Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump lashes out at Paul Ryan after he urged Republicans to move on

Former President Donald Trump is not pleased with former House Speaker Paul Ryan’s remarks suggesting that it is time for the Republican Party to move on from the controversial Trump presidency.

On Friday, May 28, Trump released a statement targeting Ryan, whom he refers to as a “RINO” — a Republican in Name Only. The former president lambasted Ryan, although the former speaker did not criticize Trump by name.

Trump also attempted to blame Ryan, who was a candidate for vice president, for the political party’s loss in 2012 as he insisted that he shouldn’t be the person to offer advice about the future of the party.

In the statement, Trump said, “Paul Ryan has been a curse to the Republican Party. He has no clue as to what needs to be done for our Country, was a weak and ineffective leader, and spends all of his time fighting Republicans as opposed to Democrats who are destroying our Country.”

Trump’s fiery remarks came less than a day after Ryan’s speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. During his speech, Ryan acknowledged the “crossroads” the party is facing.

“Once again, we conservatives find ourselves at a crossroads. And here’s one reality we have to face: If the conservative cause depends on the populist appeal of one personality, or on second-rate imitations, then we’re not going anywhere,” Ryan said on Thursday, May 28.

Though the speech was interpreted as a criticism of the GOP’s direction under Trump, it did not attack the former president by name. In, fact, when he did name Trump, it was to praise him: “To his credit, Donald Trump brought many new voters into our party.”

Ryan was, however, critical of Trump’s allies in Congress and elsewhere, saying people “will not be impressed by the sight of yes-men and flatterers flocking to Mar-a-Lago.” And he did say: “It was horrifying to see a presidency come to such a dishonorable and disgraceful end.”

Of course, the former House speaker also criticized President Biden.

“In 2020, the country wanted a nice guy who would move to the center and depolarize our politics,” Ryan said. “Instead, we got a nice guy pursuing an agenda more leftist than any president in my lifetime.”

“Hacks” grasps how ageism creeps up on women and revels in sucker punching back

In “Hacks,” the dynamic driving Jean Smart’s veteran stand-up comedian Deborah Vance and Hannah Einbinder’s struggling newcomer Ava is familiar to women or, really, anyone who knows the plot of “The Devil Wears Prada” and recognizes a boss they’ve survived, former or present, in Meryl Streep’s Miranda Priestly.

Smart’s Deborah is a relentless professional, always moving, building, never too proud to take whatever opportunities come her way. Ava lands on Deborah’s doorstep because she doesn’t have anywhere else to go, undone by one bad tweet directed at a right-wing hypocrite that leads to the cancellation of her writing deal and the doors of Los Angeles’ comedy clubs closing to her.

Ava is designed to be ungrateful because she is, and to everyone. Her peers detest her because she treated them poorly when her career was going well for her and therefore aren’t inclined to reach out a hand to pull her up off the floor. Deborah does, even though she doesn’t want to, and immediately begins pounding away at the younger woman’s inflated ego. Nothing is off limits. When Deborah flat-out asks Ava if she’s a lesbian, the younger woman feigns horror at such a personal question. Then she theatrically breaks down her kink proclivities in detail before concluding, with attitudinal flourish, that she is bisexual.

Ever the expert on timing, a nonplussed Deborah pauses before blurting the punchline. “Jesus Christ! I was just wondering why you were dressed like Rachel Maddow’s mechanic.”

“Hacks” opens as an intergenerational comedy built on misunderstanding and grievance. Ava views Deborah as a has-been. Deborah sees the new-school comedian as an ungrateful little twerp who never paid her dues, doesn’t comprehend joke structure and views Deborah as “the QVC muumuu lady.”

Resentment humor is an old sitcom standby that wears out its welcome unless something pulses underneath it, waiting to break out. Maybe that commodity translates as affection. Frequently it’s nested in stronger stuff. 

Throughout the first four episodes of “Hacks” creators Lucia Aniello, Paul W. Downs and Jen Statsky plant hints as to why Deborah rides Ava so hard, and why she refuses to retire despite having so much cash that she can drop $10,000 on a pepper shaker without batting a lash. But the show’s fifth and sixth installments, which debuted this week, are where the answers start to sprout.

In the first of the two new episodes Deborah sets up Marty, the owner of the Palmetto Casino (Christopher McDonald) where the 2,500 shows she’s performed on the weekend main stage made her Vegas superstar. Marty is determined to push Deborah aside but underestimates her willingness to fight dirty.

Ava, meanwhile, stumbles into an unforgettable coke- and molly-propelled evening with a handsome stranger who boosts her self-regard, assuring her that she really is as talented and sexy as she believes herself to be. In the throes of their chemical and sexual high she leaves Deborah a voicemail she regrets as soon as she sobers up. That isn’t even the worst morning after surprise waiting for her.

From there “Hacks” crosses the bridge from great comedy to a potential classic by demonstrating how behavior that initially looks like spite is, in fact, the rocky foundation from which a respectful, mutually beneficial relationship between youth and experience can rise.

Ava’s mistake necessitates her accompanying Deborah on a supposed writing retreat that’s actually a weekend stay at a medical spa for wealthy people receiving cosmetic surgery. This time they end up getting stoned on cannabis gummies through which, at long last, they arrive at an accord that has long eluded them.

Deborah loosens up, drops her guard and shares stories she’s never told anyone, from #MeToo moments to the truth behind a career-defining crazy story. By the end of their anti-aging getaway Ava persuades Deborah that maybe engaging in her own version of raw honesty is her pathway to a lucrative next chapter. Deborah, however, hails from a generation taught to grin and bear their pain. “Nobody wants to hear me complain about the past,” Deborah says, “Also, I told you, nobody believed me,” adding that none of her war stories are funny.

Ava’s insistent response is where their relationship turns. “You can make it funny,” she said. “You can make anything funny.”  With these words a new dawn glimmers for this pair, one defined not by resentment but a dedication to understanding each other’s worthiness.

Through Deborah and Ava “Hacks” plays out how the transition between youth and maturity creeps up on a person and how often popular culture plays a role in that. That’s a nasty little secret nobody broadcasts, probably because one can’t predict what form that cruel awakening will take.

Maybe you’re minding your own business one day, only to open up your social media feed and discover that you are no longer in your 36-to-41-year-old prime but are now considered a “geriatric millennial.”

Here’s a related scenario. You pay your dues, maybe sacrificing a slice of happiness in order to make progress, until something terrible happens that you couldn’t have foreseen.  We’re talking recession, divorce, illness, anything that upends your plans and efforts. Joan Rivers, upon whom Deborah is partly based, was knocked down and got back up despite so many setbacks, including her husband’s suicide.

In many cases such reversals mean starting over, and for women it means a narrower range of choices as we age. Aside from a few extraordinary exceptions, most of us will never fully recover, financially speaking. So we take comfort in advice columns urging us to count our blessings, dream big but maybe a little smaller than before. Younger women take our place. Eventually many of them will join us at the back of the cave unless we decide to keep on swinging.

We see this early on when Ava hollowly tries to butter up Deborah by calling her a legend, to which Deborah rolls her eyes and says, “Wow . . . a legend,” indicating that at a certain age such compliments transform into insults. Legends are history – as in, done. Over.

Stars, on the other hand, draw crowds, sell tickets and foot spas and cosmetics. They work and therefore, make money. They matter.

Deborah’s undoing is at the hands of her husband and former sitcom co-star. He leaves her for her sister; she gets a shot at becoming TV’s first woman to host a late-night show. This enrages him. When the house they once shared burns down, he spreads the rumor that a vengeful Deborah lit the match. Suddenly her moment to make history vanishes save for the memory of it, which becomes a suppurating wound bleeding anew when she thinks about what could have been.

But that defamatory myth also helps define her next chapter and eventually makes her the queen of Las Vegas. That never would have happened if ageism and gender discrimination hadn’t destroyed what she had at Ava’s age. This is not a triumphant observation.

Comedy is cruel, and fame is especially fickle toward female comedians. Ava finds this out when the L.A. stand-up scene spits her out early.

Earlier in “Hacks” Deborah tells Ava that the kid comic doesn’t know what “hard” is, and we know what she means because we’ve already seen a few things Ava hasn’t. Like the lunch where Marty first tries to smooth talk Deborah into ceding the stage to make way for a younger, flashier act. Marty is set to die rich regardless of what he does, while Deborah knows that kind of demotion marks the beginning of the end of everything she’s struggled to gain. 

“I’ve been playing defense my entire career, thanks to a**holes like you!” she yells, speaking for virtually every woman over 40 who isn’t Marissa Mayer, Anne-Marie Slaughter or Sheryl Sanders – women who leaned in, way in, only to realize they could no longer breathe.

So when Deborah tells Ava, “You have to be so much more than good. And even if you’re great and lucky, you still have to work really f**king hard. And even that is not enough! ” she’s doing her a favor.  Millennials, both geriatric and younger, along with the Boomers nobody thinks are OK and the Gen X-ers, are scratching and clawing and realizing, as Deborah says, that “it never f**king ends. And it doesn’t get better. It just gets harder.” It’s nice to hear somebody acknowledge that.

As such, when Deborah follows this by taking off in a helicopter, leaving Ava in the middle of the desert to deal with her broken-down Rolls Royce, there’s no question that she deserves that moment as much as Ava does.

The fact that Deborah strong-armed her way back into the saddle is a miracle, and in that luxurious recovery suite the women share, Ava finally appreciates that.

“Hacks” knows all of us start out as some version of Ava but start to identify with Deborah when ageism slaps us in the face, which is around the same time that your hard-earned longevity in the workforce shows up on your resume not as an asset but a liability. Younger women like Ava pulling up on your bumper can feel like a threat, especially when you start competing for the same jobs and more often than not, they win.

Despite all of this, Deborah isn’t a vindictive boss by any definition. “Hacks” presents Deborah as a type of mentor offering her example of unrelenting drive, humility and an aggressive defense as the secrets to successful and survival – if Ava can recognize it. Following her desert storm she tasks Ava with organizing mountains of documentation high as the Sierra Nevadas, a treasure trove of Deborah’s jokes and accomplishments captured on video and paper.

Some so-called “geriatrics” may recognize this exercise for what it is: Wax on, wax off. Paint the fence. Sand the floor. “It’s all material, honey,” Deborah deadpans.

Every show or movie built to hold up over the years contains some kind of lens through which we’re meant to see ourselves as we are or as we could grow to be. At some point the teens or 20somethings who cheered on Anne Hathaway’s “Devil Wears Prada” character might return to it years later and be shocked to discover they relate, to some degree, to Streep’s terrible boss.

They should know that TV has more positive woman boss, woman employee relationships  viewing generational differences as beneficial, from the supportive editor on Freeform’s “The Bold Type” to the friendship between a 20something professional and the subordinate she doesn’t realize is much older than she appears to be on “Younger.” Marsai Martin’s film “Little”  transforms the unforgiving boss/trod-upon employee dynamic at the end by having the boss admit to her unappreciated, long-battered assistant that she saw the younger woman as a threat.

But from the start “Hacks” shields Deborah from such comparisons by showing her respecting those who give respect and fending off all those who don’t. After her most recent skirmish Deborah celebrates her victory, won by fighting filthy, by getting wasted on dirty martinis, after which she stumbles upon high-flying Ava who is, to Deborah’s shock, wearing a dress for once. “When I was doing a stand-up at your age, I had to wear a dress and heels,” Deborah slurs.

“OK well, I’m sorry I don’t have to,” Ava seethes before asking, in a serious tone, “Are you, like, mad at me for that?”

Deborah drunkenly casts her gaze upward, searching the ceiling tiles for an answer before stating the obvious: “Yes.”

Fair enough. But that doesn’t have to stop these two women from teaming up in a battle better fought together than alone . . . and against each other.

New episodes of “Hacks” premiere every Thursday on HBO Max.

New map shows how dark matter “bridges” tether galaxies

Dark matter is one of the universe’s most enduring mysteries. Its existence can be intuited by how it affects gravity, and yet no one knows exactly what it is, even though it makes up 27 percent of the universe’s total mass and energy — far more than the 5 percent of the universe that “normal” matter, like planets and stars, comprises. 

Yet despite not knowing what kind of particles constitute dark matter, astronomers have been able to use telescopes to intuit where dark matter sits in the universe. That’s in large part because, true to its name, dark matter is hard to directly observe but has a huge gravitational effect and a lot of mass wherever it appears in bulk. 

Now, astronomers are using this data to create a detailed map of dark matter in the universe. 

First, astronomers from the University of Waterloo published a study four years ago in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society mapping out filaments of dark matter stretching between galaxies. Then more recently, a team of international researchers published a new map that was published in the Astrophysical Journal.

Generally, maps of dark matter contained galaxies that were very far away from our own local galactic supercluster, the neighborhood of galaxies that are gravitationally bound and which include the Milky Way.

“Ironically, it’s easier to study the distribution of dark matter much further away because it reflects the very distant past, which is much less complex,” said Donghui Jeong, associate professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State University, in a statement.

Jeong was referring to the fact that observing a far-away galaxy means, by definition, observing something that happened a long time ago due to the slow speed of light. “Over time, as the large-scale structure of the universe has grown, the complexity of the universe has increased, so it is inherently harder to make measurements about dark matter locally.”

Previous attempts to map out dark matter have been grueling. Researchers in their latest effort relied on a large set of galaxy simulations, called Illustris-TNG, which included galaxies, gasses, and other visible matter in addition to dark matter. Galaxies similar to the Milky Way were selected specifically in the simulations; specifically, data on 17,000 galaxies within 650 million light-years of the Milky Way. The researchers relied on machine learning to put it all together and produce a noble outcome.


