do not require congressional approval. Vought could essentially have the FBI “zeroed out of existence, from a legislative standpoint,” Eddington said, with little or no opportunity for Congress to stop that. 

While Eddington doesn’t expect Vought and Patel to go that far, he said he expects them to reach deep into the FBI’s bureaucracy and replace staff at the Senior Executive Service level and below. Such employees are not subject to Senate confirmation and have traditionally carried on their work from one presidential administration to another, regardless of partisan politics.

"Those folks tend to be the buffer between the actual political appointees and the actual career civil service people," Eddington said, adding that Trump allies "could go very deep," replacing FBI employees down to the unit chief and field office level. While such employees might be able to seek legal recourse against such dismissals, that process would take years to play out, while the bureau is fundamentally transformed from the inside out with little to no resistance. 

While such a sweeping and revolutionary takeover of the FBI like would be unprecedented, wielding the federal government’s law enforcement agencies to political ends definitely would not be.

During World War I, for example, the Bureau of Investigation, which would later become the FBI, created the American Protective League, a network of somewhere between 250,000 and 300,000 secret informants the intended to enforce patriotism and stifle dissent. The league specifically targeted suspected German sympathizers, socialists, labor activists and pacifists. Informants sometimes broke up labor movement meetings and tracked people accused, for instance, of checking out German-language books from the library.

Other domestic surveillance schemes under earlier presidents have varied in scope and been pursued for various reasons.  Under Franklin D. Roosevelt, for example, journalist John Franklin Carter ran a significant unofficial domestic intelligence operation that collected information on the president’s political opponents and assessed the loyalties of Japanese immigrants and their American-born descendants.

Eddington said that Trump loyalists at the FBI could use the bureau as a vehicle for Trump’s political ends and could also contract with private investigative entities to conduct investigations and surveillance outside the auspices of the federal government.

Such private contractors could use the enormous troves of commercially available online data, including everything from geolocation to online purchase history, to build files on Trump’s political opponents or perceived dissidents.

Trump loyalists at the FBI could hire private contractors to use the enormous troves of commercially available online data — everything from geolocation to online purchase history — to build files on Trump’s political opponents or perceived dissidents.

"When you combine that with license plate readers and all the other data available at the federal, state and local level," Eddington said, "all of that could be put into dossiers on Trump’s political opponents. They could put together very detailed information just using commercial and social media data. They’d never have to go before a judge."

That  information could then be used to seek further surveillance permission from a judge, arguing that the pattern of tracked behavior indicates a possible violation of federal law.

The Office of Legal Counsel, Eddington added, could then issue opinions giving Trump’s remade FBI cover for its surveillance operations. In the past, such opinions have created legal carve-outs for what would otherwise be regarded as criminal activity. For instance, under George W. Bush the office declared that waterboarding was not torture under the legal definition of that word, which shut down any possible prosecution of CIA or military intelligence operators who had ordered or conducted waterboarding of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Eddington noted that the Trump administration will also have the tools to prevent information about changes made to the FBI from becoming public. He said it was possible to abuse a loophole in Section 552C of the Freedom of Information Act, which has been used by agencies to “lie to requesters about the existence” of certain records.

In practical terms, this means that the public rely on congressional Republicans and potential whistleblowers from within the Trump administration for transparency. In practical terms, that means it could be years, or even decades, before Trump-era changes to the FBI become public knowledge.

"If you get the right people in those positions the sky can practically be the limit for Trump," Eddington said. "In terms of folks who are looking to obstruct or oppose Trump’s agenda, my comment is, 'Good luck.'"

Alexander Mashinsky pleads guilty to fraud after Celsius collapse

Alexander Mashinsky, founder and former CEO of the failed cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network, pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal fraud charges and admitted that he misled customers.

Mashinsky could face decades in prison, according to The Associated Press. He acknowledged illegally manipulating the price of Celsius’ proprietary token while secretly selling his own tokens at inflated prices. He made $48 million off the scheme before Celsius filed for bankruptcy in 2022. 

By that time, Celsius had become one of the largest crypto platforms in the world, with assets of around $25 billion. Customers thought of the business as a modern bank where they could safely deposit crypto assets and earn interest.

Mashinsky admitted to making statements that gave consumers “false comfort” about the business, including suggesting that it had regulatory consent when it did not. He also said he was selling crypto tokens while telling the public that he wasn't. 

"I accept full responsibility for my actions," Mashinsky told the court. 

Prosecutors said Mashinsky used slogans like “Unbank Yourself” to persuade customers to invest and used their deposits to pay for market purchases of the Celsius token to prop up its value.

He pleaded guilty to two of the seven counts he was initially charged with: commodities fraud, and a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the price of CEL, Celsius’ in-house token, CNBC reported. His trial had been scheduled for Jan. 28.

"Mashinsky made tens of millions of dollars selling his own CEL at artificially high prices, while his customers were left holding the bag when the company went bankrupt,” Damian Williams, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement.

Mashinsky's plea agreement calls for him to be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison and to forfeit the money he allegedly made by selling Celsius' token. He is scheduled to be sentenced on April 8.

Other crypto bosses charged with fraud after the industry collapsed in 2022 include FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, convicted of stealing around $8 billion from customers. In March, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison.

Crypto is looking to make a comeback since prices slumped in 2022. Prices for bitcoin have surged since Donald Trump won the presidential election in November, partly because he is expected to provide a friendlier regulatory environment for the industry. 

Forget about fine dining: New survey shows that men are choosing this fast-food spot for first dates

There’s plenty of online discourse about first date do’s and don’ts — especially when it comes to where a first date should take place. Some say a candlelit dinner at a fancy restaurant is the ideal spot, while others argue that a casual place is the best option. However, a recent survey found that fast-food restaurants seem popular among men nationwide. And when it comes to a specific restaurant, one came out on top.

A new survey from DatingNews.com asked 3,000 American men “from a geographically representative online panel of double-opt-in members” which fast food spots they would most likely take a first date to. Over 16% of respondents said their top choice was Chick-fil-A. The second-place option was Dairy Queen, for an ice cream date. Third place was a tie between Sonic Drive-In and Pizza Hut. Per the survey, Sonic was especially popular with men from Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Oregon because of the chain’s “fun and funky vibe, cheesy options, and delicious milkshakes.”

“The old-school method of taking a new date out for dinner has been replaced by casual quick-service dates at coffee shops, bars, and even fast-food joints,” said Amber Brooks, Editor-in-Chief at DatingNews.com. “A first date is a risk, and in this economy, modern singles are saving their time and money by opting for a chicken sandwich over a chicken marsala.”

Surprisingly, the survey also found that 66% of women would say yes if a man asked them out to a fast food joint. And approximately 54% of men said they would be down to go on a first date at a fast-food restaurant.

Restaurant chefs and top bakers swear by this butter: Why experts say Plugrà is superior

In many of the restaurants in which I've worked, Plugrà butter was the go-to choice, and just one taste shows why. Whether salted or unsalted, it’s one of the most reliable brands for professional chefs and bakers — and home cooks who just enjoy cooking with and eating really, really good butter. 

From enriching a pan sauce to whipping up Christmas desserts or simply spreading softened butter on a biscuit or baguette, Plugrà consistently delivers.

Its minimalist gold or silver packaging, featuring just the logo and nutritional information, reflects the brand’s confidence. No gimmicks needed. It’s just that good.

To understand what makes Plugrà so beloved, Salon spoke with Jenny Mehlman, the Senior Director of Marketing at the Dairy Farmers of America and Chef Michelle Palazzo, executive pastry chef of the Frenchette Group in New York City and a chef-instructor at the Institute of Culinary Education.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length. 

Jenny Mehlman of Dairy Farmers of America

What makes Plugrà so different from other brands?

Plugrà Premium European Style Butter delivers a superior quality as a result of using 82% butterfat and a slower churn than most butters. This combination gives Plugrà a richer, creamier texture and taste and helps make dough easier to work with for more dependable outcomes, especially when baking and cooking. Professionals and discerning home chefs know these attributes help create flakier pastries, tender cakes and consistent rise in baked goods.

What exactly is "European-style" butter?

European-style butter refers to butter with a higher butterfat content, typically between 82% and 85%, compared to the 80% standard in American butter. The chefs that helped create Plugrà determined that 82% butterfat was the right balance to deliver on both flavor and performance. This elevated butterfat content delivers a richer, creamier texture and enhances both flavor and performance in baking and cooking.

