Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Fox News drama: Juan Williams reportedly forced out at “The Five” by co-host Greg Gutfeld

Fox News commentator and political analyst Juan Williams announced that he will no longer appear on “The Five” after reportedly being forced out by fellow co-host Greg Gutfeld.

“This is my last day hosting ‘The Five,'” Williams stated on-air late Wednesday evening. “COVID taught me a lot of lessons. As the show goes back to the New York studio, I’ll be staying in D.C. I’ll be working for Fox out of Washington. My work as a Fox News political analyst will continue.” 

Sources at Fox News told The Daily Beast that Gutfeld mounted a pressure campaign against Williams inside the network, urging at least one member of Fox’s top brass to let Williams go when the show’s “liberal” co-host was reluctant to return to the studio in person.   

One network insider told The Daily Beast that Gutfeld had been pushing Albano for a while to get Williams removed from The Five, adding that Gutfeld was “really pissed they’re not all back in the studio together and he blames Juan for not being back.”

A former Fox News producer further elaborated, stating they were “very confident” that Gutfeld was behind Williams’ exit. A current staffer also added: “[Gutfeld’s] been wanting the show back in the studio for quite some time.”

One current Fox News staffer told The Beast that in future the program might “not book Democrats at all.” 

Following the sudden programming change, Fox News vice president Megan Albano said in a statement to Salon that Williams had expressed a desire to stay in the Washington area:

As Juan Williams announced on air today, he will be leaving The Five to live in Washington, DC full time. We are incredibly grateful for his commitment to the show and its success over the last several years. As we started planning The Five’s return to its New York City studio at our headquarters a few months ago, Juan decided to stay in Washington, DC permanently. We accommodated his request, understanding and appreciating his desire to remain closer to his family and recognizing that a remote co-hosting role on a roundtable in-studio program was not a long-term option. While we will miss his insightful contributions each night and look forward to welcoming him on set whenever he’s in New York, we are pleased to have him continue his longtime role as a senior political analyst with FOX News Media.

The Daily Beast reports that Fox News plans to allow “a rotating series of liberal commentators” to display their skills in Williams’ slot before settling on an eventual replacement. 

Williams has long sparred with the predominantly conservative co-hosts in the evening hour but has been seen as standing his ground over the years. He is widely respected for his willingness to call out his own network’s mistakes, but in sufficiently diplomatic terms to ensure a lengthy tenure at Fox News. 

In Apple TV’s trailer for new series “Physical,” “Desperate Housewives” meets ‘80s nostalgia

On Thursday, Apple TV+ released a new trailer for its upcoming, dark dramedy series, “Physical,” starring Rose Byrne of “Bridesmaids’‘ fame, and directed by fellow Aussie Craig Gillespie, who also directed “I, Tonya.”

As one would expect of a series nodding to Olivia Newton-John‘s smash hit single, “Physical” is set in the 1980s and revolves around the exercise craze outfitted in headbands and legwarmers. Suburban San Diego housewife Sheila Rubin (Byrne) discovers a passion for aerobics, which transforms into an ambitious quest to launch what we’d now call a female lifestyle guru brand. 

All while supporting her eccentric husband’s state assembly run, Sheila sets out to create a revolutionary business at a time of sweeping technological shifts — including the rise of the now defunct videotape. But the trailer hints there’s much more than what meets the eye in Sheila’s life, marriage, and suburban town — a beachy, neon-lit enclave of pure ’80s nostalgia and housewife angst.

Speaking of housewife angst, “Physical” creator Annie Weisman also wrote and produced the beloved, 2000s drama series “Desperate Housewives.” If her new Apple TV+ series is anything like her previous work, we can look forward to plenty of spicy, hilarious and relatable twists and turns. 

Alongside Byrne, “Physical” stars comedian Rory Scovel as Danny Rubin, Sheila’s husband; Dierdre Friel as Greta; Della Saba as Bunny; Lou Taylor Pucci as Tyler; Paul Sparks as John Breem; and Ashley Liao as Simone. 

Since launching in 2019, Apple TV+ has been home to original movies and TV shows including “Defending Jacob” starring Chris Evans, the comforting “Ted Lasso” starring Jason Sudeikis, and more recently, “The Me You Can’t See,” an ongoing series of conversations on mental health guided by Oprah Winfrey and Prince Harry. “Physical” and its energetic, oceanside setting and relatable and determined female protagonist make it the perfect summer addition to Apple TV’s growing catalog.

The first three episodes of “Physical” will become available on the series’ June 18 premiere, with subsequent episodes to air weekly each Friday.

This puritannical high school yearbook edited student photos, sexualizing girls’ bodies

In a tale as old as time: a Florida high school is being accused of sexualizing teenage girls’ bodies — this time, by editing at least 80 yearbook pictures of female students without their permission to cover up things like exposed shoulders or supposedly low necklines. With permission, the local news station of the high school posted some of the before and after yearbook pictures on Twitter, which you can see below.

Some of the students of Bartram Trail High School in St. Johns are speaking out publicly about the yearbook’s not-so-sneaky, puritannical shaming, including ninth grader Riley O’Keefe, whose unedited and edited yearbook photos are included side-by-side below.

“The double standard in the yearbook is more so that they looked at our body and thought just a little bit of skin showing was sexual,” O’Keefe said, according to CBS News. “But then they looked at the boys, for the swim team photos and other sports photos, and thought that was fine, and that’s really upsetting and uncomfortable.”

And O’Keefe is absolutely right — high school dress codes and modesty standards have always been molded by sexism, and weaponized to police or shame teenage girls, as if life isn’t difficult and confusing enough at that age. Rather than teach young people to know better than to sexualize women and girls, or, in many cases, teach young people even basic sexual health education or about consent, schools instead focus on policing teenage girls’ bodies.

All the time, adult school administrators, or in this case, whoever is responsible for the yearbook edits, place the blame and punishment on teenage girls for somehow being a “distraction” or “temptation” based on how they dress. This dangerously reinforces and teaches young people to internalize rape culture early on, setting up young women to accept blame or blame themselves for how they’re treated or perceived.

The energy used to crack down on what teenage girls feel comfortable wearing in high school — possibly one of the most uncomfortable places in existence — seems better and more logically spent instead cracking down on the perpetrators of sexual harassment, which is rampant in high schools and often targets young women and queer youth no matter how they’re dressed.

As O’Keefe pointed out, this is ultimately about more than yearbook pictures. “You’re not only affecting their photo — it’s not just for protecting them — you’re making them uncomfortable and feel like their bodies aren’t acceptable in a yearbook,” she said. 