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


“When given certain information, the model can essentially fill in the gaps based on what it has looked at before,” Jeong said. “The map from our models doesn’t perfectly fit the simulation data, but we can still reconstruct very detailed structures. We found that including the motion of galaxies — their radial peculiar velocities — in addition to their distribution drastically enhanced the quality of the map and allowed us to see these details.”

Indeed, the quality of the map far surpasses the ones that were created in the past. As Jeong said, the new simulation enhances smaller details, Specifically, the map highlights structures in the extragalactic region known as the “local sheet” and the “local group,” which both include parts of our own Milky Way. It also identifies new structures that astronomers will further investigate. Remarkably, the map also details the directional “flow” of dark matter, as denoted by arrows.

“Having a local map of the cosmic web opens up a new chapter of cosmological study,” Jeong said. “We can study how the distribution of dark matter relates to other emission data, which will help us understand the nature of dark matter. And we can study these filamentary structures directly, these hidden bridges between galaxies.”

Jeong emphasized that better understanding the role of dark matter in our universe is critical to our current existence and the future.

“Because dark matter dominates the dynamics of the universe, it basically determines our fate,” said Jeong. “So we can ask a computer to evolve the map for billions of years to see what will happen in the local universe. And we can evolve the model back in time to understand the history of our cosmic neighborhood.”

A preview of the map can be viewed here

Joe Manchin “very disappointed” after Republicans use filibuster to kill Capitol riot commission

Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who has positioned himself as a fulcrum of power in the evenly divided Senate, expressed disappointment on Friday after Senate Republicans predictably used the filibuster — which he supports — to block a bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

The Senate voted 54-35 to proceed with the legislation, falling short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster. Six Republicans joined Democrats to support the resolution, which was negotiated by Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y., the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, at the behest of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who ended up opposing it anyway. The bill would have created a commission evenly split between the two parties and given both sides subpoena power, cribbing most of the language from legislation that created the bipartisan commission on the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The defeat was almost inevitable after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., came out against the commission, reportedly because Republicans are worried it will make them look bad ahead of next year’s midterm elections. But the majority support for the resolution left all eyes on the two major defenders of the filibuster in the Senate Democratic caucus: Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who did not even show up for Friday’s vote.

Manchin, who along with Sinema wrote a letter to “implore our Senate Republican colleagues to work with us to find a path forward” just a day earlier, said after the vote that the Republican opposition was “unconscionable” after Democrats acceded to GOP demands in negotiations to ensure the commission would be truly bipartisan.

“The betrayal of the oath we each take is something they will have to live with,” he said in a statement.

Manchin told reporters that he was “very disappointed” and “very frustrated that politics has trumped — literally and figuratively — the good of the country.”

Manchin blamed McConnell for making it “extremely difficult” to advance bipartisan measures.

“There’s no excuse. It’s just pure raw politics. And that’s just so, so disheartening. It really, really is disheartening,” he told NBC News. “I never thought I’d see it up close and personal that politics could trump our country. And I’m going to fight to save this country.”

But many of Manchin’s critics on the left are pointing out that he continues to oppose Democratic calls to eliminate the filibuster so the Senate can pass legislation with a simple majority vote. Just one day before the vote, Manchin vowed that he was “not willing to destroy our government” by eliminating the filibuster.

“I think we’ll come together. You have to have faith there’s 10 good people” in the Republican caucus who will join Democrats to break a filibuster, he said in a statement that aged poorly over the subsequent 24 hours.

“You have it completely backwards, [Sen. Manchin] — the *filibuster* is what’s destroying our government,” Princeton historian Kevin Kruse wrote on Twitter. “It distorts the founders’ vision in which a simple majority would control the Senate and lets a spiteful minority hold the government hostage to its whims. End it now.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., responded to Manchin’s comments by noting that “if the GOP was really a party that was able to put country before partisanship, we probably wouldn’t be voting on this commission in the first place.”

MSNBC contributor Jason Johnson urged fellow Democrats to ramp up pressure on Manchin and Sinema in response to Republican opposition to a bipartisan commission.

“The idea that he will still spout this nonsense in the face of an attempt to murder him and everybody with a ‘D’ in their name is disturbing to me. And I don’t see the value, honestly, at this point, in Democrats treating him with kid gloves,” Johnson said Thursday. “Personally … I [as a Democratic senator] would say, look, if you aren’t in favor of this commission, then you want me dead as much as some of these Republicans do. That’s how I’d be talking about it at this point.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested on Friday that he may force another vote on the bill, but it’s unclear what he expects to change in the near future. Among Republicans, only Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah and Ben Sasse of Nebraska voted to break the filibuster.

“Shame on the Republican Party for trying to sweep the horrors of that day under the rug because they’re afraid of Donald Trump,” Schumer said on the Senate floor after the vote. “Senate Republicans chose to defend the ‘big lie’ because they believe anything that might upset Donald Trump could hurt them politically.”

Murkowski also criticized her party and McConnell for prioritizing “short-term political gain at the expense of understanding and acknowledging what was in front of us on Jan. 6.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement that “Republican Senators surrendered to the January 6 mob assault.”

“Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans’ denial of the truth of the January 6th insurrection brings shame to the Senate. Republicans’ cowardice in rejecting the truth of that dark day makes our Capitol and our country less safe,” Pelosi said. “Democrats worked across the aisle, agreeing to everything that Republicans asked for. We did this in the interest of achieving a bipartisan Commission. In not taking yes for an answer, Republicans clearly put their election concerns above the security of the Congress and country.”

The “Quiet Place” sequel is a fantastic, visceral nail-biter – resonating with our pandemic paranoia

The “Quiet Place” sequel, merely labeled “Part II,” was shot before the COVID-19 era, but I can’t think of a better movie to see in theaters as we attempt to move past the pandemic than this one.

Written and directed by “The Office” alum John Krasinski and starring real-life wife Emily Blunt, who plays his widow in the film, Cillian Murphy (“28 Days Later”) and Djimon Hounsou, “Part II” picks up where its predecessor left off. The four members of an American family must find a way to survive in a post-apocalyptic world after bloodthirsty aliens land on our planet to hunt us. Because these aliens have hypersensitive hearing and are otherwise blind, the key to surviving is to remain as quiet as possible. Now that the main characters have learned how to severely weaken the aliens so that it is easier to kill them, however, they must join an old family friend to stay alive while trying to spread their knowledge to the rest of humanity.

The plot may be simple, but the film is packed with visceral moments that stick to your ribs. A standout sequence is when two characters are trapped in a small enclosure with dwindling oxygen while one of the monsters lurks outside. If they open the door, they will be immediately detected and devoured, but if they stay inside for much longer they will suffocate. On another occasion, characters brutally beat each other for resources — but in a world, mind you, where even the slightest sound can get you eaten. The result is an action scene with some rather cleverly abrupt and disjointed fight choreography.

As far as the moviegoing experience itself, the appeal of watching “A Quiet Place Part II” is that it’s an exercise in cinematic craftsmanship: The director must tell an engaging story with minimal dialogue, the cast must act primarily through their faces and body language, and so on. Part of the original’s appeal was that it demonstrated how filmmakers don’t need constant explosions, explicit gore and piles of exposition to reach audiences. A tense atmosphere, strong writing and interesting ideas can be just as effective, if indeed not more so. The sequel doesn’t find any new twists on the original’s strengths in that regard, but it retains them, and that is enough.

A special shout-out belongs to actress Millicent Simmonds, who plays the family’s deaf teenage daughter in the movie and is also deaf in real life. In a lesser flick, the character’s deafness would have been used to relegate her to being mere sympathy bait and highlight the movie’s “no sound” gimmick. Here she is a three-dimensional character, strong but still flawed, and her disability winds up giving her meaningful insights (“deaf gain”) into the world’s predicament that feel logical instead of contrived. In the first movie, Krasinski’s performance stole the show; here it is Simmonds’ turn in the spotlight.

In addition to being a great scary movie, however, “A Quiet Place Part II” also works for reasons that Krasinski and company could have never imagined. This is where the COVID-19 era enters the picture, and I feel compelled to add a personal story: “A Quiet Place Part II” was the last movie I was supposed to review in theaters as a Salon film critic before the virus outbreak prompted nationwide shutdowns. My screening was canceled mere hours before I was supposed to attend. All of this happened only 14 months ago, but it feels like a lifetime has passed. Fortunately I managed to wind up in the same theater (and reserved the same seat) that I would have occupied the first time around. (“A Quiet Place Part II” has without question required the single longest waiting period between purchasing a ticket and actually putting my butt in the chair of my entire writing career.)

This is not to say that the film is perfect. There are times when it tests an audience member’s ability to suspend disbelief, particularly when you expect a squalling baby to never be noticed by the extraterrestrials. The movie also hinges on a plot point that, while I won’t spoil it, I will note appears ripped off from one of the dumbest twists in M. Night Shyamalan’s filmography. Finally there were moments that felt padded, as if Krasinski was straining to meet a running time requirement.

When I got to the theater, I asked several of the employees what it was like to work again after the pandemic. One of them was extremely outspoken: He was outraged that people would go into the theater without masks, did not believe they should even be opened while the pandemic still rages and was convinced he and his coworkers were being put in unnecessary danger. It was obvious that he was scared, and none of his colleagues seemed to blame him. Our conversation stuck with me as I sat in the auditorium, where I was joined by my partner and a handful of fellow moviegoers in the way back.

While public health experts continue to debate whether and how we should reopen our society, the employee’s underlying point is reflected in the themes of the movie. Like the characters in “A Quiet Place Part II,” we have been forced to inhabit a universe very different from the one we’ve known most of our lives. A deadly menace surrounds us, one we don’t fully understand and struggle even to detect, and to stay safe we have to quickly learn a whole new system of “rules” — public health guidelines in our world, stealth tactics in Krasinski’s fictional one. We have also had to watch as the ugliest sides of human nature have been brought to the fore, be it from the feral humans who have survived in the “Quiet Place” universe or the people here who refuse to wear masks and get vaccinated.

Obviously the filmmakers could not have known how much their narrative would resonate with audiences in 2021, given that the movie was made before the outbreak. Yet because “A Quiet Place Part II” happens to share these powerful parallels, and because it is made by such talented people, it winds up being an unintentional allegory for this moment in our collective history. I’d recommend it to horror fans even if the COVID-19 pandemic had never happened, but I can’t think of a more fitting way to return to movie theaters in our frightening new world than with this particular tall tale.

“A Quiet Place Part II” opens in theaters Friday, May 28.

Review: “Cruella” is a dazzling Disney film full of fun and flair

Cruella De Vil is one of Disney’s most iconic villains, but she doesn’t always get the same love that the studio’s other notorious baddies get. It feels like the villains of the late ’80s and ’90s — Ursula, Scar, Jafar, etc — get most of that glory. But now it’s time to dig up a classic and make her great again, and Disney does just that in the live-action film “Cruella.”

Most people probably have a solid understanding of what Cruella is all about. She’s high fashion. Super snooty. And she really wants to make a coat out of poor, helpless Dalmatian puppies. She wasn’t the most developed character in Disney history, but that’s where director Craig Gillespie comes in. Behind him is a big team: the screenplay is by Dana Fox and Tony McNamara and the story by Aline Brosh McKenna, Kelly Marcel and Steve Zissis.

Together, they’ve teamed up to create an edgy and bold (yet still family-friendly) film that is definitely worth a watch . . .or two, or three.

Emma Stone and Emma Thompson shine in “Cruella”

Leading the ensemble in this cast is Academy Award winner Emma Stone. She’s come a long way from her “Easy A” days, and this film proves she still has the acting chops to pull off perfect comedic moments as well as the more emotional, intimate scenes. (And yes, this movie really goes there when digging into Cruella’s past.)

The film starts off with the titular character as a small child, then known as Estella. We see her suffer through a tragic event that leads her to living on the streets of London. She meets friends Jasper (Joel Fry) and Horace (Paul Walter Hauser) along the way, and they spend their time running grifts and schemes on unsuspecting people just to get by. As a young adult, Estella never gives up her dreams of becoming a fashion designer. And when she runs into top fashionista Baroness von Hellman (Emma Thompson), Estella’s world changes completely, for better or worse.

While Stone does an amazing job bringing Cruella to life, Thompson is just as good as the Baroness, who’s posh, snooty, and completely self-absorbed — this is the woman who Cruella gets her inspiration from, mannerisms and all.

There are many other elements of Cruella’s backstory that get filled in, although some of the questions it answers probably weren’t on your mind unless you’re a huge “One Hundred and One Dalmatians” fan. “Why is she called Cruella De Vil?” “Why is her hair black and white?” “Why are Cruella and Anita so close?” The film serves up clever answers to all of these.

The film features an excellent supporting cast. Joel Fry and Paul Walter Hauser make the buffoon-like characters Jasper and Horace from the animated film so much more enjoyable. Both Kirby Howell-Baptiste and Kayvan Novak are endearing as Anita and Roger. And neither Mark Strong (John the valet) nor John McCrea (a spunky dress-shop keeper named Artie) are wasted.

Lastly, it’s hard to talk about Cruella without mentioning the amazing hair, makeup and fashion that truly gives this movie its flair. Jenny Beavan led costume design for this film, and her looks for Cruella and the Baroness are surely Oscar-worthy. Nadia Stacey contributed to the hair and makeup design, giving Cruella in particular some amazingly bold looks. And we can’t leave out Fiona Crombie’s production design; the sets are stunning, including the ones for the multiple lavish party scenes.

With all those things combined, Cruella shines as quite possibly one of the strongest new-era live-action Disney films. You may want to watch “One Hundred and One Dalmatians” before watching the new film just so you’re caught up on all the little Easter eggs that get dropped, but you can also come in with a clean slate knowing you’re in for a good show regardless. There are plenty of hilarious scenes, good tunes, and lots of twists to keep you entertained the whole way through. So if you happen to want to see a fun Disney film that caters to both younger and older crowds, you won’t want to miss “Cruella.”