What makes Plugrà a "premium" butter?

Plugrà’s 82% butterfat content and slow-churned process set it apart as a premium butter. The higher butterfat content provides a richer flavor and creamier texture, while the slow-churned process makes the butter smoother and more pliable. These qualities lead to superior results in baking and cooking, especially for recipes that demand precision, such as flaky pastries and tender baked goods.

Can you talk a bit about the history of Plugrà?

Plugrà Premium European Style Butter was created by chefs, for chefs in New York City in the 1980s in response to European chefs not finding a butter that performed at the level they were accustomed to. The name Plugrà is derived from French “plus gras”, literally meaning “more fat” as a nod to its 82% butterfat content. Since its creation, Plugrà has become a favorite for those seeking exceptional taste and performance in both professional and home kitchens.

I know Plugrà is part of the Dairy Farmers of America. What exactly does that distinction mean?

Plugrà Premium European Style Butter is a brand owned by the more than 10,000 farmers of Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), a leading global dairy cooperative in the U.S. Plugrà is made with top-quality milk sourced from American dairy farms, adhering to the highest standards throughout the production process.

We need your help to stay independent

Chef Michelle Palazzo, pastry chef and ICE chef-instructor

What are some of your personal favorite ways to use butter?

I use butter for just about everything I bake, especially for fat-enriched recipes that call for a high quantity of fat. Using butter with a high butterfat content not only plays a huge role in the overall flavor and texture of the final product, but it gives doughs better pliability, making them easier to work with and less prone to breakage for consistent outcomes. 

I also love using butter to set different creams or sauces [and] mounting butter into my ganaches or caramels to enrich the overall texture and flavor.

I always use a premium butter for recipes where butter shines, like croissants or really any laminated baked good. Using a butter that actually has a flavor profile really enhances the overall product. 

Plugra Linzer Torte SlicePlugra Linzer Torte Slice (Photo courtesy of Evan Sung Photography)

What are some of your favorite butter-heavy holiday dishes or desserts?

My favorite holiday recipes are those that bring both comfort and elegance to the table. A recipe I always love to make during the holiday season is my Linzer Torte that is an elevated version of my grandmother's classic Linzer cookies that we grew up with. It features a beautiful, buttery lattice crust and a homemade raspberry and cranberry jam filling. Both the crust and the jam call for unsalted Plugrà Premium European-Style Butter in the recipe, which results in an enhanced texture and a richer flavor.

On the savory side, I love making buttery scones for larger holiday gatherings or when gifting baked goods to loved ones. My fluffy Gruyère and Parsley Scones feature a parsley compound butter which makes them mouthwateringly rich, flaky and bursting with flavor.

What are some unique butter techniques or usages that some may not be familiar with?

There is the stacking method. 

To create a layered effect in pastries like scones or croissants, I recommend a stacking method. To achieve these layers, stack the dough on top of itself while you're adding your liquids to the dry ingredients. This method creates layers of butter between layers of dough. As the butter melts in the oven, the butter will release steam, resulting in those flavorful, defined layers. I recommend using a butter with a higher butterfat content (at least 82%) for this technique because it has a lower water and air content which reduces the risk of the butter being absorbed into the dough, ultimately preventing sogginess and ensuring consistently superior, flakier textures.

A technique that some bakers may not be familiar with is baking an assembled pastry from fully frozen. I use this technique for recipes with intricate details, like a lattice crust, that calls for a high butterfat butter. Intricate pastries benefit from being baked from fully frozen because it keeps the butter from melting too quickly in the oven, resulting in sharper edges and more defined details. 

A surprising butter usage I love to incorporate for making pastry fillings that don’t typically call for butter. Often the weight of a heavy filling can be difficult to manage and can impact the texture of your dough. To help set and prevent homemade jams or other heavy fillings from oozing out of your baked goods, I recommend finishing your filling with butter. Not only will this help the filling retain shape when it solidifies, but the butter will also enhance the richness and flavor of the filling, resulting in a more stable, reliable and indulgent pastry.

What are some of the primary Frenchette desserts that call for butter? All of them?

We don't shy away from using butter in all of our desserts. Our signature dessert, the Pistachio Paris Brest, calls for a pistachio French-style buttercream. The pistachio cream is actually whipped with butter to set it and to create that texture. It's then layered with a pistachio caramel that is mounted with butter to give it that perfect texture.

Do you often use Plugrà when baking? 

I only use Plugrà European-Style Butter when baking in both my professional and personal kitchens. It’s been my butter brand of choice throughout my career because it was designed by professional pastry chefs seeking a higher butterfat butter with less water and air than standard butter, one that would equal the French Butterfat standard – 82%. Plugrà European Style Butter uses only the highest quality ingredients and is formulated for high performance, precision baking to achieve consistent results with any recipe.

Plugra FrenchettePlugra Frenchette (Photo courtesy of Evan Sung Photography)

I'm so curious to hear about the pastry options at Le Veau d'Or? 

Our desserts at LVD are plays on the classics. We used inspiration from the old menus and just made them a bit more modern using quality ingredients and elevated techniques. We make roughly five seasonal plated desserts with two composed sorbets and ice creams. These all change for the season and are built for one. Our Ile flottante is our signature. The dish features poached vanilla meringue that is piped and studded with caramel and honey butter almonds, then flooded with a honey creme fraiche creme anglaise.

How do the pastry or dessert options differ between all three restaurants, as well as Frenchette Bakery and Cafe at the Whitney?

Each restaurant has its own identity and clientele, so the menus need to reflect that.

Frenchette is a neo bistro where I can really push what a classic French dessert is. While at LVD, I need to make sure the desserts remain classic. Le Rock is very large and celebratory. The pastry at Frenchette Bakery is timeless and because our clients are more neighborhood regulars, we like to change the menu often. Whereas the Whitney we have a captive audience since more of our customers are coming and going from the museum. There’s a bit more specialty pastry at that location, more tarts and composed desserts rather than just croissants and cookies.   

Pete Hegseth’s mom goes on Fox News to walk back claim that he’s an “abuser of women”

The mother of Pete Hegseth, the embattled former Fox News personality chosen by Donald Trump to lead the Department of Defense, defended her son on a "Fox & Friends" appearance Wednesday morning after the New York Times leaked a 2018 email in which she called her own son an "abuser of women."

Penelope Hegseth said that her son and his wife at the time were in the throes of a "very difficult divorce" when she wrote the email, and that she, a "passionate" person, sent it "in haste" and with "deep emotions."

"I wrote that out of love," she said. "And about two hours later, I retracted it with an apology email, but nobody's seen that."

Later in the interview, Mrs. Hegseth seemed to imply that her son had changed since the time she described him as a "man who belittles, lies, cheats and sleeps around" on "behalf of all the women (and I know it's many) you have abused in some way."

"We really believe that he is not that man he was seven years ago, I am not that mother, and I hope that people will hear that story today," she said, a comment that came after Hegseth said she wanted to directly address the president-elect. Her appearance came after the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is considering Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as a replacement for his embattled Pentagon nominee.

The publication of the email added fuel to an already raging fire over allegations that the then-married Mr. Hegseth was constantly drunk and aggressively pursued female colleagues while working at Concerned Veterans for America, as well as a police report from 2017 revealing that a woman accused Hegseth of raping her at a Republican women's conference.

While no charges were filed and Hegseth claimed the encounter was consensual, he agreed to pay the woman as a part of a nondisclosure agreement.

Now, his mother is urging senators who hold the key to his confirmation, "especially our female senators," to "not listen to the media" and instead "listen to Pete."

“One last chance”: Biden’s pardon of Hunter can’t be his final act of clemency, Democrats say

Justifying the decision to pardon his own son, President Joe Biden pointed to Republicans bringing “political pressure” on the criminal justice system, which he claimed had scuttled a plea deal and was why Hunter’s tax-and-gun issues risked landing him in prison for up to 25 years.

“No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong,” Biden said in a statement. In that, he wasn’t exactly wrong, his son having been charged by a Trump-appointed prosecutor, albeit one kept on the job by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Even Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had conceded that the “average American” never “would have been charged with the gun thing,” referring to Hunter Biden allegedly purchasing a firearm while still suffering from drug addiction (the tax thing, he said, was more legitimate).

Speaking to reporters after the sweeping pardon was issued, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre suggested that the president had made the decision to help his son because he also feared the retribution that could come under his successor. Asked if Biden would have issued the pardon had Vice President Kamala Harris won in November, Jean-Pierre said, “I can answer that — it’s a no,” even as she went on to dismiss the question as a hypothetical.