Another ninth grader at the Bartram Trail High School also told CBS she was “horrified” and “disgusted” by the school’s bizarre priorities, noting it seems teenage girls’ bodies in the yearbook were “the first thing they worried about.”

One parent also spoke to CBS with a quote so sexist as to be laughable, and certainly not worth repeating. But the parent certainly said the quiet part loud when she said “daughters,” but not sons, should be taught how to “dress decently” — as if plenty of teenage boys, young men, and those around them wouldn’t benefit from being banned from wearing salmon shorts and Sperrys.

At the end of the day, as discouraging as it is that schools are still like this, it’s encouraging and inspiring to see young people speak up, take action, and pursue change.

“The dress code and sexualization of young girls’ bodies has been happening for a long time,” O’Keefe told CBS. “All the messages I get about people being thankful for me speaking out are worth it, and I’d do it a million times.”

“Friends: The Reunion” is The One We Could’ve Lived Without

Watching “Friends: The Reunion” is impossible to do without contemplating its valuation. By that I am of course referring to the money various platforms paid to have the sitcom beloved by Millennials, starting with the $100 million Netflix spent to keep it for an additional year for its 25th anniversary, then WarnerMedia’s forking over of $425 million to reclaim the rights, a purchase good for five years.

Exceeding this in importance, and relevant to how you’re bound to feel about this long-awaited reunion, is the value “Friends” has to you. How much of your time are you willing to expend to watch Jennifer Aniston, Courteney Cox, Lisa Kudrow, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry, and David Schwimmer gather again on the Warner Bros. Studio lot, live and in person? An hour? Would you believe . . . one hour and 44 minutes?

For the most passionate “Friends” worshipper no amount of time witnessing James Corden lobbing softballs at television’s most famous sextet is enough. But to those of us who like it well enough that amount of runtime can’t be sustained without a lot of filler and a rehashing of the stories you’ve probably heard before.

Regarding “Friends,” however, HBO Max is wagering that piles of remembering when, hugs and tears are all the satisfaction that’s required to saturate the market. “Friends” which debuted in 1994 and ran until 2004, still sets the template for how to be an adult for Millennials and Gen Z even though members of those cohorts understand the many ways that the show is constructed from fantasy.

Ross, Rachel, Chandler, Joey, Phoebe and Monica are still potent aspirational archetypes, not despite their stumbles and flaws but because of them. For this reason the parts of the “Friends” reunion that work well are the segments in which executive producers and creators Kevin Bright, Marta Kauffman, and David Crane explain how the magical sausage that is the show is made.

Origin stories explaining how each character came to be and how everyone got their roles are as charming as the blooper reels and the out-of-school tales about what was going on behind the scenes. Rather, only the good, PG-rated stories. We can and should try not to compare the varying impact time has had on each of actor and their respective careers, a task activating sight and memory.

The close calls as to who might have been Chandler or other characters never pop up, and no time is spent on the impact tabloid coverage of Perry’s struggles with addiction may have had on morale, be it bolstering or detrimental. (Some reporting in the lead-up to the reunion questioned Perry’s slurred speech in some scenes, which his representatives explained as the unfortunate side effect of oral surgery that occurred right before the shoot.)

Fact is, we know most of these “Friends” factoids and others because the show and its cast continue to be a significant presence in culture. Every member of its cast is working, some more than others, and any updates on their personal lives are the briefest of Google searches away. The show’s 25th anniversary wasn’t even two years ago, and the barrage of coverage surrounding that contains almost every bit of trivia you could possibly guess at or desire.

This is why so little about the special feels significant or necessary for anybody save for the show’s diehards.

Those folks will be thrilled to realize they share their “Friends” adoration with the likes of “Game of Thrones” alum Kit Harington, David Beckham, Mindy Kaling (of course) and Malala Yousafzai. It’s additionally humorous that Malala sees herself not as a Monica, a Phoebe or a Rachel but . . . a Joey. Who would have guessed?

A montage featuring interviews with “Friends” fans from around the world demonstrates how globally appealing this formula was in its heyday and still is. And it is honestly touching to hear people from places such as Ghana, Mexico, France, India and Germany, explain how personally meaningful and healing the show has been for them.

The humanizing approach of “Friends: The Reunion” is its greatest strength. But a lot of the showbiz stories get in the way. Hearing background history we may not have previously known about who these actors were before the show is nice, but we’re well aware of its impact on the zeitgeist, from the Top 40 hit status of its theme by The Rembrandts to the popularity of Rachel’s layered haircut.

Having said that, seeing a clip from “LAX 2194,” a comedy about luggage handlers in space that Perry had already signed on to before “Friends” came along, buys back some of my patience. That and a scene from the other middling comedy that similarly locked up Aniston, are absurd reminders of how much stupidity floats in this industry’s stream beside once-in-a-generation shows like this one.

Even they aren’t as entertaining as the unexpected blips of spontaneity within this thoroughly staged live production, such as when Kudrow howls in reaction to Schwimmer pointing out a bug in her hair or when LeBlanc giggles at various jokes he pulled during production.

You have to power through a whole lot of standard reunion rickrack – the present-day table reads of memorable scenes, the clapter-ginning cameos from the likes of Tom Selleck, Thomas Lennon and Cara Delevingne – to get to these interesting flashes, along with a couple of pieces of truly gasp-inducing, previously unrevealed dish.

Well, one bit of dish and some cameos reviewers have been asked not to mention. Given the dearth of actual surprises here it would be a cruel disservice to spoil them.

Instead let’s talk about what isn’t answered, starting with the question generated by the nostalgic fun fact listed on the opening title card. “Since the finale, the six cast members have been in a room only once. Until today . . .”

Considering how much energy and focus is expended on selling the genuine lasting friendship the cast has shared all these years one would think Corden’s natural first question would be, “Why is that?”

This is never definitively asked nor answered. Maybe the special’s producers assume everyone watching recalls that everybody but Perry reunited for a James Burrows tribute in 2016. (Perry was committed to a stage production in London at the time.) Maybe they gambled we’d be more moved by knowing they still enjoy each other’s company now.

But obviously if Corden can’t bring himself to float that question, nobody’s fielding any queries about how the show’s completely white version of 1990s New York City strikes them in 2021. To that end the stroll down Memory Lane passing through the guest star cul de sac includes archival clips of Paul Rudd, Ben Stiller and even a mildly uncomfortable Brad Pitt citation . . . but nary a mention of Aisha Tyler, who appeared in nine episodes as Charlie Wheeler and is quite a big star these days.