Grade: A

“Cruella” arrives on Disney+ with Premier Access and in theaters on Friday, May 28.

Right-wing outlet claims to be victim of “honeypot” scheme after journalist asks tough questions

The pro-Trump, far-right website The Gateway Pundit eagerly claimed in a Friday morning blog post that they had been the victims of a “honeypot” scheme that somehow was tied to billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates and involved a “pretty French” woman — though their claims appear to be unfounded, Salon has learned. 

Instead, the post appears to refer to an incident where the publication was asked tough questions by an international reporter about their “new site” pushing disinformation to the masses. 

“The globalist left this week tried a new tactic and sent a pretty French honeypot to America in an attempt to smear and take down The Gateway Pundit,” the website’s owner, Jim Hoft, declared

He went on to take issue with the international reporter reaching out to interview Hoft about his far-right, U.S. politics-centered website, which has a history of spreading conspiracy theories and right-wing hoaxes

When we responded to this seemingly innocuous request we then heard back from French reporter “Elsa Favre.” She wanted to speak to The Gateway Pundit on how to build a prominent and successful online presence.

After hours of background footage, “Elsa” then revealed her true intention. “Elsa” came to St. Louis to confront The Gateway Pundit about two “fake news” articles we published nearly four years ago in 2017.  After all of the expense made by the globalist group to send her here all “Elsa” had to discuss were two articles we published nearly four years ago in 2017 that we have addressed several times.   Both articles were up for several minutes on TGP four years ago before they were taken down and replaced. “Elsa” could obviously not find any better examples of mistakes we have made at The Gateway Pundit since that time.  She tried to smear us saying we supported the Birther conspiracy that Obama was born in Kenya but all we posted was a tweet by Barack’s brother Malik with a birth certificate from Kenya.

[…]

We later discovered that our honeypot “Elsa Favre” lied to us and is really “Aude Favre,” a popular globalist sympathizer. Aude, like most woke leftists, believes she speaks for the masses as she carries water for the globalist left.  And she was not an independent reporter as she claimed and was really working an operation for an organization, Babel-doc.com that is linked to prominent globalist orgs like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the UN Refugee Agency.

Hoft didn’t return a request for comment on the honeypot tale.

But from what Salon was able to find, the French journalist and YouTuber who covers misinformation goes by both “Elsa” and “Aude,” interchangeably, and within her email address has what appears to be her fill name, “Aude Elsa Favre.” The international reporter didn’t return Salon’s request for comment on Friday. 

“Aude Favre was the first French journalist to start a YouTube channel. She decided to start her channel to fight against disinformation in 2017, shortly after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States,” reads a bio from Favre’s “Open Canada” writer profile.  

The right-wing website concluded by claiming that it has filed complaints against Favre for the alleged scheme.

“This was not a good look for a pretty French girl…maybe next time the globalists will think twice about sending a pretty French honeybot (sic) to take down The Gateway Pundit,” the blog concluded. 

Matt Gaetz threatens to run for president in 2024 — but only if Trump doesn’t

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., the embattled conservative firebrand who is the subject of a thus-far-inconclusive Justice Department investigation into an alleged pattern of sexual misconduct that may include statutory rape, says he’s eyeing a presidential bid in 2024 — but only if Donald Trump decides not to run. 

“I support Donald Trump for president. I’ve directly encouraged him to run and he gives me every indication he will,” Gaetz wrote in a Thursday text message to the New York Post. “If Trump doesn’t run, I’m sure I could defeat whatever remains of Joe Biden by 2024.”

Gaetz echoed that message on Thursday to Steve Bannon, Trump’s former campaign “CEO” and White House chief strategist. “I’m for Donald Trump in 2024. This is Donald Trump’s party and I’m a Donald Trump Republican,” Gaetz declared. “But if for whatever reason President Trump decided to enjoy the swamps of Florida a little more than the swamps of Washington, D.C., I’m certain I could whoop Joe Biden up one side of the country and down the other. Because the people in America want passion and excitement and inspiration in the executive.”

Last week, Gaetz friend and associate Joel Greenberg, a Florida tax collector, pleaded guilty to knowingly soliciting and having sex with an underage girl. Greenberg has alleged that Gaetz paid for sex with multiple women as well as a 17-year-old girl, according to a letter obtained by The Daily Beast. Recently, Gaetz’s former girlfriend was said to be cooperating with investigators, though the Florida lawmaker has not been charged with a crime.

Amid the investigation, Gaetz has launched his “America First” speaking tour alongside freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has come under recent scrutiny from both sides for comparing the House’s mask mandate to the Holocaust. One prospect that appears to be tormenting many liberals on Twitter is that their joint tour could lay the groundwork for potentially nightmarish joint campaign.

Last week, during a speaking engagement in Arizona, Gaetz presented his political worldview, borrowing considerable verbiage from the Trump lexicon. 

“Thousands of miles away in the swamp of Washington, they kind of hope that this was all over, that our populist little revolt would run away and no longer be a part of our national identity,” Gaetz said. “Oh, we are just starting.”

He continued: “It’s been too many years since an inspirational President Ronald Reagan told us that it was ‘morning in America again.’ Too often now it seems like it’s twilight for Joe Biden. If it was morning in America under Reagan, it sort of seems like naptime in America when Joe Biden is the president. I think it’s about time to wake up our fellow countrymen.”

An unnamed source told the Post that Gaetz may be considering a presidential campaign as a tactical maneuver designed to benefit his Republican ally, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is also said to be mulling a 2024 bid. DeSantis “might like someone else on the debate stage who can torch his opponents and lay down ground cover for him,” the source claimed, adding that Gaetz has “clearly been vetted and smeared like a presidential candidate.”

It remains to be seen whether Gaetz’s political career will be ended or severely damaged by the continuing investigation into his alleged sex crimes. As the congressman is no doubt aware, multiple accusations of sexual assault did not prevent Donald Trump from winning the presidency in 2016.

Bill Cosby denied parole for failure to complete treatment program for sex offenders

Bill Cosby, the alleged serial date rapist currently serving a three-to-10-year sentence for drugging and sexually assaulting a former Temple University employee at his home in 2004, has been denied parole by the Pennsylvania Parole Board, according to a letter obtained by CNN on Friday. 

Per the letter, Cosby – who has been serving his sentence in a prison outside Philadelphia since being sentenced in 2018 – must “participate in and complete additional institutional programs” to be eligible for parole. Specifically, Cosby must successfully participate in and complete a treatment program for sex offenders and violence prevention. In its letter, the Pennsylvania Parole Board also cited Cosby’s “failure to develop a parole release plan” and a “negative recommendation by the Department of Corrections” as reasons for denying him parole this week.

Cosby was first accused of date rape and sexual abuse by several women decades before the #MeToo movement rose to prominence in the fall of 2017, sparked by extensive reporting on the dozens of sex crimes committed by disgraced Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein. But for the most part, the allegations were ignored until an iconic 2015 cover story by New York Magazine featuring 35 of Cosby’s accusers sitting in rows of chairs.

The magazine noted that the dozens of women accusing Cosby functioned “almost as a longitudinal study — both for how an individual woman, on her own, deals with such trauma over the decades and for how the culture at large has grappled with rape over the same time period.” The first allegation against Cosby was made in the 1960s, a time when acts of rape and sexual violence were still mystified as products of stranger danger, rather than acts committed by partners, friends, family, and certainly not nationally beloved celebrities. Prior to Cosby’s 2018 conviction, the allegations against him were primarily shrugged off or even widely joked about.

For the dozens upon dozens of women who have accused Cosby of using drugs to rape them through the decades, it took time — far too much of it — and sweeping cultural shifts for the disgraced actor to finally be held accountable. Cosby’s first trial took place in June 2017, and ended in a mistrial. He was eventually convicted and sentenced more than a year later in September 2018, found guilty of three counts of aggravated indecent assault. 

The parole board’s denial of Cosby’s request follows his legal team’s appeal to overturn his conviction, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments on last December. A ruling on the appeal has yet to be made.

The absolute best way to cook a hot dog, according to so many tests

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

* * *

One Sunday in February 2014, at Seattle’s Fremont Market, six customers spent $169 apiece on a hot dog unlike any other.

The bunned-up sausage, proffered by the now-defunct Seattle food truck Tokyo Dog, holds the Guinness title for World’s Most Expensive Hot Dog to this day. According to records, the Juuni Ban was a Bavarian sausage “infused with cheddar” and served on buttered, toasted brioche, topped with seared maitakes, foie gras, Wagyu beef, black truffles, onions, and caviar. (Tokyo Dog’s signature offering — the same dog with a more humble garnish — was a paltry $8, by comparison.)

I stumbled upon the hulking Juuni Ban seven years later while researching the best way to cook a hot dog for Absolute Best Tests. While I wasn’t able to reach Tokyo Dog’s owners, Eugene Woo and Samson Kwong, to talk cook methods, I was able to unearth a 28-minute video from August 2014, in which cheerful host Asha Leo visits the truck for a full procedural run-through.

In the video, the dog-slinging duo notes that they spent three months developing the Juuni Ban, which sometimes spurts melted cheese at its handler. Their cook method was simple but effective: They first warmed the cheddar-suffused specimen in metal containers of hot water—likely to decrease the risk of a cheese explosion — before transferring it to a hot grill, where they rotated it over an open flame until it reached an internal temperature of 160°F.

Though I had no plans to offload my own wares for hundreds of dollars, I took solace in the Tokyo Dog method because it affirmed a hunch: When cooking a hot dog, simplicity is key. No special equipment was employed, no TikTok hacks called in, and still, a dog of great global import was produced. Given that my own trials would be cheddar-free, I figured I could skip the water-warming step, though I did add a dramatic double-underline to “Grill” on my list of methods.

Toward the end of that Tokyo Dog segment, the host lifts the infant-sized frank to her mouth, declaring gleefully, “Oh, the memes that are going to come from this!” After a few moments’ consideration, she takes a small bite while the dog’s creators chant “chew, chew, chew.” Several tense seconds pass as she masticates, before she declares the World’s Most Expensive Hot Dog both “incredible” and “amazing.”

With that as my benchmark — and after confirming that there was absolutely no one in the vicinity to chant “chew, chew, chew” — I set out to test nine methods of hot dog cookery.

* * *

Controls

I used all-beef hot dogs for every trial. For the sanctity of results, I did initial tasting rounds sans condiments, but I would like the record to show that my preferred toppings are ketchup, yellow mustard, and raw diced onion, and that if you’re going to serve me a hot dog on anything but an untoasted Martin’s potato bun, you may as well not invite me.


Photo by Julia Gartland. Prop stylist: Ali Slagle. Food stylist: Pearl Jones.

* * *

Round One: To slice or not to slice?

The findings

For the juiciest hot dog, do not slice it. This does invite risk, as hot dogs with no vent for steam may explode in specific conditions — but I think it’s a risk worth taking. (Especially if, like me, you are cooking hot dogs that contain no molten cheese.)

The No Cut hot dogs produced by my Round One trials were noticeably juicier (and larger, having retained more liquid) than the Spiral-Cut and Slashed hot dogs, with the Slashed hot dogs in second place.

If juiciness is less of a priority than aesthetic appeal, you may consider embracing the Spiral-Cut, which elicited a not-immaterial amount of glee. And if toppings are your greatest priority, turn to the Slashed, which provides a moat for ketchup and mustard to act as glue for tiny chopped toppings like onion, herbs, pickled radish, or crushed potato chips.

The methods

No Cut

  1. Place a cast-iron skillet over medium-high heat. Add 1 tablespoon of butter.
  2. Once the butter has foamed and the foam has subsided, add 1 hot dog to the skillet.
  3. Sear, shifting every minute or so, until plumped and beginning to brown on each side, 3 to 4 minutes.

Slashed

  1. Place a cast-iron skillet over medium-high heat. Add 1 tablespoon of butter.
  2. Meanwhile, slice one side of a hot dog lengthwise, about 1/3-inch deep.
  3. Once the butter has foamed and the foam has subsided, add 1 hot dog to the skillet. Sear, shifting every minute or so, until plumped and beginning to brown on each side, 3 to 4 minutes.

Spiral-Cut

  1. Place a cast-iron skillet over medium-high heat. Add 1 tablespoon of butter.
  2. Meanwhile, slice a hot dog crosswise in a spiral pattern, about 1/3-inch deep.
  3. Once the butter has foamed and the foam has subsided, add 1 hot dog to the skillet. Sear, shifting every minute or so, until plumped and beginning to brown on each side, 3 to 4 minutes.

* * *

Round Two: How to cook a hot dog

The findings

For a well-browned hot dog with notes of campfire, consider the Roast Over Flame or Grill methods. Both produced tender specimens with well-seared casings that carried extra scorchy flavors, beyond the standard salty, meaty ones. (For a well-browned dog with notes only of browned butter, simply Stovetop Sear.)

For the juiciest, most flavorful dog, Boil in Beer, and you’ll end up with a plump contender that tastes more like a hot dog than any other hot dog. For an exceptionally juicy dog with muted flavor — for when you’d like condiments to really shine — Boil in Water. Despite the stigma, both methods resulted in plump hot dogs with especially plush interiors, closer in texture to a great Weisswurst than to the rubbery dogs of childhood cafeterias.

For a hot dog that best impersonates one you’d get at a ballpark or from those mesmerizing rotating racks at a convenience store, consider using your Slow Cooker, if you’ve got 4 hours to spare. (Note: This is apparently similar to the method employed by Nathan’s, the morning of their annual hot-dog-eating contest.)

You can skip the Microwave, which yielded an unusually tough casing and caused the hot dog to burst, as well as the Stovetop Steam & Sear, which resulted in less browning on the outside, and an interior that was no juicier than the Stovetop Sear.