But if that’s the case — if Biden acted because he thinks President-elect Donald Trump would act out his campaign-rally projections and weaponize the Department of Justice, he has not made that argument himself. Instead, Biden is traveling the globe on a farewell tour (Angola on Tuesday), leaving it up to his political allies at home to defend his actions and warn about what his successor might do.

“It is true that President Biden had said he wouldn’t pardon his son,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow said Monday. “And it may or may not be related, but would it change your mind at all if, after you made a pledge like that, the incoming next president then announced that he planned to remove the director of the FBI and install in his place someone who has literally published a hit list of people he wants to go after once Trump is back in power? There are 60 names on this list.”

Maddow was of course referring to Kash Patel, a Trump sycophant who has embraced conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and pledged to use the power of the state to go after those in politics and the press who enabled Biden to “steal” his win four years ago. Indeed, Patel’s 2023 book, “Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy,” names a host of people who could be targeted for government surveillance and harassment by a Patel-led FBI.

There are, in other words, many others besides Hunter Biden who could find themselves targeted in the years to come, from journalists and activists to career attorneys and others at the Department of Justice who dared take part in investigations of Donald Trump. And these others did not cheat on their taxes or lie while trying to buy a gun: Couldn’t the president act to shield them from retribution too?

There are also more than 158,000 people currently in federal prison, many for nonviolent drug offenses, all of whom are eligible to be freed by the stroke of a pen. That includes 40 people who are presently on death row, the majority Black or Latino, who could have their sentences commuted; Trump has vowed to lift Biden’s moratorium on capital punishment and potentially execute them all.

We need your help to stay independent

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said the Hunter Biden pardon underscores the president’s responsibility to act on behalf of others less fortunate.

“It’s less about the fact that the president pardoned his son and more about the fact that he's only really pardoning his son when there are, in fact, many people, including Leonard Peltier, as well as several other cases of many Americans who are on death row, who should be taken off death row, and who are facing the end of their lives if this president does not act,” she said, referencing the case of a Native American activist who supporters believe was wrongly convicted of killing two FBI agents.

President Barack Obama commuted nearly 1,700 sentences before leaving office, points out the bipartisan advocacy group FWD.us. In a new ad, which The Washington Post reports is running on Biden’s favorite MSNBC program, “Morning Joe,” the organization highlights testimony from family members whose loved ones benefited from such pardons. “Mr. President, there’s one more chance to give thousands a second chance,” the ad states.

It’s not just the progressive wing of the Democratic Party using the pardon of Hunter Biden to argue for a broader and potentially sweeping use of executive clemency power.

President Biden has already issued pardons to anyone convicted of simple marijuana possession at the federal level, although those eligible must first apply to receive it. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries is urging him to go much further.

“During his final weeks in office, President Biden should exercise the high level of compassion he has consistently demonstrated throughout his life, including toward his son, and pardon on a case-by-case basis the working-class Americans in the federal prison system whose lives have been ruined by unjustly aggressive prosecutions for nonviolent offenses,” Jeffries said in a statement on Tuesday. “This moment calls for liberty and justice for all.”

AOC mulls run to be top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told reporters on Tuesday that she is considering a bid to lead Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, a panel with broad powers of investigation over the federal government. She is easily the most high-profile figure among a group of younger lawmakers challenging their more senior colleagues for top roles on House committees, upending more traditional rules of succession.

The current ranking member, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., 61, is fighting to wrest the top Democratic post in the House Judiciary Committee from Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., who is 77, leaving his own perch atop the Oversight Committee vacant. Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., 74, was the first to announce that he would run to replace Raskin. Ocasio-Cortez, 35, made her comments expressing interest shortly afterwards, saying that she has had "a lot of outreach from colleagues" and would be "making a decision shortly."

Other Democratic members of the Oversight Committee could also join in the race, with Reps. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., and Steven Lynch, D-Mass., among the names being mentioned.

The looming confrontations on the oversight and judiciary committees are the latest salvos in a wider generational battle playing out across the Democratic caucus, with younger challengers arguing that some of their older counterparts lack the ability and drive to confront an incoming GOP trifecta. Reps. Angie Craig, D-Minn., and Jim Costa, D-Calif., are both running against Agriculture Committee ranking member Rep. David Scott, D-Georgia., while a challenge from Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., in the Natural Resources committee prompted ranking member Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., to withdraw his re-election bid.

Both ranking members have faced concerns about their age and health, with some members observing that Scott in particular has had trouble carrying out substantive conversations without reading from a script.

The Democratic leadership has publicly maintained neutrality on the committee fights, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., telling reporters that "the challengers speak for themselves." But sources close to Raskin have told the New York Times and other outlets that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had privately encouraged him and potentially others to launch insurgent bids. This would not be the first time Pelosi has stepped into an internal election on the side of a younger challenger: In 2008, then-Speaker Pelosi supported her ally Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in his successful run to unseat Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich.

The House Democratic Steering Committee, which consists of caucus leaders and House members representing different geographical areas and election classes, will meet later this month to make recommendations for committee leadership. The full Democratic caucus will then vote on whether to approve those choices.

Democrats need to take the working class seriously and literally

The Democrats, mainstream news media and other political watchers are continuing with their postmortems of the 2024 election. Many remain confused by how the country arrived at this disastrous moment for its democracy and civil society. In a series of essays here at Salon, I have also been examining the wreckage of the 2024 election, Donald Trump’s victory and Kamala Harris’ defeat. Of course, there are the macro level explanations about the economy and inflation, racism and sexism, extreme wealth and income inequality, public opinion polls and the Democrats' and news media’s failures to interpret them properly, campaign strategy and messaging as well as a general feeling that the country is heading in the wrong direction and that the elites have failed. Of particular note, the 2024 election is part of a global move towards right-wing authoritarian populism and neofascism.

But in the month or so since the election, I have been thinking a great deal about what I learned from listening to everyday people and their thoughts about the election, politics and American society more broadly. Unfortunately, too many members of the news media and political class do not practice such close listening. They are stuck in their own echo chambers, where they impose their own meaning(s) and interpretations onto the mass public and everyday people instead of closely listening to what the American people are actually saying and experiencing. As The Independent observes in a recent story about the reckoning that the mainstream news media is facing after their failures in the 2024 election: “We were so Harris propaganda that when she lost, viewers were shocked,” one anonymous on-air pundit told the outlet. “It turned into one giant circle j**k and echo chamber. If MSNBC wants to be of service to its viewers, they can’t keep them in fantasy land.”

I am also informed by my conversations with sociologist Arlie Hochschild and her rigorous practice of what she describes as finding “the deeper story”:

Your working-class background gives you access to an important mode of communication — one that many if not most journalists and reporters do not yet have. One of the reasons I wrote “Stolen Pride” is to help us all become bilingual by understanding the language and logic of Trump and his appeal. You can take what Donald Trump says literally, and by doing so miss what is being said emotively. In red states, and Appalachia in particular, that I write about in "Stolen Pride," there is a story of struggle, loss, poverty and addiction….

To answer that question, we have to look at politics as felt, and sometimes the best way to convey feeling is through a deep story. So, if you’re a Trump voter, here’s your deep story: You’re waiting in a long line leading up to the American Dream. The line is not moving. You're not looking at the long line of people behind you, instead you are just looking ahead, and you see you're not moving. Then you see people you perceive as “line cutters": women, Black and brown people, immigrants, refugees, and well-paid public servants. You notice a bad bully in line who is helping these undeserving line-cutters. But — hey — there is the good bully, who is going to help people like you. Yes, he has flaws, but he is still your bully: Donald Trump.

People on the left are aghast and decry the bully and yell about how he or she is a bad person. The Trump voters and other people on the right set all that aside because Trump is a charismatic leader defending them, their “good bully.” That’s how one of many explained things to me, and others agreed with him.

So here are some of the things I heard and learned from my fellow Black Americans, most of whom appeared to be working class if not working poor, in the neighborhood where I live and in other parts of Chicago.

While walking past groups of migrants begging with their children for money and food — or using their smartphones to translate Spanish into English as they aggressively asked for help — I heard, sometimes quite loudly, Black people telling them to, “Go back to where they came from. We don’t have anything for you. We are struggling too. Get your kids out of here! Kids shouldn’t be used for begging!” In one of the most telling moments, I heard several Black men, who appeared to be working poor if not unhoused, say that the city doesn’t have any help for our own poor and homeless people, but they got money for the “illegal aliens.” The other Black people nearby nodded in affirmation.