And why would Corden take that risk, when an audience member’s question of, “Was there anything you didn’t like?” is all it takes for him to quip, “Way to keep it positive”? (Schwimmer’s totally uncontroversial answer will not surprise you! Hint: in involves a creature with disgusting habits.) The “Friends: Reunion” isn’t in the business of looking back through time with brash clarity or sobering perspective. If you want that, cue up the reunion for “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air,” where Will Smith reconciles with Janet Hubert, the original Aunt Viv, whose recasting went down more cruelly than we previously expected.

So without much in the way of steamy goss or sober truth bombs, what is left that makes “Friends: The Reunion” must-see TV? Not much, unless all you want is to watch six wealthy besties wistfully reminisce about the good times they shared with billions of people around the world, through the 236 episodes of TV they made together. If that’s enough for you, terrific. The rest of us are welcome to go about our lives or bask in the shadow of the Friendly Finger.

“Friends: The Reunion” is currently streaming on HBO Max.

Wisconsin GOP may tap ex-cop who cried voter fraud in 2008 to lead investigation into 2020 election

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos is hiring a group of retired police officers to investigate the 2020 election, joining Republican leaders around the country in probing baseless allegations of voter fraud in response to former President Donald Trump’s false claims.

Vos told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he has hired three retired cops and an attorney to oversee the group, which will have a “broad mandate” to investigate all tips related to grants that helped cities fund their elections, claims of double voting and how clerks fixed absentee ballot credentials. The team will have subpoena power.

Vos told the outlet that he recognizes President Joe Biden won the state and is not looking to reverse the results with the taxpayer-funded probe.

“Is there a whole lot of smoke or is there actual fire?” Vos asked. “We just don’t know yet.”

His comments come just days after the state’s Elections Commission released a report which found only 27 potential cases of voter fraud out of 3.3 million votes cast in Wisconsin. Recounts and audits in other contested states won by Biden, like Georgia, have also found no evidence of any widespread fraud or irregularities — but that has not stopped Republican lawmakers of pushing additional partisan “audits” in search of any evidence that could alter the results or even back up Trump’s fictitious claims.

As The Washington Post’s Dave Weigel pointed out on Twitter, Vos has suggested he will tap former Milwaukee Officer Mike Sandvick to head the investigation. Sandvick previously led a 2008 investigation into the state’s 2004 election results that he claimed found an “illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of an election in the state of Wisconsin.”

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett’s office quickly questioned the accuracy of the findings at the time and the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School later released a report showing that the investigation found mostly clerical errors and “only one potential vote that might have involved in-person impersonation fraud, with no documentation verifying that the vote in question was actually cast.”

“The Milwaukee Police Department released a report on that election, with what appears to be a painstaking investigation of the facts, and policy recommendations offered with less care and disavowed by the Milwaukee Police Chief,” said the Brennan Center’s Justin Levitt. “The department’s careful factual investigation primarily revealed administrative mistakes and, occasionally, negligence. It showed that much of what had originally been identified as potential fraud was in fact due to clerical error.”

Sandvick cited his dubious findings to push lawmakers to implement new laws tackling voter fraud despite failing to prove a single instance. He ultimately resigned after his unit was barred from polling places and his police recommendations were rejected.

Vos told the Journal-Sentinel that his goal with the new investigation is to identify laws that should be changed in response to voters who he said “believe the election was illegitimate.”

“The election’s already over,” he said. “My job is to be frustrated with the result, which I am, especially with what’s going on in Washington, D.C. … My job is to say where are the laws being followed, where are they not? If they’re not being followed, how can I fix it?”

Wisconsin Republicans have already voted to approve multiple bills to make it harder to vote, though they face likely vetoes from Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Vos’ probe comes even though Republicans already ordered the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct a months-long audit of the election in February in response to Trump’s failed lawsuits in the state. Vos said his investigation will run separately from the existing audit.

“I think it’s unfortunate that the Legislature is using its resources to investigate what has already been thoroughly investigated and it is my hope that instead they could work toward expanding opportunities and ease of voting for Wisconsin voters,” Ann Jacobs, a Democrat who heads the Wisconsin Elections Commission, told the Journal-Sentinel.

Jeffrey Mandell, a voting rights attorney who represented Evers and Democrats in court, noted that fewer than 30 instances of possible fraud have been identified in the nearly seven months since the election.

“Separate and apart from the fact that this is a fishing expedition in a dry lake, to look for fraud in 2020, I also just think that trying to perpetuate the big lie and continuing to give oxygen to this is just bad for democracy,” he told the outlet.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party accused Republicans of wasting taxpayer dollars to pursue baseless allegations.

“Wisconsin Republicans won’t fund healthcare, schools, or infrastructure … but they will authorize unlimited funds to desperately prove conspiracy theories about the 2020 election,” a spokesperson for the party said on Twitter.

Taxpayers are on the hook in other states where Republicans have refused to let up their election claims despite finding no evidence of widespread fraud in more than half a year since Trump lost.

Local officials in New Hampshire and Michigan have pushed for their own audits after questioning the certified results of the election. A Georgia judge last week ordered Fulton County, one of the state’s most populous and diverse areas, to allow voters to inspect all 147,000 mail-in ballots cast in last year’s election. And Arizona Republicans hired the private firm Cyber Ninjas to conduct a bizarre “audit” even though the company has no experience and auditors have spent time searching for traces of bamboo over conspiracy theories that ballots were printed in “Asia.”

After Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, called the audit a dangerous and costly “farce,” the Republican-led state legislature moved to strip her of legal powers and hand them to the state’s Republican attorney general.

Survey: Religion, right-wing news consumption are strong predictors of QAnon beliefs

People who believe in QAnon often self-describe as independent thinkers, not beholden to any media, corporate, or government propaganda. Yet a new study finds that the easiest way to predict whether someone will support the conspiratorial far right movement is if they consume the same far right media sources.

A new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that nearly half of Americans who believe far-right news outlets like Newsmax and OANN, as well as one-third who trust Fox News, subscribe to the QAnon belief that a “storm” will sweep politicians they dislike out of power and install beloved far right figures like Trump.

Religion, too, is a major factor in predicting whether someone is a QAnon adherent; specifically, white evangelical Protestants, Hispanic Protestants and Mormons are most likely to believe in QAnon. Americans without college degrees are three times more likely than those with them to believe in QAnon.