The methods

Stovetop Sear

  1. Place a cast-iron skillet over medium-high heat. Add 1 tablespoon of butter.
  2. Once the butter has foamed and the foam has subsided, add 1 hot dog to the skillet.
  3. Sear, shifting every minute or so, until plumped and beginning to brown on each side, 3 to 4 minutes.

Stovetop Steam and Sear

  1. Add water to a cast-iron skillet until it rises about 1/2 inch up the sides.
  2. Place the skillet over medium-high heat and cook until the water begins to boil.
  3. Add 1 hot dog to the pan along with 1 tablespoon of butter. Sear on each side until the water has boiled off and the hot dog is plump and beginning to brown.

Boil

Adapted from Food52.

  1. Bring a small pot of water to a boil.
  2. Add 1 hot dog. Boil uncovered for 4 to 6 minutes, until the hot dog has plumped up on all sides.
  3. Remove with tongs and drain on a paper-towel-lined plate.

Boil in Beer

Adapted from My Gourmet Connection.

  1. Empty a few cans of beer into a small pot and bring to a boil.
  2. Add 1 hot dog. Boil uncovered for 4 to 6 minutes, until the hot dog has plumped up on all sides.
  3. Remove with tongs and drain on a paper-towel-lined plate.

Grill

  1. Heat the grill to medium-high.
  2. Add 1 hot dog to the grill, rolling onto a new side every minute or so, until evenly browned and cooked through, 3 to 4 minutes total.

Oven Roast

  1. Heat the oven to 400°F.
  2. Place a hot dog in a roasting pan or on a rimmed sheet pan.
  3. Roast the hot dog for about 15 minutes, until plumped and beginning to brown.

Microwave

  1. Place a hot dog on a heatproof plate lined with paper towels.
  2. Microwave on high for 45 seconds to 1 minute, until the center of the hotdog is warm to the touch.

Slow Cook

Adapted from Boulder Locavore.

  1. Add a hot dog to the slow cooker, leaning upright against the slow cooker’s inner wall for support. Do not add water!
  2. Cook on low setting for 4 hours.

Roast Over Flame

  1. Thread a metal skewer through a hot dog.
  2. Hold it over an open flame, such as one of your burners set on high, or a campfire.
  3. Rotate the hot dog every 30 seconds or so, until browned and cooked through, 2 to 3 minutes total.

Biden’s eloquence with Floyd family will ring hollow if he gives Rahm Emanuel a key job

If President Biden meant what he said after meeting with George Floyd’s family in the Oval Office earlier this week, he won’t nominate Rahm Emanuel to be the U.S. ambassador to Japan. But recent news reports tell us that’s exactly what he  intends to do.

After the meeting, Biden declared that the murder of Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer “launched a summer of protest we hadn’t seen since the Civil Rights era in the ’60s — protests that peacefully unified people of every race and generation to collectively say enough of the senseless killings.” The words were valuable, and so was the symbolism of the president hosting Floyd’s loved ones on the first anniversary of his death.

But the value of the White House event will be weakened if Biden names Emanuel to one of this country’s top diplomatic posts, evidently ignoring the latter’s well-earned notoriety for the cover-up of a video showing the police murder of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.

When McDonald was shot dead by Chicago police one night in October 2014, Emanuel was the city’s mayor, then facing a tough re-election fight. Fortunately, a dash camera on a police car captured the murder on video. Unfortunately, Emanuel’s administration suppressed the video for 13 months, until after he had won another term. 

Imagine if, when Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nine minutes and 29 seconds, there had been no civilian nearby with a cell phone able and willing to record the murder, and the only visual record of what had happened was a police video. And imagine if the city of Minneapolis had suppressed that video for 13 months, until a judge’s order finally forced its release.

That was exactly what happened in Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago.

When reports surfaced last November that Biden was considering Emanuel for a cabinet position, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., pointed out: “Rahm Emanuel helped cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald. Covering up a murder is disqualifying for public leadership.” Rep.-elect Mondaire Jones, D-N.Y., not yet seated in Congress at the time, tweeted: “That he’s being considered for a cabinet position is completely outrageous and, honestly, very hurtful.” 

Two weeks ago, responding to news that Biden had decided to nominate Emanuel as ambassador to Japan, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., sent out a cogent tweet:

Serving as ambassador to Japan would put Emanuel in the thick of economic and military policies. Japan has the world’s third-largest economy. The U.S. currently has two dozen military bases in Japan. A recklessly confrontational military approach in East Asia would surely get a boost if the next U.S. ambassador in Tokyo is Emanuel, a longtime hawk who supported the Iraq war even after many Democratic leaders had turned against it.

For decades, Emanuel’s career has been the opposite of diplomatic as he has bombastically denounced progressives and served corporate interests while enriching himself. His record of running interference for racist police violence while mayor of Chicago underscores what a terrible mistake it would be for the Senate to confirm him as ambassador.

Impunity for American men in uniform who commit violent crimes is a deeply emotional subject in Japan. Outrage has long festered there, especially on Okinawa, where women and children have been subjected to sexual assaults by U.S. military personnel stationed at bases there.

Blocking Emanuel’s nomination to be the top American diplomat in Japan won’t bring back Laquan McDonald or any of the other African Americans murdered by police. But it would send a strong signal to mayors and other public officials that covering up brutal police violence is bad for career advancement.

How iceberg lettuce wedged its way into American culture

The easiest way to core iceberg lettuce is to firmly whack the head, core side down, against the kitchen counter. The force dislocates the core from the tight leaf structure, and, with a quick twist, it pops right out.

America’s relationship with iceberg lettuce may have once been this simple — and satisfying — but in recent years, iceberg’s reputation has wilted under nutritional and environmental scrutiny. On the other hand, iceberg recipes continue to pop up online and in cookbooks; they’re handed down, swapped, and treasured. And at some point, iceberg lettuce became a signifier of taste, class, and values: deficient for some, yet irreplaceable for others.

The cultivar was introduced in 1894 by the W. Atlee Burpee Company. Its compact, hardy head allowed California growers to ship iceberg lettuce across the country, first packed in ice and then in refrigerated rail cars. (While most sources attribute the lettuce’s name to its icy shipping method, the name pre-dates iceberg’s commercial success. The more likely inspiration: the lettuce’s “ice-white color and crunchy texture.”)

By the 1930s, just as grocery chains began to proliferate and the first mass-produced refrigerators were installed in American homes, California-grown iceberg became America’s de facto lettuce. By the time Steve Henson started selling Hidden Valley Ranch in the mid 1950s, Americans were eating 14 pounds of lettuce (not solely iceberg, but it dominated the category) per capita every year, up from just over 4 pounds in 1919.

“Iceberg was part of this new system that allowed for a shift away from local food production to what we have now. It’s a fascinating piece of the puzzle,” says Twilight Greenaway, who covers food and farming as the senior editor of Civil Eats.

Iceberg fit neatly into the country’s increasingly industrialized food system. It’s grown in vast monocultures that wreck the soil and require all sorts of chemicals to support a robust harvest. Iceberg heads are 96 percent water by volume, and the crop needs extensive irrigation, often from imperiled water sources, as well as constant refrigeration after it’s harvested.

“There’s so much waste built into the system,” says Greenaway. “Lettuce in the field is two to three times the size of what you get in a store. Workers [picking alongside specialized trucks] reach into the center, pull out the head, and package it at the truck . . . If you drive by these fields in the Salinas Valley, where they’ve cut lettuce, there are these massive remaining piles of lettuce waste. Maybe a quarter of what’s grown gets eaten.”

Compounding iceberg’s environmental impact is the fact that it’s not especially nutritious. (Neither are cucumbers, but I’ve yet to see a take-down of the pickle industry.) Throw in the occasional E. coli scare and romaine’s decades-long creep to leading lettuce status, and it would seem iceberg’s demise is imminent. Perhaps iceberg’s worst sin, though, is that it’s boring: the pale green filler of salad bars, hospital trays, and uninspired weeknight meals.

In 2018, the writer Helen Rosner came to iceberg’s defense in The New Yorker, countering food snobs and a storied list of haters (among them Craig Claiborne and Alice Waters) and advocating for its place in the gourmet’s fridge. Indeed, millions of Americans continue to signal their approval for iceberg. Even after the advent of bagged leaf lettuce salads in early 90s, the inauguration of an arugula-loving president in 2008, and the tough-love kale salad years, iceberg remains one of the most consumed lettuce varieties in the country. Just last year, growers in California, Arizona, and Florida produced nearly 2.25 billion pounds of the stuff.

* * *

My Grandma Joanne grew up just a few miles from iceberg lettuce farms in Belle Glade, Florida, a town in western Palm Beach County, where farmers still grow lettuce from September through May. As a kid, Joanne’s family ate simple iceberg salads more nights than not, and it still holds court in her kitchen.

This winter, Joanne showed me how to make a slaw-like salad with iceberg, a diced Florida avocado (that would have once come from my great-grandmother’s backyard), sweet onion, mayonnaise, lots of black pepper, and red wine vinegar. Another perennial family favorite is the Cuban-American “1905” Salad from the Columbia Restaurant (so popular that the restaurant made the name a registered trademark) in which ham, Swiss cheese, olives, tomato, celery, and a garlicky oregano vinaigrette mingle with the crunchy lettuce. In these salads, iceberg’s watery crunch works as a palate cleanser, bulldozing through the fat and pungent flavors.

“In the salad world, it’s paired with incredibly flavorful, robust dressings.” says Carla Lalli Music, cookbook author and the host of “Carla’s Cooking Show” on Patreon. “In an Italian salad with pickled peppers, red onion, and maybe cubes of salami and provolone, there’s so much salty, punchy, and even sharp flavor. It’s the same with incredibly rich, funky, creamy blue cheese dressing. Iceberg is a foil for all these really flavorful additions. It’s an important counterbalance.”

Lalli Music grew up iceberg-neutral, mostly eating it crammed into Subway cold-cut sandwiches. Later on she fell for wedge salads, which came back into vogue in the late aughts thanks to an iceberg industry marketing campaign. But on a research trip while working as Shake Shack’s first general manager, she visited Pie ‘N Burger in Pasadena and “watched a burger cook take a slab of iceberg, flatten it with his hand, and put it on a burger. It was revelatory,” she says. “Since then, that’s what I want on a burger.”

The iceberg slab stands up to hot sandwich applications, where shredded or leaf lettuce wilts into “wettuce,” as Lalli Music explains in a recent fried fish sandwich video. Kale, butter lettuce, and mesclun just can’t compete with iceberg’s crunch. “It’s one of the great textures,” she says.

* * *

“There’s no particular prejudice against iceberg lettuce in Chinese-American cuisine,” says Tienlon Ho, co-author of “Mr. Jiu’s in Chinatown,” a cookbook that weaves together Chinese-Amerian history with stories and recipes from Chef Brandon Jew’s San Francisco restaurant. “Texture and mouthfeel are as much part of balance as visual cues, flavor, and aroma.”

Stir-fried lettuce is among the best-known iceberg preparations in the Chinese-American culinary canon, but “the poster child for iceberg is minced squab or duck served in a lettuce cup,” says Ho. The dish comes from a swirl of influences: tiki restaurants and the Cantonese-American cooks who staffed them, American GIs returning from the Pacific front, 1950s hors d’oeuvre trends, and an ongoing exchange between Hawaiian and Chinese cultures. “It’s the perfect amalgam of Chinese-Americans experimenting, playing on the idea of what Pacific cuisine was like and what they would actually eat,” says Ho.

“Mr. Jiu’s in Chinatown” includes a recipe for squab in lettuce cups, though not iceberg. As a chef, Brandon was “trying to pack in more flavor. He ended up using raw radicchio. It’s that same idea of crisp freshness,” says Ho.

Like Jew, plenty of Americans have diversified their greens intake, if not quite abandoning iceberg. My parents grow romaine and arugula; most of the greens I buy — collards, Swiss chard, watercress, French crisp, spinach, and sorrel, to name a few — come from New York’s Union Square Greenmarket. But we still buy iceberg from the supermarket a few times a year, with purpose and perhaps a little nostalgia.

* * *

“What else are you gonna put in a taco? It’s gotta be iceberg,” says Caitlin Daniel, a sociologist at University of California, Berkeley, whose research focuses on class, equality, family life, and consumption. Daniel grew up in Minnesota in a low-income family, and she and her sisters have a soft spot for iceberg, which, at around a dollar a head, was a mainstay for them. Daniel’s work investigates the meaning people bring to food, including how low-income families interpret the cost of groceries based on factors like need, nutrition, food waste, cultural preferences, and shopping habits. While iceberg isn’t officially part of her research, I hoped Daniel could illuminate some of the ways iceberg’s price tag contributes to its staying power.

By surveying low-income families and observing their grocery trips, Daniel found that when money is tight, families avoid buying highly perishable produce (many tender lettuces go limp after even a few days); they also tend to make one big shopping trip a month, often traveling miles to the cheapest supermarket. “If you do want something that will last, iceberg isn’t a bad bet,” she says. “It will still be edible after two weeks.”

Daniel has also found that many low-income families appear less concerned with nutrient density than a salad’s role in the prototypical trio of meat, starch, and vegetables. Iceberg satisfies a culturally defined category, even if (pricier) spinach and kale are healthier.

There’s economic motivation to stick with what’s familiar, too. “One thing that comes through clearly with low-income parents is their reluctance to experiment with something unfamiliar,” she says. “There’s this idea that they’re more culturally conservative or somehow averse to arugula, like it’s just beyond them. Or it’s too bougie,” observed Daniel. “Experimentation takes economic freedom, freedom to waste money on something you might not like.”

Ultimately, Americans eat iceberg because lots of folks, in all income brackets, actually like it — not to mention all the creamy, salty, juicy ingredients it can be paired with — and for all sorts of reasons. Things like nutrition, novelty, and flavor are relative values; lettuce waste looks different in the field than it does in the refrigerator or uneaten on a plate. Truly, the only uncomplicated thing about iceberg lettuce is preparing it.