Democrats need to do a much better job of listening to everyday people, meeting them where they are and taking their concerns and agency seriously.

During one hot summer afternoon, I heard a spirited conversation about how “lots of the Hispanics are racist against Black Americans and think they are better than us. They are taking our jobs, so why should we help them? They need to leave and go back home. This is our country!”

I also heard the complaints and anger, on more than several occasions, that the migrants got “free money, cars and nice apartments from the government" and are “living better than us.” I also witnessed many more acts of kindness and generosity from Black folks towards the migrants and other “illegal aliens.” But with those repeated acts of kindness and generosity, I sensed a growing frustration and resentment, building up over time, in response to a human problem caused by a broken immigration system and “border crisis.” After you see the same group of able-bodied young people who are asking for food and money every day, in the same location, when you are having a difficult time yourself, there are limits to one’s generosity. It can grind even the most empathetic person down. Contrary to how too many in the news media and political class think about politics and society, people do not live or experience “the economy” and their sense of financial and social precarity in the aggregate through statistics. These are personal, immediate and lived experiences.

Social scientists and other researchers have consistently found that nativism, xenophobia, racism, social dominance behavior and concerns about “cultural change” are driving factors behind support for Trumpism and other forms of illiberalism and populist authoritarianism. To wit. In an article at ABC News political scientist Michael Tesler explains how concerns and anger about migrants and refugees, helped to drive African-American and Hispanic voters to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement:

President-elect Donald Trump's relatively strong showing among voters of color has been one of the most striking takeaways from the 2024 election. According to data from AP VoteCast, the Associated Press's next-generation spin on the traditional exit poll, Trump's share of the Black and Latino vote increased by 8 points each between 2020 and 2024.

Analysts have proposed several different explanations for those shifts, including sexism within communities of color, pessimistic views of the economy and inflation, disinformation, social class and the ongoing ideological sorting of nonwhite conservatives into the Republican Party. While there's probably merit in some of these, my analyses suggest that one of the biggest factors behind Trump's growing support from nonwhite voters may be opposition to immigration.

There are two main reasons for this. First, nonwhite Americans' attitudes about immigration moved sharply to the right during President Joe Biden's term. That resulted in a much larger pool of Black and Latino voters who were receptive to Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric. Second, voters of color with conservative immigration attitudes were especially likely to defect from Biden in 2020 to Trump in 2024 — even after accounting for other plausible reasons for these changes.

Tesler continues, “Those sizable shifts were not limited to any single racial or ethnic group, either. In fact, the chart below shows that the percentage of white, Latino and Black Americans who agreed with the statement "immigrants drain national resources" all increased dramatically from June 2020 through December 2023 in YouGov's biweekly tracker surveys.

We need your help to stay independent

We'll need more post-election data to help pinpoint the causes and durability of Trump's surging support from voters of color. However these preliminary findings strongly suggest that immigration attitudes are a big piece of the puzzle. They also dovetail with prior political science research showing that voters of color who had shifted to Trump from 2016 to 2020 had more conservative views about race and immigration. So even though voting was less polarized by race and ethnicity in 2024 than it's been in the past, racial attitudes and opinions about immigration are more important than ever in explaining many people's votes.

The story of Trump and MAGA’s victory over Harris and the Democrats extends beyond migrants and “the border crisis.”

There is a group of Black men who hold court, convening their own salon of sorts, outside of a coffee shop I walk by almost every day. These men were and continue to be very upset about “the deep state” and “that a vote for Harris or Trump does not really matter because the winners have already been determined because the election is rigged.” Some of the men are also convinced that supporting the Democrats is foolish because “they take the Black vote for granted.” As a group, these men are obsessed with YouTube, social media and the "news" apps on their phones and computers. At various points in their conversations, they enthusiastically advocated for various online “news” personalities and “influencers” who they said tried to get "the truth" out there by going around “the system.”

Getting “news” primarily from social media and apps was a deciding factor in voters’ support for Donald Trump and the MAGA movement in the 2024 election. As has been widely documented, these digital spaces and the larger right-wing “news” ecosystem are rife with disinformation as part of a propaganda and influence campaign by malign actors (both foreign and domestic) to undermine democracy and create a compliant, ignorant, confused and apathetic public who no longer can distinguish between truth and facts, so yearn for a strongman leader.


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


In total, these Black men’s political values are far more conservative if not reactionary than many white Democrats, liberals and progressives would likely expect (or even understand).   

There were two distinct moments when I concluded, with near certainty, that Donald Trump was going to take back the White House. Several days before the election, I watched a shoplifter run out of a discount retail department store. It was 1 pm. The man’s hands were full of clothes and other things he had stolen. He then got on a bicycle and rode away as a woman security guard tried to catch him. The shoplifter mocked and laughed at her. They were both Black. All of us watching this fracas were Black. My eyes met the eyes of an older woman who was standing next to me. She looked at someone else. Their eyes met. As a group, we just shook our heads in disgust. I heard some choice expletives and “this has to stop” come out of my mouth followed by “that fool had better pray that Trump doesn’t win.” Public opinion polls and other research show that voters who were more worried about crime were more likely to vote for Trump.

And then there was the following phrase (or some version of it) that I heard many times on the bus, the train and in my conversations with Uber and Lyft drivers. “Donald Trump may act crazy or be a jerk, but he is right about that!….” Donald Trump’s raw honesty and lack of a filter or self-censoring are central to his appeal. Many Americans may disagree with the specifics of what Donald Trump says about immigration, women, racial and ethnic minorities, or how he will rule when he is back in power. But as shown by polls and focus groups, many of them do like the fact that Trump, unlike Kamala Harris and the mainstream news media and other elites, is at least talking in a clear and direct way about the things that are causing them anxiety and upset in their daily lives.

To that point, during an interview with Mehdi Hasan at Zeteo News, political strategist Steve Schmidt shared a powerful insight about how Trump was able to defeat Harris and the Democrats by creating his own multiethnic “rainbow coalition of malice”, a coalition that includes the Democratic Party’s base voters.

If this becomes a trend, the 2024 election may signal a fundamental realignment of American politics — in favor of Trumpism and right-wing authoritarian populism. Contrary to what the Democratic Party, its consultants and the mainstream news media and the pundit class would like to believe, demographics and “the browning of America” may not in fact be destiny.

To win back their own base voters — and more importantly to expand their support among independents, undecided voters and those who have dropped out of politics and the country’s civic life — Democrats need to do a much better job of listening to everyday people, meeting them where they are and taking their concerns and agency seriously. Whatever one may think about Donald Trump, his propagandists and other agents, at this moment, they and the MAGAverse are doing a much better job of listening to and shaping public opinion and the national narrative and mood than are the Democrats and the legacy news media. 

Donald Trump is ready to make Republicans touch the third rail

There are a thousand election hot takes and post-mortems floating around these days and I'm sure we'll soon come to some consensus about what drove the Trump victory (now down to a whopping 1.48% margin and shrinking.) But if there's one thing we do know it's that he won both of his elections at least in part by shedding some Republican Party orthodoxy that had been bringing the GOP down for ages. He knows a third rail when he sees one.

And if there's one issue that differentiated Trump from other Republicans from the minute he came down that golden escalator it's his promise to preserve the so-called entitlement programs. He made it clear: "I'm not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I'm not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid," and it may have been the key to his success in that first campaign. By so boldly declaring those programs off limits he created an aura of post-ideological Republicanism, something that allowed people to buy into his fake persona as a self-made businessman who played by different rules to get things done.

He lied. His proposed budgets cut the programs every year he was in office. As Vox reported back in 2019:

Over the next 10 years, Trump’s 2020 budget proposal aims to spend $1.5 trillion less on Medicaid — instead allocating $1.2 trillion in a block-grant program to states — $25 billion less on Social Security, and $845 billion less on Medicare (some of that is reclassified to a different department). Their intentions are to cut benefits under Medicaid and Social Security.

Medicare was supposed to be cut as well, through a complicated mechanism that reallocated some of its funds. Obviously, Congress didn't approve those cuts so it didn't happen but it wasn't for lack of trying.

That last budget was put together by the man Trump is bringing back as his Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and one of the principal authors of Project 2025, Russell Vought. It's highly questionable whether Vought will be as circumspect about the plans to cut the programs this time or whether Trump will care because all of that was predicated on Trump's need to run for office again. Without that hanging over their heads they have no need to hold back. Republicans have wanted to do away with those programs since they were first passed. This may be their chance to finally get it done.