Overall, nearly one out of seven Americans, as well as fully one out of four Republicans, is a QAnon believer.

Perhaps most notable among the polling statistics, however, is the revelation that media news consumption is “by far the strongest independent predictor of QAnon beliefs.”

Robert P. Jones, Ph.D., the CEO and founder of PRRI, told Salon in an email that “as the country is becoming less white and Christian,” Americans who are attracted to the politics of grievance subscribe to a mutually reinforcing right-wing ecosystem of ideas. Republican partisanship and right-wing media outlets all play a role in this, and they in turn fuel the conspiracy theory movement known as QAnon.

Salon inquired whether QAnon adherents and people who subscribe to Donald Trump’s 2020 election Big Lie seem to be motivated by white supremacist or Christian supremacist ideals.

“We unfortunately don’t have variables in this dataset to demonstrate that directly, but the demographic characteristics of those who are most likely to believe in QAnon are consistent with those attracted to the politics of grievance and displacement that was key to Trump’s ‘Make American Great Again’ messaging, something I noted in my book ‘The End of White Christian America,’” Jones wrote to Salon. “Believing that the country is becoming unrecognizable because of demographic change or that non-European immigrants are replacing white Anglo-Saxon Protestants also runs high among these demographic groups.”

This raises a chicken-and-egg question: Are these people being figuratively brainwashed by propaganda, or are those media companies simply giving their customers what they want?

“It is likely that the connection is a two-way street: people who hold QAnon beliefs have migrated to these far right media outlets and those who watch these outlets have become more susceptible to believing these conspiracy theories as they are exposed to them on these outlets,” Jones told Salon. He observed that conspiracy theories have throughout history seemed most attractive to people who feel threatened when a perceived social order is being disrupted.

“As the country is changing, these are also people who are generally less trusting of institutions and society, who feel threatened by these cultural and economic changes, and who are attracted to theories that promise that the familiar order of the world will soon be set right,” Jones pointed out.

In addition to their support for Trump, QAnon adherents believe that they are privy to an underground truth that the mainstream media refuses to cover. They argue that a secret cabal of elite, Satanic pedophiles secretly runs the world, and that far right-wingers like Trump are engaged in a titanic struggle against them. There is also considerable overlap between QAnon adherence and susceptibility to Trump’s pre-election propaganda that if he lost the election was stolen. This ultimately culminated in an unsuccessful insurrection attempt after Trump became the first president to lose an election and refuse to accept the result.

Moby is happily boring now: “I look at the desperation that I had … I don’t glorify the past”

Maybe the best way to describe “Moby Doc,” the new documentary about the Grammy-nominated musician, DJ and activist, is to say that David Bowie and David Lynch feature prominently in it.

In other words, it’s surreal and strange and goes in unpredictable directions. It’s sad and funny and weird. There is concert footage and vintage clips and there are interviews, like you’d expect, but there are also imagined therapy sessions and re-enactments and animation, all in service of a story that’s as much a meditation on reckoning with one’s past self as it is a portrait of an individual artist. 

The 55-year-old artist appeared on “Salon Talks” recently to discuss aging, animal rights and the pleasures of his “boring” life in sobriety. 

This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.

You’ve got a new album coming revisiting your older songs out called “Reprise,” and are the subject of a new documentary. You also published two memoirs in just the last five years. Why did you want to tell your story in these unique formats right now?

It’s probably the product of being a relatively solipsistic only child. If someone says it’s just narcissism, I’m like, “Yeah, maybe.” But also I got sober around 13 years ago. I realized when I started going to 12-step meetings, one of my favorite things was hearing people’s stories, because I’d never really experienced this, sitting in a room with 20 strangers and having these 20 strangers bare their souls, with a very narrative component, but such honesty.

I started thinking, there’s literary precedent here. I’ve personally benefited from hearing other people’s stories told in an either entertaining way or honest way or, ideally, both. In telling your story, hopefully you’re sharing something of your experience or your insights that might reach someone and make them more comfortable maybe with the things that they’re hiding or the things that they’re ashamed of. Worst case scenario, it’s just an exercise in self-involvement and narcissism, and then people don’t have to pay attention.

Doing this movie, were you informed by the last two books you wrote, by the reactions, by the controversies?

It’s a great, relevant question, but that never came up. I don’t know why. We just kind of ignored it, almost unintentionally siloing things. The memoirs have an unconventional structure at times, but they’re still relatively conventional as far as the way in which they were written, the way in which they’re put together, whereas the movie is very unconventional. We were mainly thinking about, how do you tell a story, how do you make a documentary that doesn’t rely on tried and true documentary tropes?

I used to be a judge for Tribeca Film Festival documentary, and I was a judge for the International Documentary Association, their music documentaries. I’ve watched a lot of music documentaries, and some of them are wonderful, but they’re all kind of the same. I’m not maligning the world of music documentaries, but they tend to be chronological, some archival stuff, some new performances, tons of interviews with people telling you why the subject is interesting, as opposed to showing the subject being interesting. So director Rob Gordon Bralver and I just thought, okay, let’s dispense with almost every conventional documentary narrative device and see what we’re left with. If we want to tell a story, instead of saying, “How do we interview someone?” say, “What weird thing can we do that we think is interesting?”

There are a lot of themes that come up in this film, and one of them is looking back and confronting the person you were at different points in life. Did it feel different doing that in a cinematic way?

That’s ultimately the goal of the movie, and whether anyone will take this away with them from watching it, it’s looking at the human condition as represented through one person and their story. Looking at fear, shame, anxiety, the mistakes made as a result of being a part of the human condition, and hopefully coming to a place of resolution.

Aging is part and parcel of the human condition, if we’re lucky. Or if we’re not lucky. Aging is either the blessing of staying alive or the curse of staying alive. It’s hard to take it personally, as is true with a lot of other aspects of the human condition, like watching the people around us get sick and die, sliding into quasi irrelevance. It’s just the nature of things, becoming less attractive, becoming less sexual, becoming  diminished by the criteria of youth and beauty. But it’s okay, because it happens to everybody. Hopefully there’s a degree of acceptance that can come along with that.

The idea of looking at the way in which I tried to almost insulate myself from my past and from the human condition more broadly. I believed, like a lot of people believed and continue to believe, that a degree of fame, a degree of external validation, was going to have this phenomenal magic utility of fixing all my prior issues and inuring me from the broader ravages of the human condition. In the documentary, the idea was to try and demonstrate it, sometimes very painfully, very uncomfortably, the lengths that I went to to try and accomplish that.