This post contains products independently chosen (and loved) by Food52 editors and writers. As an Amazon Associate and Skimlinks affiliate, Food52 earns an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases of the products we link to.

A MAGA contract for America: Newt Gingrich returns to help shape Trump’s comeback

Watching Republican Senators perform their tortured Donald Trump fealty dance over the January 6th Commission on Thursday would have been amusing if it weren’t so pathetic. Some furrowed their brows with concern while others defiantly refused to even speak with the grieving mother of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick who died that day. The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who delivered a scathing speech on the floor of the Senate after Trump was acquitted in his second impeachment trial, was reportedly calling individual senators and begging them to vote against the bill as a personal favor to him (and no doubt a very special gift for Donald Trump.) Republicans spent the night vamping, preening and delaying so they could vote against the bill under cover of darkness in the wee hours of the morning and then sneak out of town without having to face the media or their consciences. Unfortunately, the vote had to be postponed until Friday so now they will just have to own their shame in front of the whole country.

January 6th is a day that will live in infamy just like December 7th and 9/11. But this one implicates the former president and dozens of elected Republicans have decided that they must circle the wagons to prevent any bipartisan investigation which might put that on the record.

For the most part, the GOP has regained its balance in the wake of the Big Lie and January 6th by simply capitulating to the reality that it’s Donald Trump’s party and they are just along for the ride. All the polling shows that the vast majority of Republican voters still revere him and if he chooses to run again in 2024, he is the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. If any of them still have reservations, they’re comforting themselves with the illusion that his authoritarian madness is better than allowing the government to spend money on average working families and the poor and the sick as President Biden is proposing.

Interestingly, as the Republicans in DC were making fools of themselves on Thursday trying to please the Dear Leader, a former GOP superstar gave a speech at the Reagan Library in which he implored the party to stop catering to Trump and focus on ideology again. Fox News board member Paul Ryan, former speaker of the House and one time Great Young Gun of the GOP, laughably asserted, “voters looking for Republican leaders want to see independence and mettle.”

“They will not be impressed by the sight of ‘yes men’ and flatterers flocking to Mar-a-Lago,” Ryan asserted.

Clearly, he’s been out of the country, perhaps visiting another planet, for the last few years. They love “yes men and flatters flocking to Mar-a-lago.” In fact, it is a requirement, as his successor the Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy can attest. (And, by the way, Ryan couldn’t even bring himself to mention Trump by name the entire speech. So much for that profile in courage.)

If Ryan wants to put an end to this cycle of sycophancy, he might want to start by having a little chat with his fellow Fox News board members Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch. They are just as responsible for the fetid mess the Republican Party has become as Donald Trump is. More actually.

As it happens, Ryan isn’t the only former speaker of the House trying to push the Republican party to start pretending they care about policy. Trump’s Majordomo Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina has teamed up with 90s throwback Newt Gingrich to do one of those popular 90s reboots everyone’s all excited about. Politico reports that they’re working on a MAGA Contract for America:

The group is still just beginning to hammer out the details of what a Trumpified Contract might look like. But it is likely to take an “America-First” policy approach on everything from trade to immigration. The source described it as “a policy priority for 2022 and beyond.”

Gingrich described it this way:

“It should be positive. School choice, teaching American history for real, abolishing the ‘1619 Project,’ eliminating critical race theory and what the Texas legislature is doing. We should say, ‘Bring it on.'”

If there’s one thing you can say about Gingrich it’s that he’s a sunny, upbeat forward-thinking guy, as you can see by what he considers a “positive” agenda. His original Contract with America was a monstrous document, calling for punitive measures against poor women, destroying product liability, extremely harsh criminal justice laws and more. They were the far right’s racist dog whistles combined with the mainstream’s corporate giveaways but they were sold with an aggressively hostile demagogic pitch that the right-wing voters who listened to talk radio were thrilled to hear.

Luckily, most of it was never enacted although I’m not sure Republican voters ever knew that — or cared for that matter. It was a political document, introduced late in the campaign that served Gingrich’s myth more than anything else. He was the great Republican hope of his day, battling mano-a-mano with President Clinton and almost always losing until he was finally forced out after the GOP’s 1998 midterm drubbing during the impeachment crisis. Since then he’s been a Fox News gadfly desperately seeking relevance. Like so many other aging 90s icons, he’s seizing his chance to relive his glory days.

Trump actually already issued a “Contract with the American Voter” in the month before the 2016 election with 28 policies he promised to enact in his first hundred days. (The branding genius has never once come up with an original slogan.) I don’t think anyone read it, almost certainly not Trump himself. He has never had any interest in specific policy beyond his singular obsessions with immigration and trade anyway. But he is attentive to the right-wing media zeitgeist which, as you can see by the “ideas” Gingrich threw out, are really what this contract is going to be all about.

It has been said before but deserves to be said again: The Republican party is out of ideas.

The GOP is organized solely around their resentments and Republican voters love Trump because he speaks to what they care about. He even gives them new grievances to complain about! People like Liz Cheney and Paul Ryan think their voters have been hoodwinked by Trump’s magical powers while Lindsay Graham and Kevin McCarthy think they can rework Trump’s appeal into something recognizable as a functioning political party.

They’re all wrong.

Republicans know exactly what they have in Trump and it’s exactly what they want. And if there’s one person who gets that it’s Newt Gingrich. After all, he’s the man who laid the foundation for Trumpism all those years ago. 

578,555 people have died from COVID in the US, or maybe it’s 912,345 — here’s why it’s hard to count

When the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington released its estimate that COVID-19 had killed 912,345 people in the U.S. by May 6, 2021, many were shocked. That’s 60% higher than the 578,555 coronavirus-related deaths officially reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over this same period.

How can two estimates differ so widely? It’s not like the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation researchers stumbled upon a morgue of more than 300,000 dead people who hadn’t been tracked elsewhere.

Here’s what goes into some of the various counts of COVID-19 pandemic deaths and how I as a statistician think about their differences.

Tracking deaths

When someone dies, a medical professional records the immediate cause and up to three underlying conditions that “initiated the events resulting in death” on the death certificate. Death certificate information is transmitted to the National Vital Statistics System for a variety of public health uses, including tabulating the leading causes of death in the U.S.

But death certificate information may not reflect the actual number of COVID-19 deaths. A COVID-19 diagnosis could have been missed by health care workers, or the disease could have gone unrecorded on a death certificate. There’s always going to be some error in the data.

One way to think about this is:

OBSERVED COUNT = TRUE COUNT + ERROR

That is, we want to know the real number of COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., the “true count.” But because the real world is messy, we’ll never know that true count and can only approximate it. The unknown true count combines with unknown errors to give us the observed count – for instance, the tally from all the nation’s death certificates.

If the predominant error is that some COVID-19-related deaths were missed – perhaps due to a lack of testing earlier in the pandemic – then the observed count would be an underestimate of the true count. However, there could be additional types of errors as well, and those may cause the observed count to deviate further or in other ways from the true count.

Calculating “all cause” excess mortality

One way around this dilemma is to focus on how many deaths were recorded over and above the number expected by epidemiologists and statisticians had the pandemic not happened. This count is called “all cause” excess mortality. It’s based on historical data.

Estimates from this type of analysis suggest that the reported number of COVID-19 deaths may be an underestimate. Many more people died during the pandemic than normally would have during that time period. And it’s a higher number than how many people died of COVID-19 according to death certificate counts.

For example, the estimated number of deaths above what was expected in 2020 was almost 412,000 people, while the number of deaths the CDC attributed to COVID‐19 as of Jan. 6, 2021 was 356,000.

This type of analysis cannot conclude that the excess deaths are due to COVID-19 itself, only that the aggregate impact of the pandemic resulted in more deaths than would have been expected in its absence.

Reconsidering the number of expected deaths

So if by May 2021 there were 578,555 reported COVID-19-related deaths and perhaps as many as 663,000 excess deaths according to CDC data, how did the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation come up with the figure 912,345?

Their analysis seeks to determine the true number of COVID-19 deaths by estimating other effects due to the pandemic. IHME then uses its estimates of those effects to adjust the observed COVID-19 death count.

Some factors they considered would likely contribute to more deaths: health care that was delayed or deferred; mental health disorders that were untreated; increased alcohol use and opioid use during the pandemic. They also considered factors that would likely cut down on deaths: decreased numbers of injuries; reduced transmission of diseases that weren’t COVID-19.

They then used these estimates to adjust the expected number of deaths in an effort to better quantify the number of deaths attributable to COVID-19. In effect, they were applying these pandemic-specific “errors” to the excess death estimates that were based on pre-pandemic historical trends.

Ideally, this type of analysis should result in excess mortality being a better measure of the number of deaths that can be attributed to COVID-19. It depends, though, on having sufficient detailed data available and requires certain assumptions about that data.

So which number is right?

Such a simple question is actually quite hard to answer for many reasons.

One is that each number is the answer to a different question. The number of “all cause” excess deaths quantifies how many people died from any cause above what we would have expected if the death rate during the pandemic had followed pre-pandemic patterns. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation number is an estimate of the total number of deaths that can be attributed to COVID-19. Both are useful for understanding the impact of the pandemic.

Yet, even two estimates of the total number of COVID-19 deaths are going to differ because the estimates could be based on different methodologies, different sources of data and different assumptions. That’s not necessarily a problem. It may be that the results turn out to be relatively consistent, suggesting the conclusions don’t depend on the assumptions. Alternatively, if the results are very different, that can help researchers understand the problem better.

However, even small differences between studies can, unfortunately, sow distrust in science for some people. But it’s all part of the scientific method in which studies get reviewed by researchers’ peers, questioned and dissected, and then revised as a result. Science is an iterative process in which gut instinct and guesses get refined into theories and then may be subsequently refined into facts and knowledge.

In this case, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation study provides some evidence of what researchers like me suspected: The number of excess deaths in the U.S., while larger than the number of deaths attributed to COVID-19, may also be an undercount of the true number of COVID-19 deaths. It is also consistent with a World Health Organization analysis that concludes the number of COVID-19 deaths in some countries could be two to three times greater than the number recorded. But no single study offers definitive proof, just one more piece of evidence on the path to better understanding the deadly impact of this pandemic.

Ronald D. Fricker Jr., Professor of Statistics and Senior Associate Dean, Virginia Tech

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

8 things to know before growing your own herbs

There are few things more satisfying than picking food that you grew yourself. But nurturing fruits and vegetables can be a tricky business. It takes trial and error (no matter how much you read on the subject), and requires time, energy, and some amount of space to get a worthwhile harvest. Herbs, comparatively, are quite simple to bring up. No one knows this better than Mark Diacono, who put it most succinctly when he said, “The leaves are the prize and the plant’s job is to grow them to survive.”

That sentence comes from the food writer’s new book, “Herb: A Cook’s Companion,” a glorious encyclopedia of information on how to grow — and then subsequently cook with and preserve — more types of herbs than you have probably ever heard of before. There is a whole section dedicated to the nitty-gritty particulars of each (the varieties of fennel, the ideal conditions for lovage once winter comes, how to space marjoram seeds). But throughout, there are tips that apply more broadly to the vast majority of herbs, because it is Diacono’s belief that they are powerhouses of the garden and kitchen, requiring little work and little space for maximum reward.

Here, he lays out the fundamentals. Read through it, and you’re well on your way toward growing success.

1. Most herbs enjoy plenty of sun, to be kept out of harsh winds, a good amount of water, and soil that drains the water well. 

If you stick to these four tenets, you should be able to grow almost any herbs you choose, no matter where you live. Giving your plants plenty of sun throughout the day is an easier feat in the spring and summer, as is keeping them out of the wind. Diacono also recommends watering in the morning. This way, the plants can drink up before it gets too hot out and the moisture is sucked away.

As for soil, you’ll want to buy potting soil, which comes ready-made with ideal conditions for planting in pots (more on that below). Throughout the season, every couple of weeks or so, you should replenish the nutrients by sprinkling new compost or soil on top of the existing surface (you can also fortify with a not-too-strong liquid feed, like fish emulsion).

2. Speaking of pots, you should grow your herbs in them. 

Of course, you can grow them in the ground if your natural environment is well-suited for edibles, but individual containers allow you to control the environment so particularly that achieving the above four conditions is easy. Plus, you can place pots anywhere you like for maximum picking convenience.

3. But you should also mind the size of your pots.

Don’t put a tiny sprout in a large vessel. “It’ll flounder in a sea of soil and the roots won’t know where to go without support from the sides,” Diacono says. Every time you water, you’ll be wasting both the water itself and the nutrients in the soil, which will leech out before the plant can reach and absorb them. Start small and re-pot as your herbs grow. Then reuse the smaller ones to begin something new.

4. Get to know the difference between perennials and annuals. 

Perennials last for multiple seasons: They may lose all their leaves when winter comes, but if treated right, they’ll grow back with a vengeance in spring. These generally include heartier varieties, like rosemary, thyme, and sage. Annuals give all that they’ve got over the course of one season before they are spent. They’re typically softer varieties, like basil, parsley, and cilantro. “Perennials are typically well-suited for beginners,” Diacono says. “They’re naturally strong and vigorous, so your main job is to not overwater them, and to not hammer them too hard when they’re young” (aka don’t overharvest).

5. Contrary to standard advice, try growing what you use less of. 

Usually, people tell you to grow what you eat on the regular, which . . . makes sense. But Diacono likes to grow herbs he only uses on occasion, generally ones that are not commonly found in his local grocery store in the U.K., like Korean mint and Vietnamese coriander. “It’s a way of throwing your larder door open,” he says. “I don’t use those all the time, but when I do, they really stand out. No generic mint or coriander could take their place to the same effect.” Besides, if you go through parsley like nobody’s business, it might not be the smartest use of space in your garden.