Trump can do somersaults on the third rail now and it can't hurt him at all.

As we know, Trump has pledged to create a sexy new government commission led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy called the "Department of Government Efficiency" or DOGE (the acronym cutely chosen to evoke the crypto scheme by the same name in which Musk is heavily invested.) Vought has said that he plans to work closely with the commission to use executive action to accomplish the slashing and burning of government programs they're promising.

Vought hasn't openly called for cutting Social Security retiree benefits but has promoted cutting disability payments and Medicaid and fully privatizing Medicare. His history suggests, however, that given the go-ahead he will gleefully take a meat ax to the program. Musk, however, has been clear that he believes the government has to be cut to the bone immediately which he admits will cause "hardship" that we will just have to bear. After all, he did that with Tesla and Twitter, how is that different from the United States federal government? Well, except for the massive scale and complexity…

This week, the far-right senator from Utah, Mike Lee, posted a thread on Twitter/X in which he claims that Social Security is a scam that the government mismanages and must be reformed so that people can "invest" their money and avoid "dependence." (Back when America was Great — the 1890s or the 1790s or whenever — that's how it worked. Sure many elderly people lived in abject poverty because they forgot to become rich but at least they had their independence.)

We need your help to stay independent

Elon Musk found Lee's fantasy history and disinformation "interesting" and amplified it on his X platform.

It's the same old story. In fact, the last time they tried this after President George W. Bush declared he had a mandate from his re-election victory, it ushered in a massive Democratic congressional takeover in the midterms and a two-term Democratic presidency. The financial crisis hit and everyone in America saw the wisdom of having at least a portion of their old age or disability safety net guaranteed by the government instead of Wall Street. I suppose it's possible that it's ancient history to a lot of people but I kind of doubt it is for anyone over 50.

But it's possible they won't even try to sell it that way. Musk expects people to suffer in order to save the country from bankruptcy which he has decided is imminent. Vought and his right-wing Christian nationalist allies want to completely decimate the "administrative state" so they may just declare that the program is insolvent and cut the benefits across the board.


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


There are at least some members of Congress ready for action. Rep. Richard McCormick of Georgia, a Republican, said on Fox News they have to "have the stomach" to make some "hard decisions."

Rep. Richard McCormick: "We're gonna have to have some hard decisions. We're gonna have to bring in the Democrats to talk about Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. There's hundreds of billions of dollars to be saved, we just have to have the stomach to take those challenges on."

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) December 3, 2024 at 10:37 AM

With what will be a tiny majority in the House it's very hard to see anything like that passing. Unlike Trump, they have to face the voters again. But we do know that Vought is a big fan of "impoundment" which basically says that the president can spend money however he wants regardless of what Congress has intended. (He actually used this concept to justify the withholding of funds to Ukraine which led to Trump's first impeachment.) This practice was actually outlawed in the 1970s after the previous criminal president, Richard Nixon, refused to allow funds to be spent the way the Democratic congress allocated it but it hasn't been fully tested in court. It is highly likely that the DOGE group and Vought at OMB are going to try to use this concept to sidestep Congress completely. Whether they have the nerve to attempt it with something as massive as Social Security or Medicare remains to be seen. But those programs are the right's great white whale and I wouldn't be surprised if they make another attempt to finally kill them.

Donald Trump certainly won't care. He never has to face another voter and that is the only reason he ever promised to keep his hands off of the programs in the first place. Trump can do somersaults on the third rail now and it can't hurt him at all. His party is another story, but he doesn't care about them either. 

Elon Musk’s harassment of federal employees proves DOGE is weaker than he pretends

Shortly after Donald Trump won the 2024 presidential election, he announced, with great fanfare, that billionaire Elon Musk and professional troll Vivek Ramaswamy were being put in charge of a "government efficiency" program. Despite all the hype, there were immediate signs that this effort may not be as serious as Musk and Ramaswamy implied with their relentless chest-beating about "cuts" and "deleting" entire agencies. The name — Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE — sounds super-official, but it's just a reference to a dumb meme that Musk is obsessed with, despite being about four decades too old for it.

More importantly, it's not a real department. It's a "presidential advisory committee," which may sound like a real thing but comes with no salary and no real power. These committees have a long history of being used to create the appearance of "doing something" while doing nothing — Joe Biden killed the judicial reform debate with this tactic. Of course, Trump, being an authoritarian who loathes democracy, loves using unofficial advisers and outside powers. It's reasonable to worry that DOGE will have more power than such committees usually have. However, Musk's behavior on his X platform (formerly Twitter) is a strong sign that he, at least, is starting to worry that DOGE will be toothless. 

Musk has been harassing individual federal employees, by name, in X posts. These mostly seem to be women, chosen at random because he finds their job titles annoying. As CNN reports, "Several current federal employees told CNN they’re afraid their lives will be forever changed — including physically threatened — as Musk makes behind-the-scenes bureaucrats into personal targets." Musk understands that his fan base of social media followers is composed mostly of men like himself, whose arrested development manifests in a toxic combination of cowardice and sadism. Which is to say, the kind of people who think it's fun to randomly harass people online to distract themselves from their own inadequacies. At least one employee was driven to delete her social media accounts. 


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


This behavior is gross and yet another sign that all the money in the world can't fix the hole in Musk's soul. But it also has a strong whiff of overcompensation. Musk knows that DOGE has no power to fire people. It probably won't have much hold on Trump's limited attention span. (Reports suggest that Trump is already getting tired of Musk's company.) So Musk is resorting to online harassment, hoping to feel powerful by bullying people into quitting, since he can't get rid of them. This is just a direct action version of his proposal to make working conditions so unpleasant that federal employees quit, again suggesting he knows he will lack the power to fire most of them. 

Federal employee salaries are a small fraction of the U.S. budget, so it was always false to claim that slashing the workforce would save money in any meaningful way. But the use of this tactic underscores Musk's bad faith. Even if he manages to get a fair number of people to quit rather than accept his abuse, those salaries will be inconsequential compared to the overall federal budget. This is the equivalent of cutting a dollar a month out of your grocery budget and congratulating yourself for being thrifty. 

Of course Musk's hostility to federal workers was never actually about money. Like most things Elon, it's about the narcissistic drama of a man who may be richer than everyone else on earth but seems unable to shake the sense that he's a loser. That much is evident in his accusation that the jobs of his victims are "fake." In reality, these federal employees are doing socially necessary work. One target, for instance, works in climate diversification, which is about making sure transitions to clean energy can be done without people losing jobs or disruptions to the food supply chain. People who hold those kinds of jobs are often highly educated and talented, and willing to accept lower salaries as government employees because they prioritize meaningful work that helps others over money. 

In other words, they're the exact opposite of Musk, a wealthy parasite who subsists mainly by taking credit for other people's hard work. We'd all be better off if he moved to Mars like he keeps wishing he could. Of course he resents people who work hard and do the right thing. It's a reminder that being the worst is a choice and that plenty of people happily choose to do better things with their lives. Rather than learn and grow, Musk wants to lash out at those who remind him of his own moral weakness. In the standard mode of MAGA psychological projection, he's calling genuinely valuable members of society a word better applied to him: fake.

Musk is certainly not alone in exposing his personal insecurities by wallowing in a weird obsession with government employees, journalists, educators and other people who get paid less for doing work that's genuinely helpful to others. The investor class of Silicon Valley has turned more MAGA in large part because of the work of fake philosopher Curtis Yarvin, whose prolific body of writing that can be summarized as arguing, "It's bad when people who know stuff make decisions." Scientists, academics, journalists — anyone who has developed an expertise in something other than making money — are all sneeringly dismissed as "the cathedral" by Yarvin. He loathes every instance when knowledge is linked to power, and genuine knowhow informs decision-making. Government bureaucrats come in for special disdain from Yarvin because their jobs are about making decisions based on valid information. He prefers a dictatorship run by someone like Trump, in which proud ignorance replaces knowledge and expertise. 

This nonsense has a strong appeal to people like Elon Musk. It informs a topsy-turvy worldview, where the "elite" are people whose annual salaries are less than a tech billionaire's weekly spending on snacks. It creates a moral justification for deeply immoral behavior, such as threatening the safety of people whose only crime is reminding Musk of the emptiness of his own existence. Perhaps his committee would be better named DOEC, the Department of Existential Crisis. But of course, that would be honest, which is the biggest no-no of all in MAGA world. 