How do you reconcile the person you are now with the person who did those things? Do you have regrets? 

It’s fascinating because now I’m sober and I’m boring. Trust me, I’m not going to write a memoir about my life now because it would be one page long and you could just go to Kinko’s and Xerox that one page and make 300 and staple it together, and that’s my year. Wake up, have a smoothie, work on music, go hiking, read a book, watch TV. There you go. Copy and paste for the entire memoir. I think it’s a fascinating paradox when you, in this case me, look back at your past and you understand on a genetic level, that you are that person, apart from maybe some epigenetic variables. You are the human that you were 20 years ago.

When I look back at that person, I don’t recognize him, but I know fully that it was me. I look at the desperation that I had and the terrible choices that I made and the fact that I was drunk and high six or seven days a week, the fact that I was filled with anxiety and despair and desperately trying to control everything in my life. It’s such an odd dissociative paradox where I don’t see myself in that, but I know it’s me.

A lot of people over this past year have not been able to maintain their mental health or their sobriety. You have that blessing of that boring life. How do you do it? How do you get to stay boring?

Partially it’s because my past was so egregious. I read this story about, I think he was a South Korean monk, and he got a job working in a fast food restaurant when he was in his 20s. He was the happiest person in the world. He did the worst jobs, like cleaning the toilets, cleaning the dumpster out back.He happily did everything. I read this interview with him. He said people are always coming up to him saying, “How could you be so happy? What form of meditation do you do? What spiritual tradition are you aligned with? What’s your practice?” He said, “Oh no, you don’t understand. I spent 15 years sleeping on a stone floor in the cold eating old rice. This is great.” He’s like, “I’m not happy because of meditation. I’m happy, because I’m warm.” 

I don’t want to go back to the past. I don’t glorify the past. There’s no part of it that’s attractive to me because I was able to bottom out so badly. It’s one of the benefits of getting close to death and really bottoming out in the worst way, you recoil as if from a hot flame. The happiness is also looking at, maybe this is not the nice thing to admit, but looking at the mistakes that other people make. Social media and media in general is a really good way to see other people, not the mistakes of anxiety, depression, whatever, but just people behaving badly and people grasping unnecessarily. I understand the inclination to want to do that. But thank you for showing me what it looks like. I’m just going to go make my smoothie and read another John Cheever story.

This film is bookended by your relationship with animals. Another big part of your story is growing up in poverty. What can all of us as consumers do so that people who don’t have access to healthy foods not based on cruelty can be doing to feed their families?

I put out a book about 12 or 14 years ago about the consequences of animal agriculture, our food system, called “Gristle.” Not a fun read. It’s looking at animal agriculture from a bunch of different perspectives. From health, from climate, from the animal producers themselves, from communities. I did a very small book tour. And that question was the recurring, very valid, legitimate question. The answer is subsidies.

Everything comes down to subsidies, because without subsidies, unhealthy food would disappear, especially meat and dairy. A family of four who currently go to Burger King because it’s their only viable option, that’s subsidies. Now, that same family of four, if they went to Burger King without subsidies, it’d be $75. It’s trillions of dollars of global subsidies, direct, federal, local, state, indirect subsidizing the production of food that’s killing us, food that causes cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, food that has no fiber, that has no antioxidants, there’s nothing fresh about it. It’s subsidies.

With all my friends on the political side and the animal rights movement on the health side, everyone just scratches their head and they’re like, “How do you address subsidies?” It’s interesting, but Tom Vilsack, he’s in the Biden administration, he used to be the problem. A senator from Iowa who protected subsidies for pig farmers, for dairy producers, and now he’s slowly saying, “Okay.” There’s a little bit of daylight there and I’m encouraged, but still so profoundly frustrated that your tax dollars, my tax dollars, everybody’s tax dollars, support industries that kill us, that make it impossible for people to find healthy food in food deserts. It’s all subsidies. People can point to tradition. People can point to marketing. You can point to all of those things and those are all variables, but as long as we spend hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax dollars to subsidize food that is destroying us, we will be destroyed.

In the past couple of years, you’ve been getting tatted up. The neck, the face, the arms. You’ve been a vegan for over 30 years. What made you want to externalize it in this particular way?

One, I don’t have a real job, so it’s not like I’m going to get fired for having facial tattoos or tattoos. Two, there is nothing more important to me than ending the use of animals for human purposes, for the sake of the animals, for the sake of human health, for the sake of the rainforest, for the sake of climate, for the sake of antibiotic resistance, on and on and on. Animal agriculture is the worst industry in human history in terms of the horrible ways it destroys everything it touches. I feel like, one of the reasons we don’t address animal agriculture is people almost can’t wrap their head around how terrible it is, how utterly disastrous it is, to the point where at COP21, they wouldn’t even mention it. It’s the third leading cause of climate change. You have a climate change conference and no one at the conference will talk about it.

I was talking to Al Gore, and Al Gore describes it as the real inconvenient truth. For me, working to end animal agriculture, working to end the use of animals by and for humans, that’s my life’s work. All this other stuff is interesting and I love it. Like music, books, movies, I love it. It’s partially why I don’t think of that as a career, because it’s too much fun. It’s almost like the fun thing I do when I’m not working animal rights.

“Moby Doc” is in theaters and digital platforms beginning Friday, May 28.

Trump Org. witness says she faces eviction for speaking out about alleged crimes

Jennifer Weisselberg, the former daughter-in-law of Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, told CNN on Thursday that she’s facing being evicted from her apartment because she’s publicly speaking out about potential criminal activity within former President Donald Trump’s business.

During a lengthy interview, host John Berman asked Weisselberg if she’s faced any retaliation for her willingness to talk about the testimony she’s provided in the Manhattan District Attorney’s probe of the Trump Organization.

“Yes,” she replied. “Allen Weisselberg is on my lease… yesterday I was served to leave my apartment within the next seven days. So that’s a threat! That’s a threat!”

Berman then asked her what the justification was for the sudden eviction.

“So Monday night, on another network, I appeared with Michael Cohen and Stephanie Winston Wolkoff,” she explained. “I spoke about details on the Trump payroll corp on that show… there’s definitely tax evasion. For the first time they seem really nervous.”

Weisselberg then said that she believed her former father-in-law would flip on his former boss, in part because he’s 75 years old and wouldn’t want to spend any time in jail.