6. Learn how to propagate your herbs. 

Propagation is the act of growing baby plants from parent plants, whether through cuttings, transplanting roots, or division. Diacono gets into the more minute how-to in his book for each method, but essentially you take a piece of a fully-grown plant — whether it’s a branch (say, of rosemary), a root (like with tarragon), or half to quarters of an entire bursting, sprawling specimen (such as chives or lovage) — and give them a new home elsewhere. “It’s a way of getting plants for free,” as Diacono puts it.

7. Also learn how to prune them. 

In its most dramatic sense, pruning is a necessity as plants grow bigger in order to keep them an ideal size and shape—and productive all the while. When it comes to herbs, pruning often happens as harvesting. This simply means that when you pick leaves off of a plant to take them into the kitchen, do so thoughtfully, and then you may also call it pruning. Plucking leaves from the top (and not too many of them, especially in the beginning) before plants flower, prevents stems from growing leggy. (When they do flower, most of a plant’s energy then goes toward that pretty part, instead of towards the edible leaves you use most commonly in cooking.) Pruning encourages growth outward so that herbs become bushy and abundant instead of skinny and sparse.

8. If you’re going to grow edibles, choose something you’ve never eaten before. Or maybe two or three things. 

This is never easier than with herbs, which — in case you didn’t pick up on it yet — are an especially flexible way to experiment, given their low-commitment, small-space nature. Diacono planted lemon verbena for the first time 20 years ago, shiso for the first time 10 years ago, and Korean mint (which falls somewhere in the middle of generic mint and aniseed in flavor) for the first time about five years ago. All of them are now staples in his garden every year. Worst case, you don’t like something. Best case, you’ve given a small amount of real estate to a plant that will totally transform the way you cook and eat.

This post contains products independently chosen (and loved) by Food52 editors and writers. As an Amazon Associate and Skimlinks affiliate, Food52 earns an affiliate commission on qualifying purchases of the products we link to.

Arizona’s iconic saguaro cactus is flowering “wrong” — and no one knows why

The saguaro is to the American southwest what the Empire State Building is to New York City: A breathtaking icon and a symbol of the region. A cactus that branches like a tree, the saguaro can grow to be 40 feet tall with roots spread over 100 feet of ground. They can live for longer than 150 years, meaning there are saguaros alive today that were born when Ulysses S. Grant was president. As the colder seasons give into warmer ones, the saguaro famously sprouts beautiful white flowers that blossom from the tips of their trunks and arms.

At least, that is what they normally do. Arizona news outlets are reporting that many of the cacti are budding on their sides, a phenomenon never seen before. It is a development that has researchers curious — and a little worried. 

Obviously, something changed in the saguaros’ environment that triggered a mass mis-sprouting. Some researchers believe the culprit may be environmental.

Dr. Benjamin T. Wilder, a desert ecologist and Director of the University of Arizona’s Desert Laboratory on Tumamoc Hill, told Salon by email that he suspects the unusual growths may have been caused by normally reproductively active areoles (the bumps on cacti that produce clusters of spines) being damaged by last summer’s drought — particularly since the summer was extremely hot and dry. This could have caused the cactus to revive older areoles, which would be lower on the stem, in order to create flowers.

“I would say [be], attentive, but not necessarily alarmed,” Wilder explained. “Saguaros are quite long-lived plants (150–200+ years in age) and they have seen drought periods before. We can learn a lot by observing and studying their behavior and how they respond to severe or extreme conditions.”

He added, “Knowing when it is appropriate to transition from attention to alarm is difficult. Side flowering is not an unprecedented event, though it is abnormal to rare. We need to keep observing and document their behavior and continue learning from these elders of the desert.”

William Peachey, an independent Sonoran Desert ecology researcher, offered the hypothesis that the saguaros have been injured by both extreme heat and the lack of winter precipitation. 

“This is not alarming, because it concerns just this one blooming season,” Peachey wrote to Salon. “If this continued to happen for several years in a row, that would be of some concern.”

Professor Martin Wojciechowski, who works at Arizona State University’s School of Life Sciences, expressed a similar view, also writing to Salon that the most plausible explanations for the bizarre botanical behavior “implicate less than optimal growing conditions triggering this response.”


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


Wojciechowski also pointed to extended drought periods, which have spanned for the last few years in northern Mexico and the American southwest, as a possible culprit.

“Some data suggest that flowers produced along the sides often fail to develop into fruits, which again is an indication of a physiological stress on the plants in not being able to produce sufficient amounts of nutrients for normal growth and development,” Wojciechowski added. “In addition, drought conditions may be having adverse effects on the pollinators (insects, birds, bats) of saguaro such that there are fewer pollinators around to pollenate the flowers so that fruits are produced.”

Wojciechowski also felt that we “probably” should not be alarmed. Like Wilder, he pointed to the fact that “saguaros have many adaptations to growth and survival in the extreme and changeable environment of the Sonoran Desert. And while fewer individual saguaros may survive periods of extended/intense drought, the populations of plants retain the capacity to again respond to the return of more favorable environmental conditions.”

The side-flowering phenomenon only deepens the intrigue of these Herculean plants that loom over the Sonoran desert like ancient statues.

“Saguaros seem to exercise control of their activities largely through hormones,” Peachey wrote to Salon. “Their responses to situations where they appear to ‘react’ in situations of non-performance on their part can be quite surprising. For instance they appear to ‘know’ when they are not producing flowers when they should be and that indicates some as yet unknown feedback mechanism that is, so far, beyond our knowledge.”

A year after the nationwide protests, some signs of progress — but police are still killing people

George Floyd’s death at the hands of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin sparked an unprecedented summer of protests that drew tens of millions of demonstrators, along with bipartisan declarations that the killing would result in a massive shift in American policing. But one year later, police are killing people at the same rate as before and a nationwide homicide spike amid the coronavirus pandemic has renewed tough-on-crime rhetoric that could undermine any momentum racial justice activists have built since the protest wave.

At least 1,061 people have been killed by police since May 26, 2020, the day after Floyd’s death, according to the research and advocacy group Mapping Police Violence. That number is virtually unchanged, in terms of an annual average, since the group began tracking police killings nearly a decade ago.

“We haven’t seen a reduction in killings by police going all the way back to 2013 — as far back as the database goes,” Samuel Sinyangwe, the co-founder of Mapping Police Violence, said in an interview with Salon. “It’s been a fairly constant rate of police violence year over year. Every single year in our database about 1,100 people are killed by police, and there have been about that many people since George Floyd was murdered.”

Police have already killed 414 people in the first five months of 2021, according to the data. There have only been six days this year where police in the U.S. did not kill someone.

The rate of police killings in Minnesota has actually increased, from 10 deaths per million residents to 13 per million since Floyd’s death, according to the data. While the use of police force in Minneapolis plummeted for several weeks while the protests raged last summer, use of force by the Minneapolis Police Department has skyrocketed since.

Numerous state legislatures responded to the protests by advancing various police reform measures, but it is too soon to see the results.

“It’s only been a year and it’s been a quite unusual year,” Tracie Keesee, a longtime former police officer and co-founder of the Center for Policing Equity, said in an interview with Salon. “Across the country you’re seeing different types of ordinances, legislation and policy changes. You’re going to have to give those an opportunity to get implemented and rolled out and eventually [have] data collected on it and tracked.”

Sinyangwe agreed that one year of data is not enough to make conclusive determinations but said, “There are places that seem to be making process.”

Some large cities have seen reductions in police killings, including Los Angeles and Philadelphia. But since the national trends have remained steady, those reductions appear to have been offset by increases in police killings elsewhere in the country.

In some rural and suburban areas outside major cities “we’ve actually seen increases in killings by police,” Sinyangwe said. “And we see some of the racial disparities increasing as well.”

Black people are three times more likely to be killed by police, according to the Mapping Police Violence data, making up 28% of those killed by police despite being only 13% of the population.

Many smaller police departments only employ a handful of officers and may not kill anyone in a given year. But arrest data compiled by the group shows massive disparities in arrests between Black and white people. In some rural and suburban areas, Black people are up to 50 times more likely to be arrested than white people.

Sinyangwe credited reforms over the past several years for helping reduce police killings in larger cities, citing data showing that the implementation of body cameras, changes to “use of force” policies and stronger accountability structures have resulted in significant reductions in fatal shootings by police.

Cities that have seen “the largest reductions in police shootings also saw substantial reductions in arrests for low-level offenses,” Sinyangwe said, which may reflect a shift in policing strategy away from “broken windows” and “zero tolerance” policies that target minor offenses.

He sees a clear relationship between these apparently unrelated phenomena. “The majority of people who were killed by police were killed following an encounter that began with one of these low-level offenses,” Sinyangwe said.

Shifting views found among even the country’s top law enforcement officials underscore the most visible impact of the protests. Inimai Chettiar, federal director for the bipartisan Justice Action Network, told Salon the last year has seen “a shift in public opinion” in which “more people are seeing the need for police reform.”

In particular, the events of the past year appear to have changed the views of white people, who have historically been highly supportive of police.

“People have become much more aware of the lack of accountability and transparency in policing when they use force,” Alexis Hoag, a former public defender and professor at Brooklyn Law School, said in an interview with Salon. “They instill order through the use of violence.” While “subjugated or marginalized people” have known about that for many years, Hoag said, “in the last year people who don’t necessarily have contact with the police are now much more aware of all the questions,” especially regarding the legal mechanisms that generally protect police and allow them to violate people’s constitutional rights with impunity. 

The George Floyd protests kicked off a movement that wasn’t merely about police reform but also engaged many other social justice issues, said Keesee, who formerly served as deputy commissioner for equity and inclusion at the New York Police Department.

Important questions now on the agenda, Keesee said, include “alternative responses” to mental health issues, in which non-police professionals might respond to certain kinds of calls. The larger question for communities, Keesee continued, is that of “being able to name and define what they would like ‘public safety’ to mean, and also influencing how that gets investment, what outcomes they hope these different changes will bring.”

Progress has lagged on the federal front, where lawmakers blew through President Joe Biden’s deadline to approve a police reform package by the one-year anniversary of Floyd’s death. But both Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., have expressed optimism in recent days that a deal can be reached by June. The House of Representatives has twice passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would lower the criminal standard to convict law enforcement officers for misconduct, limit qualified immunity as a defense for officers in civil lawsuits and address use-of-force, accountability and transparency. The Senate has been working on a narrower bill. One apparent roadblock in negotiations is the issue of qualified immunity.

“It’s unfortunate that they did not meet the president’s deadline, but I think that they’re still negotiating in earnest,” said Chettiar, adding that she believes the “stars are aligning on qualified immunity.”

“It seems promising,” she said. “I think that we’re closer than we’ve ever been to reaching a bipartisan deal.”

Ending qualified immunity — an opaque term for the near-total protection police officers often have against civil suits over uses of force — would be the “farthest reaching provision of the federal legislation,” Hoag said, and would “go a long way toward not just holding law enforcement officials accountable but also changing the culture of policing.”

If there are “civil, financial repercussions for an officer engaging in unconstitutional use of force, when someone is held accountable for their actions,” she said, “that is a message that you can’t keep engaging in these actions because there will be consequences. Right now, there aren’t.”

But no possible legislation to emerge from Congress will be “something earth-shattering that is going to solve all of our policing problems,” said Chettiar.

“I think that it is going to be a first step,” she said. “But I think it’s really important that both sides come together to show that there is bipartisan support for policing legislation. Up until last year, the Republicans had not embraced policing reform, so it’s a pretty big deal for them to come to the table and be doing something even moderate.”

Keesee stressed that the most important reforms will happen on the local level. Some states have already moved to reform qualified immunity, but Keesee argued that police training is at least as important. “It’s about making sure the policies are clear and that officers understand what their roles are and what they should be doing. It’s a lot of component parts, not just qualified immunity.”

Various cities and states have tried to address policing issues in a piecemeal fashion. Many police departments have moved to ban or restrict the use of chokeholds and neck restraints. New York, Atlanta, Baltimore, Austin and Philadelphia have all moved to shift funding from police departments to social services. In Denver, health care workers are dispatched instead of cops to respond to mental health episodes. Berkeley, California, is moving to shift traffic stops from police to unarmed Transportation Department workers. Ithaca, New York, is moving toward replacing its entire police department with unarmed “community solution workers” and armed “public safety workers.” Maryland repealed the state’s police “bill of rights” and implemented new measures addressing use of force, no-knock warrants and public oversight.

But amid the reform momentum, public support for Black Lives Matter has noticeably slipped and the political narrative is increasingly focused on the nationwide rise in homicides.

But much of the media focus on the murder rate is driven by “misleading statistics and reports,” Sinyangwe argued. “Murder has certainly increased, but violent crime in general and crime overall don’t appear to have increased across the board. This seems to be a specific type of crime event, which likely has a lot to do with the past year being an unprecedented year for hardship and suffering, trauma and loss.”

Republicans have blamed Democratic cities “defunding” the police for the homicide increase. There is no evidence to support this claim, especially since very little “defunding” has actually occurred. But even a growing number of Democrats, perhaps out of political instinct, are now pushing tough-on-crime rhetoric in response to the rise. Los Angeles lawmakers have already moved to restore police funding they significantly slashed just last year. In New York, Andrew Yang and Eric Adams, the two leading Democratic mayoral candidates, are calling to increase police funding, deploy more officers onto the streets and subways, and return to the “broken windows” policing made famous by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Keesee, who spent nearly three decades as a cop in Denver and New York, says she’s seen this all before “If we’re going to come back at this with the same things that we’ve historically done,” she said, “it’s only going to get you so much. We know from the ’80s and ’90s, getting ‘tough on crime’ and pipelining people into the prison-industrial complex, we know what that will get you. 