The good news is that, by showing his weakness, Musk has revealed that federal employees can resist. His loudmouthed threats and harassment are about trying to get people to "obey in advance," the famous phrase coined by historian Timothy Snyder

As Snyder has shown, fascists use bullying tactics often because they don't have more effective avenues. Musk probably can't fire federal workers, and there is no need to give up just because he's taking out his psychodrama on strangers. But there's a larger lesson in this for all of us. MAGA is rife with gutless sadists, people who like to wage "war" at a distance, when they don't have to look their intended victims in the eye. That cowardice is a weakness and one that can be exploited — if it's met with resolution and courage. 

How to “Make America Healthy Again”? Start with addressing lack of social support

Over the last few years, a peculiar intersection between wellness and politics has emerged. As the January 6 insurrection on the Capitol and the COVID-19 pandemic showed, QAnon and Donald Trump adherents were no longer just middle-aged, conservative white men. Many of those who embraced right-wing fringe beliefs were self-described love-and-light, alternative-health types, too. Take Jake Angeli for example, the so-called "QAnon Shaman,” who was granted the right to be fed an all-organic diet in jail in line with his religious practice. Now that President-elect Donald Trump has picked Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his next secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, a movement around “Making America Healthy Again” (also referred to as MAHA) has materialized among Trump supporters, bringing to light the support from alternative health types.

As I’ve reported before, Kennedy represents a “dismantling” of the public health system, something that traditionally progressive alternative-health types support. Kennedy’s plan as head of HHS could include restricting federal vaccine support, drug development, and banning a number of food additives — all part of a larger initiative to tackle America’s chronic disease epidemic. Chronic diseases are indeed the leading cause of illness, death and disability in the country. It’s estimated that 45% of the American population has at least one chronic disease. People with chronic diseases account for 81% of hospital admissions.

Kennedy isn’t wrong to focus on solving this crisis. The issue is that Kennedy promotes solutions that aren’t backed by scientific evidence. The country’s chronic disease epidemic won’t be solved by dismantling public health and touting alternative health solutions. Instead, experts say there needs to be a focus on improving the lack of social support in the United States if the chronic disease crisis has any hope of being addressed. 

“The truth is, when you have high deductibles, you have to pay co-payments and deductibles, they're disincentives,” Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association (APHA), told Salon, elaborating on the difficulties of accessing health care in America. “The administration's got to pay attention to those social determinants to be able to make sure people can get to the doctor; they’ve got to have insurance coverage — if you can't take off from work and those services aren't available nights, weekends, holidays, you're not going to get there.” 

In other words, there’s the lack of social support, like universal paid sick leave in the United States, that’s contributing to America’s declining life expectancy. Robert Half published results from a survey in 2019 showing that nine out of 10 employees go to work sick. According to the survey, more than half of those who go to work sick said they go because they have too much work on their plate. Another 40% said they go to work while ill because they don't want to use up their sick time. The United States is the only wealthy nation without nationwide paid sick leave and nationwide parental leave. 

Daphne Delvaux, Employment Attorney and Founder of The Mamattorney, a platform educating women on their rights at work, pointed out to Salon that according to OSHA data, workplace stress causes an estimate 120,000 deaths in the United States each year. 

“One of the main arguments of the MAHA movement is that Americans have shorter life expectancies than Europeans,” Delvaux said. “Having experienced life in France, the main difference in culture is not the food quality, but the pace of life.”

France has strong labor unions, 30 days of paid vacation rights, and a younger retirement age, Delvaux added.

“They strike a lot and are generally not scared to destabilize the entire economy to get their needs met,” Delvaux said. “Of course, this is easier to do when you have strong union protections and when your health care is not tethered to you showing up to work.”

Not only does research suggest that universal paid leave is better for public health, but also business. A recent systematic review published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine last year found that paid leave was associated with numerous positive consequences for businesses — like increased job satisfaction, increased job commitment, increased firm performance, and improved retention.

Notably, Trump has supported efforts by Republican lawmakers to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which makes health insurance affordable to more Americans. As recently reported by CBS, with ACA subsidies set to expire in 2025, that could leave millions of people without health insurance during Trump’s presidency. During Trump’s first presidency, ACA enrollment declined and the number of uninsured Americans increased by 2.3 million.

Benjamin, from APHA, said other countries have been able to figure out how to maintain healthier populations, and longer lifespans, by investing more in social services and preventative medicine, like making preventative screening tests more accessible. 

“We do a terrible job of screening for many diseases,” Benjamin said. “Seventy-percent of our population is uninsured, and that means all those people who don't have insurance, and having insurance doesn't guarantee you'll get screened, but people who are uninsured are much less likely to get screened, particularly for the more invasive checks.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), most chronic diseases are caused by poor nutrition, physical inactivity, smoking and excessive alcohol use. Benjamin said to address chronic diseases in America, the administration should deal with food insecurity, too. 

“It’s not just that people don't have healthy diets, but there are far too many people in our country that don't have enough food,” he said. “So that means investments in our food security programs, and Commodity Supplemental Food Program.”

While those are run by the United States Department of Agriculture, Benjamin said, the HHS has “enormous influence” on what USDA does. Food deserts, where people face barriers to accessing fresh, healthy and affordable food, are also a problem in the United States contributing to a rise in chronic disease. And yet, there are already reports that Trump’s economic advisors are in favor of cutting food stamps.

“The policy initiatives that we see a lot of that was in Project 2025 go in face of the articulation of Mr. Kennedy and the things he wants to do,” Benjamin said. “Those things are going to make it very difficult for him to achieve these goals of making America healthy again.”

Gen Z’s vision of success? Nearly $600,000 a year

A new report shows that members of Gen Z  — individuals born between 1997 and 2012 — define “financial success” as earning nearly $600,000 per year. That’s nearly twice as much as the salaries other generations consider financially successful, and far more than the amount of money most Americans make in a year. 

It’s a phenomenon that may in part be explained by the unique circumstances in which Gen Z Americans were raised — with social media and endless digital comparisons to more glamorous lives those apps enable. It’s also a generation that’s come of age amid historic financial and health care crises, climate change and political instability. 

The survey, conducted by Empower, a financial services company, found that members of Gen Z define financial success as earning an annual salary of $587,797 and possessing $9.47 million in assets. That salary is nearly nine times as much as the average full-time worker’s annual earnings — currently around $60,580, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the $9.47 million in savings is leagues above what the average American has across their savings, checking and investment accounts — $62,410, according to the Federal Reserve's 2022 Survey of Consumer Finances

“What I wonder about is, what do they even mean by financially successful?” said Eric Arzubi, a child and adolescent psychiatrist and assistant clinical professor at the Yale Child Study Center. “I gotta believe, if they're looking at almost $600,000 a year, they're not looking at just being able to pay the bills.”

Gen Z is the first generation to experience a childhood and adolescence fully integrated online. Facebook launched in 2006, the same year Twitter was founded, and Instagram came online in 2010. When TikTok started in the U.S. in 2018, the youngest members of Gen Z were five or six years old; the eldest were in their early 20s, ready to start dreaming of their adult lives and assessing the possibilities. 

We need your help to stay independent

More than 90% of Gen Zers regularly use social media. And as anybody with even one social media account knows, apps like TikTok and Instagram offer glimpses into the (often meticulously curated) lives of individuals who, frankly, seem like they’re living our fantasy. A perfectly innocent, five-minute scroll sesh can bombard you with irrefutable evidence that there are people living in nicer apartments than you rent, buying pricier skincare products than you can afford and wearing clothes you couldn’t dream of splurging on — making you, by comparison, feel a little less satisfied with your weekend road trip now that you’re comparing it to another couple’s two-week retreat in the Maldives. This can redefine what success looks like. 

“That's what people naturally do, right? You index yourself against other people. That's just kind of human nature,” Arzubi said. “We all know that the level of happiness doesn't necessarily correlate with what people are seeing online, but that doesn't matter.”

There’s a name for this phenomenon: upward comparison. It’s the flipside of downward comparison, in which individuals compare themselves to those with fewer resources. Downward comparisons can translate to feelings of gratitude, while upward comparisons can leave individuals feeling dissatisfied with their lives, though research also suggests upward comparison can motivate individuals to create positive changes.

How other generations define success

Other generational cohorts don’t define financial success in Gen Z’s terms. Millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and members of Gen X (1965-1980) said in the survey they’d define financial success as earning annual salaries of $180,865 and $212,321, respectively. Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, defined financial success as having an annual salary of $99,874. 