Watch the video below via CNN:

Trump Organization witnesses are prepping for testimony with prosecutors: report

New York prosecutors are reportedly readying Trump Organization witnesses to testify before a special grand jury in a criminal case involving Donald Trump, his eponymous company, and several Trump-affiliated executives. 

According to a new report by ABC News, the move indicates that the investigation, led by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., has entered into a more advanced stage and that Vance may now be moving on from evidence collection to a formal indictment. 

“It’s very rare for there to be a special grand jury empaneled in Manhattan supreme court and for that jury not to consider charges at some point,” Daniel Alonso, a former chief assistant district attorney in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, told CNN. 

Adam S. Kaufmann, who was the chief of the office’s investigative unit, echoed that “it really suggests they’ve reached a point in their investigation where the district attorney believes there’s evidence of a crime.” He added: “You don’t empanel a special grand jury unless you think you have a viable case.”

Special grand juries – as opposed to federal grand juries – are only called for in cases of high complexity, as CNN noted. Special grand juries are unique in that they do not allow prosecutors to present what’s called “hearsay evidence,” where an outside legal authority presents the facts of the case on behalf of a witness. In special grand jury hearings, all witnesses must be questioned directly.

Vance’s investigation dates back to August 2019, when the district attorney subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, for documents related to Trump’s personal and business tax returns on suspicion that Trump may have inflated the value of his real estate assets to secure low-interest loans and underserved tax breaks. Trump has since fought tooth and nail to block the probe in court, but his efforts have mostly been shot down, as Salon reported. 

Also in ambit of Vance’s probe is Trump’s alleged hush money payments made to various women with whom the former President has alleged extramarital affairs, as well as the Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who may have illegally taken advantage of company perks for his family. 

In an MSNBC interview on Tuesday, former federal prosecutor Harry Litman expressed a fair amount of confidence that the case is not looking in Trump’s favor. “The grand jury’s going to get everything and that’s true,” said Litman. “We know that the — that was the inception of the case, but then, they got the mother lode. They got the tax returns, going back and forth to the Supreme Court twice to get them.”

That same day, President Trump called the investigation the “greatest Witch Hunt in American history.”

“This is purely political, and an affront to the almost 75 million voters who supported me in the Presidential Election, and it’s being driven by highly partisan Democrat prosecutors,” the former President declared. 

The jury is set to meet three days a week over the course of three to six months.

Molly Yeh’s casually progressive “Girl Meets Farm” is a multicultural cottagecore fantasy

Many are not convinced that the crunchy snap pea popcorn salad is as good as advertised on Molly Yeh's Food Network series "Girl Meets Farm." While Yeh's cheerful manner is typically infectious, her approving grin as she tasted her popcorn salad may have come across to the Internet as something more akin to a grimace. 

While I'm theoretically not a fan of mayo-slathered popcorn and vegetables, I do believe that popcorn salad is a side dish enjoyed by people, even if it never catches in the mainstream. Overwhelmingly, the Facebook comments section reads "I'm from the Midwest and I've never heard of this abomination." But that's the beauty of showcasing hyper-regional dishes, "classic Midwestern dishes that you would often find in a church-basement potluck," as described by Yeh. Midwestern food isn't a monolith, and there are many appetizing dishes still left undiscovered because they haven't found a place in the commercialized mainstream.

Once you get past the unauthorized use of popcorn and acknowledge it as an acceptable substitute for croutons, popcorn salad is not a poorly constructed recipe. It's relatively balanced. The sharpness of the mustard, vinegar, and vinegar are meant to combat the creaminess of mayo. Snap peas and celery offer crunch in place of popcorn.

Though it has become a point of unlikely controversy, popcorn salad is classic Molly Yeh and representative of a well-intentioned curiosity towards the culinary offerings of the rural Midwest. Although "Midwestern" cooking has come to be codified as "white people food," Yeh manages to contextualize regional recipes, creating and remixing the dishes of her new hometown with the attention that one would typically give a foreign cuisine. Within the stylized safe space of food media, "Girl Meets Farm" presents a surprisingly novel story of belonging: a Chinese-Jewish city girl percussionist existing comfortably as a person of difference on a North Dakota farm.  

The casually progressive nature of the show is not a coincidence. Yeh and her show's team are careful to avoid spinning a narrative about a young woman domesticated by her husband and life on the farm or saddled with the burden of introducing her "provincial" in-laws to "exotic" foods from her culture

If anything, the time away from urban life allowed Yeh to invest in herself and her creative projects. She may be considered one of the pre-cottagecore trendsetters back when it was called "New Domesticity," as coined by Emily Matchar. The homesteaders of the 2010s didn't end up at the farm out of a sense of motherly or wifely obligation, but rather to follow a yearning for a rustic lifestyle that included labor-intensive domestic work like baking, sewing, or tending to chickens. Within the context of third-wave feminism, followers of New Domesticity viewed their labor as valuable and less oppressive than traditional urban white-collar work, and they blogged about it in a way that emphasized their own empowerment. 

To that end, being around rural Midwesterners encourages Yeh's sense of culinary adventure and presents an opportunity for a cultural exchange. She gains access to recipes like cookie salad, hotdish, and lefse (Norwegian flatbread) that one would only know by cultivating social connections. This idea of coming to understand people by understanding their food presents Midwestern food as being part of a larger culture and tradition. In fact, their dishes reflect an inventiveness when there is little access to fresh vegetables during the winter or "nonstandard" ingredients. 

Her desire to do right by local culture is part of what makes lefse-making so stressful, as described in her book "Molly on the Range." "Making lefse, if it's not in your blood, takes time, practice, online tutorial videos, emergency trips to the store for a new skillet, frantic calls to your great-aunt-in-law Ethel, and a long wooden stick. Talk about a way to make a girl question whether or not she belongs in her new town." Instead of feeling limited to only foods that reflect her own background and ethnicity, her takeaway from the experience is that lefse-making is a community effort that "should also include a team of people, not just your sad frustrated self." 

The recipes of "Girl Meets Farm" pull from the American public domain (such as funfetti cake), the Midwest, and Yeh's Chinese and Jewish heritage. Her recipes tend to play it safe, possibly in order to appeal to her family, neighbors, and the Food Network audience. But given that "Girl Meets Farm" is fundamentally rooted in organic experimentation, Vox's Emily Vanderwerff points out an implicit conflict present in Yeh's show model. This boils down to "whether this will be the week her mother-in-law finally exclaims, 'My god! I love tahini!'" 