“This is the struggle that people are having right now, because the communities impacted by violent crime are typically Black and brown communities. They want to be safe, and they’ll tell you that. But we also want to have protection and safety in a way that is not harmful to us on a daily basis. You cannot, on a long-term basis, continue doing just more patrols, more force, more folks in the neighborhood. You’ve got to deal with the conditions that created it.”

The crime rhetoric could undermine progress made by reformers over the past 12 months.

Like many other reform advocates, Sinyangwe worries that the sudden shift toward anti-crime rhetoric could undermind all the progress of the last year. “These narratives do have political power,” said Sinyangwe. “They do influence the conversation. They may threaten to derail progress that is already beginning to show results in terms of reducing police violence, saving lives, reducing low-level arrests, reducing incarceration. 

“I think it’s important for us to be clear about what is working, and not buy into these theories that are not really data-driven but are focused on this myth that if there’s an increase in crime, it must be because the police did something different or the police backed off,” he said. “The reality is that crime is influenced by a whole bunch of factors.”

The way to fight back against false narratives, he said, is simple enough: “Continue to demonstrate the efficacy of these efforts and that they’re actually saving lives.”

Pollster Frank Luntz concealed his work for GOP in 2020 L.A. Times op-ed: Will media ever learn?

Pollster Frank Luntz wrote in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times on Sept. 27, 2020, “As a pollster, I am ethically and professionally required to interpret public opinion accurately, factually and without bias.” That article served to preview three Luntz-managed “focus groups” live-streamed by the West Coast’s largest newspaper after last year’s presidential and vice-presidential debates.

In that op-ed and again on Sept. 29, when the first focus group streamed, the Times wrote, “Luntz has conducted televised focus groups for major news outlets since 1996. He is not working for any presidential candidate or political party in the 2020 election.” By Oct. 28, that description had been updated with a final sentence reading, “His political work was primarily for Republicans in the past,” although the next two Times focus groups did not include that caveat.

What neither Luntz nor the Los Angeles Times disclosed at the time was that Luntz’s work for Republicans was not in the past. In fact, he was working contemporaneously with the top Republican in the House of Representatives. Just two days before his op-ed was published ran and a week before the first focus group, Luntz’s firm, FIL, Inc., had been paid $16,850 by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s leadership PAC. A few weeks after the final post-debate focus group, McCarthy’s PAC made another payment to Luntz for $21,500. A few weeks after that, McCarthy was living with Luntz in the latter’s luxury Washington penthouse.

After inquiries from Salon, Hillary Manning, vice president of communications at the Los Angeles Times, told Salon on Wednesday night that editor’s notes had been added to Luntz’s op-ed as well as to the focus-group videos he produced on the newspaper’s behalf.

In Manning’s statement, the Times appeared eager to distance itself from Luntz’s work.

“The focus groups were not conducted by the Los Angeles Times,” Manning wrote. “Frank Luntz conducted the focus groups, we provided production support, and hosted the video on our platforms. While we regret that Luntz did not originally disclose his work for a political action committee led by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the House minority leader, at the time the focus groups were conducted, we believe that the discussion with voters during the campaign was valuable. We have added the disclosure where the videos are published.”

At some point on Tuesday, somewhat lengthy editor’s notes were attached to Luntz’s work, which was originally done in collaboration with the Times, and presumably with some degree of approval from top editors:

A biographical note accompanying this video of a focus group incorrectly stated that the public opinion expert who convened the panel, Frank Luntz, did not work for a political party in the 2020 election cycle. It has emerged that Luntz’s company did paid work for a political action committee led by Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), the House minority leader, in 2020.

Earlier this month, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the notorious Georgia Republican, told Tucker Carlson of Fox News about what she described as her only meeting with Luntz. 

“I’ve only listened to him one time,” Greene said. “I was invited for this one messaging session, and it was before I won my general election, before Nov. 3, and it was Kevin McCarthy and Tom Emmer, and they had Frank Luntz on there to talk to us about what we should be saying on the campaign trail to win our elections, and this is what Republican voters want to hear, and this is what Republican voters want.”

Greene won a primary runoff to become the Republican nominee in her district on Aug. 11, 2020, so the messaging session with Luntz evidently occurred in roughly the same timeframe as Luntz’s L.A. Times focus groups.  

Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Sewell Chan, who participated in the live-streamed focus groups, defended the paper’s involvement with Luntz in a Twitter post last October, writing, “We’re just featuring his focus groups on our opinion section because we think his methodology is interesting. No money involved.”

That came in response to a tweet from New Yorker reporter Isaac Chotiner, who wrote an extensive 2007 feature story for The New Republic called “Frank Luntz’s Tarnished Legacy.”

The Times’ choice of Luntz to lead 2020 focus groups based on his “interesting” methodology was itself striking, considering Luntz’s history of strange and off-color comments, perceived racial insensitivity, and formal censures for fraudulent polling and erroneous focus group conclusions, along with his multiple previous failures to disclose his political affiliations during focus groups and media appearances.

During previous focus groups, Luntz has asked participants if they wanted to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton “make love to each other,” and once said that “Jimmy Carter was the first female president.” In other appearances, Luntz has made cavalier remarks about Native American languages, joked about running over Obama with his car, and made remarks about the appearance of Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton that struck many observers as sexist and ageist

After his comment about “Indian” languages, Luntz was hired by the NFL team then called the Washington Redskins for advice on how to defend the team’s racially offensive name.

Luntz told The Washington Journal in 2011 that he didn’t understand the argument that voting was more difficult for people of color, since his white, affluent parents had brought him into the voting booth as a child. When the host, who was Black, responded, “There are thousands of people that go through their daily lives in the United States that don’t need any kind of ID,” Luntz responded contemptuously: “It’s a driver’s license, and they’re trying to find any way to detach the individual from the picture.” 

There are also more substantive concerns about Luntz’s work. He has been censured twice by polling organizations, and on numerous occasions, over the last two decades, media outlets have aired or published Luntz focus groups, op-eds, or political analysis without disclosing his concurrent work for the candidates or party at the center of the discussion. This happened on MSNBC in 2000 and 2004, on CBS and in the New York Times in 2014, on Vice News/HBO in 2018 and now in the Los Angeles Times last fall.

When Chotiner, in his tweet directed at L.A. Times editor Chan, described the paper’s partnership with Luntz as “deeply embarrassing,” he may have been referring to Luntz’s past ethical lapses. In 1994 Luntz was formally censured by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) for violating its ethics code in his reporting on the popularity of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

As the Atlantic reported in 1998, “Republican polling, done by Frank Luntz, had been fraudulently presented to the public as showing that the contract commanded 60 percent support in all its particulars. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, in fact, found that people disagreed, by 45 to 35 percent, ‘with most of what the GOP House is proposing to do.'”

In 2000, Luntz was again censured by the National Council on Public Polls for allegedly mischaracterizing on MSNBC the results of focus groups he conducted during that year’s party conventions. According to Media Matters for America, three of Luntz’s four focus groups displayed an institutional bias toward President George W. Bush. 

Also in 2000, the AAPOR criticized Luntz for a focus group analysis on MSNBC in which he declared George Bush the “clear winner” of a debate” with Al Gore based on the group’s response to the question “Who thought George Bush did better than you expected he would?” As the AAPOR pointed out, Luntz had not asked the straightforward question, “Who do you think won the debate?” It was entirely possible that focus group participants who thought Gore won the debate also felt that Bush did better than they thought he would. Complicating that lapse, MSNBC failed to disclose Luntz’s ties to Republicans, describing him only as a “political pollster.”

In September 2004, MSNBC dropped Luntz from its planned coverage of that year’s presidential debates, following a letter to the network from Media Matters that outlined Luntz’s GOP ties and questionable polling methodology. That didn’t last: Luntz was back on MSNBC by October, at the same time as he was providing reduced-rate housing to disgraced and indicted former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who had been forced to resign and lived for several months in Luntz’s West Hartford home before beginning a federal prison sentence for depriving the public of honest service. 

Luntz said in 2011 that an ABC News senior producer reprimanded him after expressing too much enthusiasm for his onetime mentor, Newt Gingrich, while Luntz moderated an Iowa Thanksgiving Family Forum with six Republican presidential candidates. Luntz said of Gingrich after the forum, “He’s always the star of these debates and comes in first or second of everyone,” adding admiringly that in Gingrich’s “key moments” he “smacks the moderator [i.e., Luntz] around and the audience loves it.” 

In 2014 CBS News came under fire when it failed to disclose to viewers that Frank Luntz’s firm had worked for Rep. Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican who was House Majority Leader at the time, while defending Cantor as a “pipeline to Americans who just wanted people to get things done.” CBS identified Luntz only as a “Republican strategist,” although Cantor was a client of Luntz Global during that election cycle. After Cantor’s surprise primary defeat that year, Luntz wrote an op-ed about that race for the New York Times which characterized him as “a communications adviser and Republican pollster” and “president of Luntz Global Partners, a consulting firm,” with no mention of his ties to Cantor.

Luntz is a strong supporter of Israel who helped elect right-wing prime minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1988 and wrote a 117-page study in 2009 for The Israel Project, a Washington lobby group, on how to sway American opinion in favor of Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank. In 2015 he was accused of selectively editing a CBS focus group of American Muslims, which ostensibly concerned then-candidate Donald Trump’s rhetoric about a potential Muslim ban. Luntz instead challenged participants about whether they were willing to recognize Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. One of the participants wrote a long Facebook post, alleging that Luntz “asked us the most demeaning questions like “Are you an American or a Muslim first? … I felt that as a Muslim-American participant in the focus group, he tried to put all of us into boxes to fit their narrative. … It could also be a reason why the only three Muslim women who didn’t wear the headscarf was seated outside of the camera shot or why the two black men in the panel barely got speaking time.”

Weeks before the 2018 election, HBO aired a VICE News focus group convened by Luntz focused on the U.S. Senate race in Texas between Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke. Luntz chose the group participants and decided what questions he would ask them. What was never mentioned was that Luntz was also working for the Ted Cruz for Senate campaign at the time: A week after the show aired, the campaign paid Luntz’s company, FIL, Inc., just over $51,000 for “survey research/travel.” After Salon’s initial report on that event, VICE News said in a statement that it had been “unaware of this affiliation, and Luntz did not disclose this information at the time of these productions.” 

Luntz’s focus groups for the Los Angeles Times were anomalous even by his standards, and did not appear to employ a consistent or logical methodology. Luntz invited a number of celebrities from sports, entertainment, and the media to moderate the panels; they sometimes offered their own opinions, corrected participants, and asked seemingly random questions. Those guest moderators included TV journalist Katie Couric, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former New York Yankees manager Joe Torre (once the boss of Dan Scavino, Donald Trump’s social media guru), actor Richard Dreyfuss (Luntz sits on the board of his nonprofit), Kate Powling of “Good Morning Britain,” Byron York of the Washington Examiner and George Condon of the National Journal.

Frank Luntz has known Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire surgeon and businessman who is executive chairman of the Los Angeles Times, since about 2014 and has occasionally worked with him. A few weeks after Luntz’s final focus group for the Times, Soon-Shiong joined Luntz and Kevin McCarthy for a “#FridayswithFrank” interview on Nov. 27, 2020. During that conversation, both Luntz and McCarthy volunteered to be part of Soon-Shiong’s clinical trial for a pill-based COVID vaccine.

“Pandemic relationships” were intentionally temporary for some — and accelerated for others

Right before the United States went into lockdown, Thomas Jepsen, a 31-year-old CEO of Passion Plans, met a love interest at a bar. Not too long after they started see each other, bars — and everything else — shut down. Despite the world crumbling around them, they decided to keep dating during the pandemic. 

“Obviously it was nice having someone through the pandemic, and I saw the two of us being together past the pandemic,” Jepsen said.

About a week and a half ago, their relationship ended— which came as a surprise to Jepsen.

“I knew that we had differences and whatnot, but I also think that differences make a relationship interesting,” he said. “It’s weird having someone leave you so suddenly, especially since I really didn’t see it coming.”

Jepsen’s experience epitomizes the nature of many so-called pandemic relationships, which in many cases were intentionally temporary — at least, for one partner. And while the notion of being a “placeholder” partner is depressing, therapists say the reaction to want someone there for you in the short-term is understandable given the severely isolating toll of the pandemic on single people.

Both singles and couples saw their love lives upended when the pandemic took hold. As with Jepsen, those in new relationships were forced to make quick decisions about their future. Staying together meant companionship and support in a time full of fear, anxiety and uncertainty. For some long-term relationships, the stress of finances, the disproportionate share of labor falling on women, and overall being stuck at home with nothing to do, led to separations. As BBC reported in March 2021, lawyers saw a surge in the divorces once lockdowns ended.

But as vaccination rates rise, couples who found each other during the pandemic are entering a new phase of their relationship that they haven’t experienced yet: dating in a “normal” world. 

Dr. Carla Marie Manly, a clinical psychologist and author of “Joy From Fear,” told Salon she’s seen many clients enter “pandemic relationships.” Some were intentionally temporary, at least in the mind of one partner. 

“In fact, quite a few of my clients have experienced those relationships — some are maintaining them as the pandemic winds down, and others are clearly moving forward,” Manly said. 

Manly said she saw some people who were in early phases of their relationships when the pandemic began either move in with each other or become more serious.


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


“This really improved their ability to have other connections in their lives that they would not have had otherwise,” Manly said. “In many other cases, people either had greatly reduced depression or anxiety because whether they were with someone physically or not — it was just the knowing that they had a lifeline.”

Manly added there are a few reasons why people might be going their separate ways now. One being that they knew it wasn’t a forever kind of love in the first place.