But there may be a flaw in the way we’re interpreting this data. Because it’s not as if Boomers, Millennials and Gen Xers were surveyed when they, too, were in their teens and 20s, Jolie Silva, a psychologist and Clinical Director of New York Behavioral Health, told Salon. The data may simply illustrate the ways in which younger individuals conceptualize what it takes to make a living.

“You're asking people in different age brackets, which confounds the entire thing, right?” Silva said. “When you described the report to me, the first thing that came to mind was, ‘Well, you're asking teenagers versus people who are 60 years old, right, who have a practical understanding of what things cost.’”

That’s not to say that members of Gen Z don’t understand how the world works.

"What people are posting on social media is very often tied to financial success"

“Even if they had asked all of these generations when they were all 20 years old, and Gen Z still said, “I need $600,000” … well, first of all, things cost more money, right?” Silva said. “The things that Gen Z have been exposed to, compared to previous generations, even millennials, is exponentially more varied in its depth and in its range, and what people are posting on social media is very often tied to financial success.”

Why the economy may be to blame

This introduces one final dimension to consider: the economy that Gen Z grew up in. For the oldest members of Gen Z, their preteen years were spent in the 2008 Great Recession, when as many as 30 million Americans — one in 10 — lost their jobs. In 2009, the minimum wage was raised from $6.55 per hour to $7.25 per hour, and has remained there ever since — the longest the national minimum wage has gone unadjusted since 1938. 

Homeownership, once regarded as a stable, accessible pathway for middle-class families and couples to build wealth, has become an impossible dream for most Americans. And for those looking off toward the horizon, the Social Security trust fund, once a reliable system Americans could trust would take care of them after retirement, is now projected to become insolvent in 2035.  

I asked Arzubi whether he thought members of Gen Z may feel like they need to prepare for an adulthood in which public systems and institutions aren’t able to take care of them as promised. His answer was nuanced: “I think it's a great take, and I don't know that they would be able to verbalize that. I don't know that they'd be able to say, ‘Well, look, the world's on fire.’” 

Instead, growing up in a political and economic environment that feels “turbulent, unstable and fragile” might mean Gen Z foresees a world in which they need “a financial moat,” he said — even if they aren’t actively aware that they’re viewing the future in those terms.

“In general, I think we were all raised hoping and expecting that every generation does a little bit better,” Arzubi added. “But that's not necessarily the case."

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story erroneously referred to Empower as a “finance and insurance company.” Empower is a financial services company, but it doesn’t sell insurance.
 

Trump DEA pick bows out just days after being nominated

On Saturday, Donald Trump tapped Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister to lead the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), an offer that Chronister initially accepted and, shortly after, celebrated with a post to social media, writing, “I am deeply humbled by this opportunity to serve our nation.” But he appears to have changed his mind.

On Tuesday, Chronister issued a new statement announcing that he's decided to decline Trump's offer after the "gravity" of the job set it.

"To have been nominated by President-Elect Donald Trump to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is the honor of a lifetime," Chronister wrote in a post to X.  "Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I’ve concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration. There is more work to be done for the citizens of Hillsborough County and a lot of initiatives I am committed to fulfilling. I sincerely appreciate the nomination, outpouring of support by the American people, and look forward to continuing my service as Sheriff of Hillsborough County."

As USA Today highlights in their coverage of Chronister's decision, this is the second Trump administration pick to withdraw, with the first being former Republican U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, who withdrew himself from consideration as  Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Justice amid sexual misconduct claims.

Tori Amos breaks silence on allegations against longtime friend Neil Gaiman

In July, writer Neil Gaiman found himself at the center of a legacy-tarnishing scandal when five women stepped forward to share their stories of alleged sexual abuse at the hand of "The Sandman" author.

In a recent interview with The Guardian, musician Tori Amos made a rare statement on the accusations against her longtime friend and collaborator, calling them "shocking," and expressing a willingness to walk away from the friend she thought she knew if everything that's being said about him by his alleged victims is true.

When asked for her thoughts on the abuse described by the women, most of which came to light during Tortoise Media's podcast, "Master: The allegations against Neil Gaiman," which aired on July 3, detailing sexual assaults by Gaiman between the years 1986 to 2022, Amos said, "If the allegations are true, that’s not the Neil that I knew, that’s not the friend that I knew, nor a friend that I ever want to know. So in some ways, it’s a heartbreaking grief. I never saw that side of Neil. Neither did my crew. And my crew has seen a lot.”

Addressing why she waited until now to comment on the allegations, Amos added, “I haven’t publicly said anything because: what do I say? . . . I wasn’t there. I’ve never met these people. And I’ve never received a letter – of the thousands of letters I’ve gotten in 33 years – I’ve never received anything that was about Neil, except praise for his work and how much his work meant to people. That’s all I ever knew.”

To date, Gaiman, 63, denies any wrongdoing.

Biden proposal would close loophole that lets employers pay disabled workers less than minimum wage

The Department of Labor proposed a new rule on Tuesday that would prevent companies from paying workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 an hour.

Under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, employers can apply for a certificate to pay less than minimum wage to employees with certain disabilities when "necessary to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment." The department’s proposal would discontinue that policy and establish a three-year phase out for any companies with existing certificates.

“One of the guiding principles of the American workplace is that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay, and this proposal ensures that principle includes workers with disabilities,” Wage and Hour Administrator Jessica Looman said in a statement.

More than 90% of employers with certificates are non-profits that provide services to people with disabilities, according to the department.

According to a 2020 report from the U.S. Commission on civil rights, the legal loophole has allowed some companies to pay their employees less than a dollar an hour.

In 2013, CNBC reported that some workers at Goodwill in Pennsylvania were paid as low as 22 cents per hour in 2011. At the time, defenders argued that the sub-minimum wage jobs provided workers with disabilities “meaningful work” and that, without it, they would be forced to “stay at home” or “otherwise engage in unproductive and unsatisfactory activities,” CNBC reported.

But that argument does not fly today, according to the Department of Labor.

“Since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, opportunities and training have dramatically expanded to help people with disabilities obtain and maintain employment at or above the full federal minimum wage," Looman said. "Similarly, employers today have more resources and training available to recruit, hire and retain workers with disabilities in employment at or above the full minimum wage, and this proposed rule aligns with that reality."

Disability advocates have long argued Section 14(c) is discriminatory. Disability rights groups are celebrating the move to do away with it.

“We applaud today's announcement by the Department of Labor and @ActSecJulieSu that the Department is proposing to phase out the 14(c) program — which has allowed people with disabilities to be legally paid less than minimum wage,” the National Disability Rights Network said in a statement on X.

 

“Completely misguided”: Village People singer denies “Y.M.C.A.” is a gay anthem; defends Trump use

Village People’s 1978 hit “Y.M.C.A.” has been a staple of Donald Trump’s campaign rallies since 2020. Now, Victor Willis, the group’s lead vocalist, is defending Trump’s use of the song and refuting its long-held status as a gay anthem. 

In a lengthy post on his Facebook page, Willis explained why he allowed Trump to continue using the song at his rallies despite receiving “over 1,000” complaints about the president-elect’s song choice. “I simply didn't have the heart to prevent his continued use of the song in the face of so many other artists withdrawing the use of their material,” Willis, who co-wrote “Y.M.C.A.,” said in the post. 

Willis continued by addressing the public’s perception of “Y.M.C.A.” as a gay anthem in the decades since its release. “That is a false assumption based on the fact that my writing partner [Jacques Morali] was gay, and that some (not all) of Village People were gay, and that the first Village People album was totally about gay life,” Willis said, referring to the band’s 1978 album, “Cruisin’.” The singer further claimed that he was oblivious to the knowledge that the titular community center was a refuge for gay men in the late ’70s. “I knew nothing about the Y being a [hangout] for gays when I wrote the lyrics,” Willis said. He also stated that, if news organizations continue to refer to “Y.M.C.A.” as a gay anthem, he will pursue litigation. “This must stop because it is damaging to the song,” he concluded.

Willis also thanked Trump in the post, attributing the song’s resurgence to Trump's use of it on the campaign trail “The financial benefits have been great,” Willis said in his statement. “Therefore, I’m glad I allowed the president-elect’s continued use of ‘Y.M.C.A.’ And I thank him for choosing to use my song.”