Despite this possible tension, her friends and family are captured performatively enjoying her creations. While this scene is typical for Food Network shows, this ending avoids a popular Asian-American media narrative where ethnic foods are presented a source of embarrassment and alienation, a source of stress for the only person without a PB&J in the lunchroom. On "Girl Meets Farm," however, it's assumed that the audience will enjoy new foods without coaxing, especially since they're often a twist on the familiar. This hanging tahini question may have less to do with Yeh's ethnicity and seems more related to the urban/rural divide. People need time to adjust to unfamiliar foods, and the novelty of Yeh's recipes contrast with the traditional attitude on a farm that food is mostly a functional source of nutrients.  

Author and activist bell hooks wrote, "Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture." But when Yeh incorporates Middle Eastern influences in traditional comfort foods, it doesn't come across as calculated like that of fusion restaurants experimenting in "LEGO cookery" that pander to demographics willing to overpay.  

When it comes to fusion food, Yeh quite literally empathizes with her own creation. In her cookbook, she identifies closely with scallion pancake challah, referring to it as herself in "bread form": a combination of her "comfort bread" and "guilty pleasure." She originally developed the recipe for an article on a Jewish site where her assignment was to explain what it's like to be Chinese and Jewish. The recipe serves as a thought exercise and a representation of herself, suggesting that she finds her own sense of identity through food. The precedent for "Chinese-Jewish-American" culture exists visibly in few other areas, so it's encouraging to watch her and her family forge their own definitions.

Having grown up in a multicultural household, Yeh embodies a wish to coalesce the different influences within her identity. Recipe development comes from an ability to recognize universality amongst different cuisines and experiment with flavors and concepts rooted in the lived experience as opposed to pure calculation. 

Despite what may sound like a tension-laden concept, "Girl Meets Farm" takes a straightforwardly cheerful attitude towards trying and making new things. While the show plays with identity through food, "Girl Meets Farm" belongs in the food media world, where this exploration can exist outside of identity politics' baggage. When the center of attention is food to be shared with others, there is not a lot of room for conflict beyond anticipating and keeping an eye on potential technical snags such as making sure that the butter is cold for an optimally flaky crust.

Amy Cooper’s “racial discrimination” lawsuit and the scourge of white whining

Oh boy! Amy Cooper — the infamous “Central Park Karen” — clearly has no problem reminding everyone of her infamy.

On Wednesday, it was reported that Cooper is suing her former employer, investment firm Franklin Templeton, for — you guessed it! — racial discrimination. Cooper had her 15 minutes of national attention last year when she called the police on Christian Cooper (no relation), a Black man and birding enthusiast who asked her to leash her dog in a leash-only area of New York City’s Central Park. Mr. Cooper filmed her telling 911 that “I’m being threatened by a man,” which wasn’t true. 

While Christian Cooper left before any police arrived, the video was chilling — especially in light of the epidemic of police violence against Black people in the U.S. Quite literally, the incident happened the very same day that Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin calmly murdered George Floyd in full view of a crowd of witnesses. Cooper herself released public statements last year insisting that she is “not a racist” and “did not mean to harm that man,” but nonetheless claiming, “It was unacceptable, and I humbly and fully apologize to everyone who’s seen that video.”

Her firm still let her go.  


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


Those who were understandably skeptical of Cooper’s “apology” are no doubt vindicated by her lawsuit, in which she claims she “was alone in the park and frightened to death,” a claim that anyone who watches the video has every right to be skeptical of. (It’s worth a rewatch, to be reminded of how calm Amy Cooper is when she threatens Christian Cooper, and how she turns on the “scared” voice when the call to 911 patches through.) She also accuses the bird watcher of being “overzealous,” even though she was the one who had to take a “therapeutic” class on racial bias in order to get the charge of filing a false police report dismissed.

But while Cooper’s arrogance is truly next level, her playing-the-victim lawsuit is emblematic of a wave of white whininess that’s crashing over the U.S. right now, as large numbers of white people — mostly, but not exclusively Donald Trump voters — convince themselves that it’s not racism that is a problem in the U.S., but the bogeyman of white people being victimized by anti-racists. 

Take, for instance, the surge of chatter about “critical race theory.” If you have no idea what the hell your drunk uncle is talking about when he raves about this on Facebook, well, you’re not alone. Critical race theory was, until this year, an obscure concept outside of the narrow confines of legal scholarship, used mainly by law professors to explain the historical reasons for ongoing racial inequalities baked into the legal system.

But “critical race theory” sure does sound scary to defensive white people who are sure the “woke” mob is going to find out about that racist joke they told at a poker game last year and “cancel” them, as Fox News keeps warning will happen. And so right-wing media has spent months making sure the term “critical race theory”  is on the lips of every Donald Trump voter still mad that they “let” Philadelphia and Detroit vote in the 2020 election. 

The idea that “critical race theory” is a widespread threat to white people was invented, whole cloth, by the right-wing media and then pumped out vigorously. As the Washington Post reported, mentions of “critical race theory” on cable news simply didn’t exist prior to this year, but there’s been an explosion of uses of that term on Fox News in recent months. A similar study from Media Matters shows that, by early May, the term had been used — inaccurately in most, if not all, cases — on Fox News at least 552 times in the past year. 

The right would have you believe that it’s the left that made “critical race theory” a thing, and they are merely reacting. But another study of Facebook posts by Media Matters found that pretty much the only people talking about “critical race theory” online are Republicans, with nearly 90% of the posts from political pages and 97% of the interactions coming from conservative figures. 

To be certain, there is nothing wrong with real-life critical race theory, which is a valuable tool for academics analyzing legal and cultural issues. But right-wing media doesn’t use the term accurately. It’s just a stand-in for a generalized fear that “woke” culture is coming to get white people. And also, of course, as justification to silence — or, as one might say, cancel — any discussion or attempt to educate people, especially students, about the existence or history of racism in America

The result has been an explosion of bills in red states that, under the guise of protecting white people from being discriminated against, are banning “critical race theory.” But, as critics told Adam Harris at The Atlantic, the real purpose is to “effectively prevent public schools and universities from holding discussions about racism” — including, quite likely in many cases, teaching kids the truth about slavery and Jim Crow in history class. 

In Oklahoma, for instance, a new law bans any school curriculum that could cause a student to “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.” The bill is packed full of nice-sounding language about non-discrimination and racial equality, but it’s obvious that the real purpose is to scare teachers away from discussing any history — such as the 1921 Tulsa race massacre — that could unsettle white kids whose parents raised them to believe racism isn’t real. After signing the bill into law, Oklahoma’s Republican governor was booted from the centennial commission on the Tulsa massacre. The commission’s director said that the ban signed by Gov. Kevin Stills “chills the ability of educators to teach students, of any age, and will only serve to intimidate educators who seek to reveal and process our hidden history.”