“For some people, they were acutely aware that the relationship wasn’t the one, that it wasn’t an ideal fit — and that perhaps in some cases, some people really realized that it was a convenient relationship, simply something to get through the pandemic,” Manly said. “So there was a knowing that this is a good support, it won’t be great in the long run, but it’ll be nice for as long as the pandemic lasts.”

For others, it could be that the opportunity to experience activities and see friends again, differences between two people might be more obvious than they were during lockdown.

“During the pandemic, we had very limited choices as far as sports and that sort of thing . . . and now as the world’s opening up, people’s differences, difference in extraversion, introversion, that sort of thing, they’re becoming more apparent,” Manly said.

Tammy Shaklee, a certified matchmaker, told Salon in many cases, clients who are ending their pandemic relationships are able to do so without much drama.

“I think there’s a gratefulness and acknowledgement — you know, while this was coming to an end isn’t it so special that we had each other through this time?” Shaklee said. “I realize that’s a huge generalization, but maybe there’s an emotional maturity that’s happened through this extended pandemic.”

So if you have a pandemic relationship that’s going well, how do you keep the flame burning? Shaklee said for people who are staying in their relationships, they should make an effort to break their routine a little as things might have turned “stale” during the pandemic.

“Go sleep in a different bed together,” Shaklee said, noting that so-called pandemic couples have been spending most of their home together. “Get out and go sleep in a different bed, even if it’s an overnight trip 30 minutes away.”

In some cases, those who sought relationships during the pandemic out of loneliness or boredom have emerged with a strong connection. Take Chloe Sisson, a 21-year-old living in Atlanta, Georgia, who entered the pandemic single and emerged coupled. In pre-pandemic days, she’d swipe on dating apps for fun; but after months in lockdown she thought she might look for something a little more serious — a companion to make the stress of the pandemic and virtual college classes a little more bearable; in other words, a source of support.

“In mid-December, I decided to go on my fifth date from a dating app,” said Sission. “We made things official before I went back to college in the spring and have been together for five months now.”

Sisson said her current relationship moved faster than usual in part thanks to the pandemic, which, she suspects, made them closer in a variety of ways. Over the last year she’s struggled with anxiety and loneliness, meaning her partner had to bear witness to some of her “worst moments,” she said.

“I would definitely say that the pandemic made us get more serious, more quickly,” Sisson said. “But we’re going on almost six months, and we’re actually going on vacation for Memorial Day.”

Climate tipping point? ExxonMobil’s shareholder revolt and the end of the line for fossil fuels

Few days spell out the future as clearly as this Wednesday did in terms of energy and climate action. The dikes of denial behind which Big Carbon has sheltered their deadly oil, coal and fossil gas were breached not once or twice but three times, and are now irreversibly crumbling

Chevron shareholders rebuked the oil company’s refusal to commit to reduce climate emissions from both its production and sale of oil and gas. A Dutch court told Shell, which had already made such a commitment, but an inadequate one —  pledging a 20% reduction by 2030 — that in fact its emissions impact had to be cut by 45% in that same nine-year span, and placed in compliance with the 1.5-degree celsius warming limit called for by the Paris agreement.  

In the biggest headline-grabber of all, ExxonMobil shareholders rejected at least two and perhaps three of the company’s board candidates. Instead they elected anti-management candidates offered by a tiny hedge fund called Engine Company #1, which attacked Exxon’s climate denial as a business folly that is leading the company towards bankruptcy. (Full disclosure: The Engine Company #1 candidate whose candidacy is too close to call, Andy Karsner, is a friend of mine.)  One key to the shocking defeat of Exxon’s board slate was the decision by its second-largest investor, BlackRock, to vote against three of the four challenged Exxon board members. 

Oil was not alone in Wednesday’s day of reckoning. The gas and coal industries took a hit too. The world’s biggest coal-exporting country, Indonesia, whose coal companies have long dominated national energy policy, made the stunning announcement that it would allow no new coal power plants. Instead, the nation’s power sector will go renewable. This is the most powerful signal yet that emerging markets, even those with large domestic coal supplies, are preparing to leapfrog from coal to renewable power — blowing a hole through the oil industry’s theory that gas-fired power generation would be the savior of its share values. The news from Indonesia was bad for oil as well as coal and gas: The island nation relies heavily on 5,200 diesel-fired power plants, with 2 gigawatts of capacity — and all of them will be replaced with renewable generation by 2030.

These events are an unprecedented setback for the current oil industry line on climate, which runs like this, with numerous variants: 

  • Yes, climate change Is a real problem, created in part by carbon dioxide emissions from oil and gas.
  • Yes, the world will gradually, over decades, move to lower reliance and perhaps even a phase-out of oil.
  • But fossil gas is essential to meet a significant part of our energy needs, even in the second half of the century.
  • Oil and gas companies will need to supplement their current products with new, cleaner energy sources — but “clean fuel” technofixes like carbon capture and sequestration will be a major part of their new business lines.
  • In short, the world can’t do without fossil fuels.

The shareholder and court actions on Wednesday revealed that the world no longer believes this fable. Worse yet for the oil industry, its customers no longer need to cling to oil and gas to meet their energy needs. The other half of the rising tide that swept the energy industry was on the customer side. Ford Motor Company’s website proclaimed the launch of its new electric version of the massively popular F-150 pickup truck with the breezy slogan “Say goodbye to gas.” The company simultaneously announced that it will sell 40% electric vehicles by the 2030 model year, joining General Motors and Volkswagen in the race to catch up with the Chinese and compete with Tesla. 

An even grimmer market reality for petroleum-based transportation was also unmasked on Wednesday. A new study of trends since 2015 showed that sales of electric vehicles have increased by 41% every year. If that rate simply continues, by 2040 all light-duty passenger vehicles will be powered by electrons, not petroleum. Between now and then we will see a number of tipping points likely to accelerate this flight from oil — particularly the moment when not only do EVs become cheaper to buy and operate (as they already are in many places) but the purchase price of an EV falls below its petroleum-fired competitor.

The oil industry’s desperate hope that petroleum and fossil gas had another half century as a dominant energy source — the theory on which even the industry’s more aggressive transition advocates, like BP, rest their business plans — now looks like a sand castle washing away in a rising tide. The Engine Company #1 directors now joining the ExxonMobil board have their work cut out for them. Investors who continue to park their money in oil companies whose management strategy is to squander that money looking for new oil or ignoring the evidence will live to regret it. New fields can’t compete with existing low-cost Persian Gulf and Russian reserves in a rapidly shrinking petroleum market. Shareholders will find their investments to be just as foolish as the ones other investors made five or six years ago in doomed coal companies like Peabody.

If any single day can be designated the climate tipping point, that day happened this week.

Feds investigating whether Ukraine meddled in 2020 election to help Trump: report

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is caught up in yet another legal drama.

“Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have been investigating whether several Ukrainian officials helped orchestrate a wide-ranging plan to meddle in the 2020 presidential campaign, including using Rudolph W. Giuliani to spread their misleading claims about President Biden and tilt the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor, according to people with knowledge of the matter. The criminal investigation, which began during the final months of the Trump administration and has not been previously reported, underscores the federal government’s increasingly aggressive approach toward rooting out foreign interference in American electoral politics. Much of that effort is focused on Russian intelligence, which has suspected ties to at least one of the Ukrainians now under investigation,” The New York Times reported Thursday.

“The investigation is unfolding separately from a long-running federal inquiry in Manhattan that is aimed at Mr. Giuliani. While the two investigations have a similar cast of characters and overlap in some ways, Mr. Giuliani is not a subject of the Brooklyn investigation, the people said. Instead, the Brooklyn prosecutors, along with the F.B.I., are focused on current and former Ukrainian officials suspected of trying to influence the election by spreading unsubstantiated claims of corruption about Mr. Biden through a number of channels, including Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer at the time. It is unclear whether the Brooklyn prosecutors will ultimately charge any of the Ukrainians,” the newspaper reported.

At the heart of the investigation are the same issues that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment trial.

“At one point in the investigation, the authorities examined a trip Mr. Giuliani took to Europe in December 2019, when he met with several Ukrainians, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry,” the newspaper reported. “The trip was the culmination of a yearlong effort by Mr. Giuliani, with support from Mr. Trump, to undermine Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign. The effort proceeded primarily on two parallel tracks: collecting information from Ukraine to attack Mr. Biden’s diplomatic efforts there as vice president, and pressing Ukraine to announce investigations into Mr. Biden and other Trump critics.”

Read the full report.

Trump appointees shocked to find they owe thousands after payroll tax delay

On Thursday, POLITICO reported that appointees from former President Donald Trump’s administration are stuck with big bills after he delayed their payroll taxes as part of an initiative to boost the economy. He promised them that those taxes would later be forgiven — but that never happened, and now they’re on the hook for thousands.

“‘If the indebtedness is not paid in full within 30 calendar days, we intend to forward this debt to the Department of Treasury, Treasury offset program, for further collection,’ reads one letter to a former White House official, demanding she pay $1,500,” reported Brian Faler and Daniel Lippman. “That has left some shocked and angry. One former official called her $1,300 bill ‘unacceptable,’ saying she and her colleagues ‘gave our time and effort to this agency and this is how we’re getting paid back.’ Said another, asked to pay almost $1,200: ‘It’s just a very unfortunate situation.'”

All of this stems from an executive order Trump signed creating a payroll tax holiday, something he had asked Congress to do but had been rebuffed on.

“In August, he issued an executive order allowing employers to put off paying their workers’ share of the 12.4 percent Social Security tax for the rest of the year. The idea was to boost consumer spending by putting more money in the pockets of millions,” said the report. “But the initiative was widely rejected by private sector employers, in part because they feared workers would be unprepared to pay the money back. It was mandatory, though, for federal employees making less than $4,000 per biweekly paycheck, and the government began implementing it in September.”

Many Trump appointees have been blindsided by the former president’s loss. Some had staked their careers on him winning re-election, and found themselves losing their jobs and benefits when it didn’t happen.

The most Googled “Game of Thrones” characters in America, state by state

Not long ago, Century Link compiled a list of the 25 most iconic “Game of Thrones” characters, and then looked at the Google Trends search volume for each over the past five years, breaking it down by region. The result? This reasonably authoritative and very entertaining graphic cataloging which states search most for which character, aka, “What is each state’s favorite ‘Game of Thrones’ character?”

I remind you that all results are final. For instance, I didn’t think my favorite character was Joffrey Baratheon, of all people, but as a Chicagoan, I have no choice but to accept the truth:

Joffrey Baratheon is the most-searched for character in four different states? That surprised me. Although it may not be quite as surprising as finding out that only Massachusetts likes Jon Snow. I figured he would be at the top of a lot of most-searched-for lists and possibly even walk away with the most states under his belt, but that honor easily goes to Daenerys Targaryen, who’s the favorite of fully 17 states, including big ones like Texas, California and New York. All hail the Dragon Queen!

Also interesting that major characters like Cersei and Jaime Lannister are nowhere to be found on this list, and that Khal Drogo still comes in second to Daenerys despite only being on the show for one season. And Hawaii, Indiana, New Jersey and West Virginia: what are you all doing searching for Littlefinger? Not that I can talk living in Illinois, where we all love Joffrey.

Kim Kardashian becomes latest “girlboss” sued by workers

Domestic workers employed by Kim Kardashian sued the reality star and fashion mogul at the Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, alleging Kardashian failed to pay overtime and legally mandated breaks among other poor labor conditions, and also paid her workers late for cleaning and maintaining her California home. 

The details of the court papers against the newly proclaimed billionaire, obtained by TMZ, are even more unsettling, alleging that one former worker was fired after bringing up overtime pay, meal breaks, and wages that were withheld for taxes and not reported to the government. Another worker who was 16 at the time of employment has said he had to work more than the maximum 48 hours allowed for underage employees.

While egregious, the lawsuit for some reason feels unsurprising in an era labeled by author Leigh Stein last summer as “the end of the girlboss,” a time in which growing disillusionment with capitalism has also meant growing disillusionment with female capitalists, or so-called “girlbosses.” The case of Kardashian is a perfect example of this — it’s hard to be inspired by a woman becoming a billionaire, when she’s simultaneously accused of harming and exploiting her own workers.

According to the domestic workers’ lawyer, Frank Kim, wage theft and workplace violations like this “are a widespread problem in Los Angeles.” Kim told Page Six his firm is investigating other violations against powerful families and businesses like the Kardashians as well. 

Kardashian has denied wrongdoing in a statement, instead blaming the third-party vendor through which she says she contracted the workers in a total and predictable abdication of responsibility for the plight of the workers who took care of her home. “These workers were hired and paid through a third-party vendor hired by Kim to provide ongoing services,” Kardashian’s spokesperson said in a statement to Page Six. “Kim is not party to the agreement made between the vendor and their workers, therefore she is not responsible for how the vendor manages their business and the agreements they have made directly with their staff.”

Kardashian isn’t the first celebrity, or even member of her own family, to be accused of labor violations and not paying workers. Last summer, Global Brand Group, which runs several Kardashian-Jenner family brands, dissolved its Bangladesh-based operations citing COVID concerns, and allegedly leaving thousands of workers “starving.” In 2016, the factory where Kylie Jenner’s lip kits were manufactured was compared by some of its workers to a “sweatshop,” and accused of subjecting workers to unclean and unsafe conditions.

As for the lawsuit against Kardashian, unfortunately, as Terri Gerstein, director of the State and Local Enforcement Project at the Harvard Labor and Worklife Program, points out in a Wednesday op ed in NBC News, the allegations against Kardashian and her response to them aren’t rare. Like Kardashian, many companies “use business models they believe allow them to avoid the responsibilities of being an employer.” Further, they “subcontract, use temp agencies, outsource, sell franchises, misclassify workers as independent contractors” and “basically arrange their business structures in a way that seeks to eliminate any obligations to the people who actually do the work.”

In other words, if we’re going to hold Kardashian accountable, we should also hold all other entities who share this business model accountable, too.