Red Lobster introduces brand-new Happy Hour menus with $5 drink specials and $2 off appetizers

Red Lobster may not be bringing back its infamous $20 endless shrimp deal anytime soon, but the fast-casual seafood chain has several new value options for its loyal customers.

In a recent press release, Red Lobster announced the launch of its happy hour menus at participating restaurants nationwide. Starting Monday, Dec. 2, diners can enjoy $5 drink specials and $2 off select starters every Monday through Friday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. local time. 

Drink selections are as follows: Classic Margarita, Top-Shelf Long Island Iced Tea, Tito's Twisted Strawberry Lemonade, 14 oz. Blue Moon Draft, 14 oz. Bud Light Draft, 6 oz. Mark West Pinot Noir and 6 oz. Ecco Domani Pinot Grigio. Appetizers include Lobster Flatbread, Seafood-Stuffed Mushrooms, Crab Queso, Lobster Dip and Mozzarella Cheesesticks.

“With the launch of Red Lobster's new happy hour, guests can enjoy great deals on our signature appetizers and refreshing drinks every weekday,” the chain’s Chief Marketing Officer Nichole Robillard said in a statement. “It's the perfect way to take a break from the hustle and bustle of the busy holiday season and spend time with friends and family, or just treat yourself to some well-deserved fun!”

In addition to the happy hour menus, Red Lobster is revamping its dining menu with seven new items and two fan-favorite dishes. The new items include Lobster Pappardelle Pasta, Bacon Wrapped Sea Scallops, Lobster Bisque, Lemon Basil Mahi, Simply Prepared Mahi, Parmesan-Crusted Chicken and Roasted Asparagus. Red Lobster is also bringing back its "returning favorites," hush puppies and Popcorn Shrimp.

“Relevant, compelling and exciting is what we want Red Lobster to be for the future, and so we’re working on that now,” the company’s new CEO Damola Adamolekun told Today in a November interview.

Job openings rose while hiring dropped in October, labor report shows

Job openings and resignations increased substantially in October while the number of hires and layoffs dropped, according to a Tuesday report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that showed a mixed picture of the U.S. labor market.

The increased number of job openings appeared mostly in professional and business services, as well as service and IT industries, jumping by 372,000 to 7.7 million. While this is a good start to evening out the ratio between unemployed workers and job openings, according to CNBC, the figure still falls short of the 8.7 million job postings in 2023.

Still, workers seem to be regaining their confidence in the job market. Resignations increased by 228,000, a rebound from a four-year low in September, according to PBS — marking an optimistic sign for the economy.

Workers’ confidence in the job market could have something to do with the level of layoffs dropping by 169,000 to a historical low. According to Reuters, this not only drives consumer spending, but stabilizes the labor market and broader economy as well. 

While that may sound like a good thing all around, it may be why employers are showing signs of hesitance about hiring new workers, with payroll growth decreasing by 269,000. There are other likely factors at play — mostly attributed to disruption from hurricanes and labor strikes involving dockworkers and Boeing. 

The jumps and drops may sound tumultuous for the market, but economists aren’t too worried.

"The [labor market] report points to ongoing resilience and doesn't flag major concerns about the economy," Oren Klachkin, financial market economist at Nationwide, told Reuters. "The Fed can probably push through with another rate cut before considering a pause next year."

The best and worst meat replacements for your health, your wallet and the planet – new research

By now it's well established that meat and dairy are at least partly to blame for the climate crisis. And without coming off our addiction to animal products, we won't be able to avoid dangerous levels of global heating.

What is less clear is what to replace your burger and cheese with. What's best for your health and the planet? And what about your wallet? These are the questions I tried to answer in a new study.

I combined assessments of meat and milk alternatives which compared their nutritional profile, health benefits, environmental impact and cost. Among these plant-based alternatives were traditional products such as tofu and tempeh, processed options such as veggie burgers and plant milks, products still under development such as lab-grown beef and unprocessed foods like soybeans and peas.

The assessments featured several ways of comparing foods, including per serving or calorie, and on their own or when replacing a person's present intake of meat and dairy.

Beans beat the lot

The findings show that unprocessed plant-based foods, such as soybeans, peas and beans are best suited for replacing meat and dairy.

Choosing legumes over meat and milk would halve nutritional imbalances – the overall difference between current and recommended intake of nutrients – in high-income countries like the UK, US and across Europe. And it would cut the number of people dying by a tenth, especially from diet-related diseases like heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes.

The amount of land and water needed to grow our food and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced as a result would more than halve, and food costs would fall by more than a third.

Four bar charts comparing meat and milk alternatives.

Beans, pulses and traditional products like tempeh trounced the opposition. Springmann (2024)/PNAS

Veggie burgers and plant milks in second

Processed plant-based foods such as veggie burgers and plant milks still offer substantial benefits for anyone seeking to replace meat and dairy. But the emissions reductions and health improvements were a fifth to a third less than what unprocessed legumes offer, and costs to the consumer were a tenth higher than those of current diets.

For both processed and unprocessed alternatives, most of the improvements in nutrition and disease risk came from increases in fibre (though processed alternatives tend to contain less), potassium and polyunsaturated fatty acids, and from reductions in cholesterol, saturated fat and animal-based (heme) iron.

Both processed and unprocessed plant-based alternatives had a lower environmental impact than meat and milk, as they generate less emissions and consume less land and water to make.

Processing food, by making veggie burgers and plant milks for instance, requires energy, which typically raises costs and emissions. However this does not eclipse the environmental benefits compared with meat and dairy. It does mean that processed alternatives typically cost more than unprocessed ones.

So, unprocessed legumes such as peas and beans were the clear winner in the study. They performed well from all perspectives, including nutrition, health, environment and cost.

But a surprising runner-up was tempeh, a traditional Indonesian food made from fermented soybeans, which retains much of the nutritional properties of soybeans without much processing or additives. This, and its relatively low cost, gave it an edge over more processed alternatives such as veggie burgers.

Lab-grown in last place

Another surprising finding concerned lab-grown meat. Despite the difficulty of assessing a product that is not yet on the market, existing data suggests it will not be competitive with meat alternatives, nor meat from slaughter.

Using current technology that consumes a lot of energy to grow animal tissue in a lab, cultured meat's emissions can be as high as those of beef burgers while costing up to 40,000 times more. By replicating beef, the health impacts of lab-grown meat are similarly bad.

Although costs and emissions could fall as production processes become more efficient, this would require substantial investment and technological advancements.

Public investment in both lab-grown meat and ultra-processed plant-based replacements may not be justified considering their relative impacts. Readily available alternatives are affordable and do not call for new technologies or product development.

What is required, however, are prudent public policies that support everyone to eat healthily and sustainably.

It's worth saying that the best replacements for meat and dairy are not only whole foods, but whole meals. Why not try to cook a bean chilli, chickpea curry, or tempeh stir-fry? Or, how about some crushed peas on dark bread?

Replacing your average fast-food meal with a mix of legumes, veggies and whole grains offers not only a more balanced serving of nutrients but also lowers your environmental footprint at a similar or lower cost to your wallet.


Imagine weekly climate newsletter

Don't have time to read about climate change as much as you'd like?

Get our award-winning weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who've subscribed so far.


Marco Springmann, Senior Researcher on Environment and Health, University of Oxford

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

Senate Democrats stick with Chuck Schumer, who pledges to “secure bipartisan solutions” when able

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was unanimously chosen to lead his fellow Democrats in the next Congress, his colleagues electing him as head of their caucus for the fifth time since 2016.

"I am honored and humbled to be chosen by my colleagues to continue leading Senate Democrats during this crucial period for our country," Schumer said in a statement posted on social media. "As I have long said, our preference is to secure bipartisan solutions wherever possible and look for ways to collaborate with our Republican colleagues to help working families," he continued. "However, our Republican colleagues should make no mistake about it, we will always stand up for our values."

Schumer will be returning to the next Congress in the minority after Republicans secured a 53-seat majority in the 2024 election, unseating Democratic incumbents in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Montana, while picking up an open seat in West Virginia.

Also retaining his leadership position is Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who currently chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and will continue to serve as the Democratic whip, the second highest position in the caucus, HuffPost reported. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., however, will rise to third in command, serving as head of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, while Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., will serve as head of the Strategic Communications Committee.

The Hill reported that Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Mark Warner, D-Va., will remain vice chairs of the Senate Democratic Conference, while Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.,will serve as conference secretary; Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Chris Murphy, D-Ct., will serve as deputy secretaries.

Senate Democrats' outreach efforts will continue to be led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., serving as vice chair.