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


This hyperventilating white victimhood mentality is also on full display in Missouri, where lawyer Mark McCloskey announced his Senate candidacy earlier this month. McCloskey became infamous last summer when he and his wife, Patricia McCloskey, were taped waving guns at a group of Black Lives Matter protesters who were peacefully marching in the street by their house.

In his Fox News announcement, McCloskey claimed, “God came knocking on my door disguised as an angry mob. In reality, no one knocked on his door. Protesters were, quite literally, just walking by to get to another location and only interacted with the McCloskeys after they pulled guns on them. McCloskey also whined about “critical race theory,” and for all we know, he also has delusions that this previously obscure bit of academic jargon knocked on his door. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post characterized McCloskey’s announcement as the “anti-leftist hyperbole you hear constantly from Republicans,” noting that it is the result of “the complete unshackling of oneself from any empirical constraints in depicting the leftist threat.” 

And this problem is only growing.

As Jennifer Chudy and Hakeem Jefferson report at the New York Times, “Republicans and white people have actually become less supportive of Black Lives Matter than they were before the death of George Floyd.” In the past year, the majority of white people saw all this evidence of racism and police violence, and somehow still found their way to a story where white people are the real victims and the bad guys are the people speaking out against racism.

So sure, Amy Cooper’s narcissism and self-pity may seem over the top, but the sad truth is she is just a particularly noxious example of a nationwide problem. Trump managed to get a shocking 74 million votes, more than any Republican candidate in history, after running a campaign that was a full-on right-wing fantasy about “cancel culture” more than about any real issues facing the nation. In 2021, the majority of white Americans would rather believe a fantasy where they’re the victims, rather than admit, even just a tiny bit, that racism is still a real problem. And, like Amy Cooper, they’re taking their self-pitying delusions out on everyone else.

New power grab: Arizona Republicans move to strip powers from Democratic secretary of state

Republicans in Arizona’s state legislature approved a bill on Tuesday designed to prevent Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, from influencing election lawsuits. The apparent goal of this latest Republican power grab is to keep the unofficial “audit” of 2020 votes in Maricopa County — the state’s major population center — intact following bitter criticism from Hobbs. 

The bill, HB 2891, strips all authority to act on behalf of state governments in election lawsuits from the secretary of state and transfers it to the attorney general, who is currently Mark Brnovich, a Republican. Notably, this measure, passed by the Appropriations committees in both houses of the Arizona legislature, is not permanent, but would apply only through Jan. 2, 2023 — the beginning of new terms for both officials.

“The legislature intends that the attorney general make all strategic decisions regarding election litigation and be allowed to intervene on behalf of this state if the attorney general determines, in the attorney general’s sole discretion, that the intervention is appropriate,” the bill reads

It also adds that “the attorney general has sole authority in all election litigation to direct the defense of election laws, to appeal or petition any decision and to intervene on behalf of this state at any stage, regardless of whether any state agency, any political subdivision or any officer or employee of this state or any state agency or political subdivision is, or seeks to become, a party.”

The bill would bar Brnovich from providing legal advice to Hobbs until June 20, 2023. While the bill grants Hobbs the option of hiring one full-time legal adviser to represent both them, she would be prohibited from “spending or incurring indebtedness to employ outside or private attorneys to provide representation or services.” These provisions are meant to remain in force through the end of Brnovich and Hobbs’ current terms in office. 

Arizona Democrats have described the Republican-backed bill as a blatant “power-grab” in the context of the agonizingly slow Maricopa County audit ordered by the state Senate, which is widely viewed as an effort to boost Donald Trump’s false claims that Arizona’s election system is flawed or corrupt. 

“It’s troubling and disturbing,” Democratic state Rep. Randy Friese told The Arizona Republic. “It’s quite nefarious that it only lasts through 2022.” 

Hobbs herself called the measure a clear effort to undermine confidence in Arizona’s election system. “All year our legislature has worked to undermine our elections — from a wave of bills to make it harder to vote to the ridiculous ‘audit’ taking place at the Coliseum,” she tweeted. “It appears the next step is an attempt to undermine Arizona’s Chief Elections Officer and prevent me from doing the job Arizonans elected me to do.”

https://twitter.com/SecretaryHobbs/status/1396994072326275078

Hobbs specifically singled out Brnovich, saying he had “engaged in a pattern of behavior … that violated his duties as an attorney.” Hobbs also revealed that she had filed a confidential complaint against Brnovich in October. 

“He frequently sought to substitute his judgment for my own and allowed his political preferences to interfere with this obligation to represent me as a client, in my pursuit of the best interests of Arizona voters,” Hobbs said.

Though the bill has yet to pass a full vote in the state legislature, Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican who has tried to straddle pro- and anti-Trump forces within his party, has indicated he is likely to sign it.

Will the “forever chemicals” in our cookware be with us forever?

PFAS (or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances), a class of chemicals sometimes known as “forever chemicals” because they never break down completely — leaving them in our soils, water and bodies forever — may soon be better regulated. The PFAS Action Act of 2021 would set drinking water standards and classify PFAS as hazardous substances, limit discharges, prohibit unsafe disposal, pave the way for contaminated sites to be cleaned up and even create an (albeit) voluntary warning label requirement on nonstick cookware, the most common household item to be made with PFAS. Similar bills were introduced during the last presidential administration but they faced an uphill battle with the Environmental Protection Agency, who wanted to look at each chemical separately instead of as a class.

How do PFAS end up in drinking water? 

Where are these chemicals found and how do they end up in everything from our drinking water and cookware to our takeout food containers? PFAS are found in a huge number of products, acting as a flame retardant in firefighting foam and as a greaseproof coating on all kinds of surfaces. PFAS are increasingly common in soil and groundwater, especially near airports and military bases, where firefighting foam is used in huge quantities. PFAS exposure in drinking water has been linked to assorted health problems, including kidney disease, endocrine and immune system disruption and cancer. But it isn’t just PFAS from flame retardants that end up in water: the manufacturing and disposal of products like nonstick cookware and greaseproof food packaging also get these chemicals into the environment.

The latest on nonstick pans and PFAS

For a while now it’s been known that Teflon and other nonstick cookware are made with dangerous chemicals: older formulations were manufactured with a chemical called PFOA, which the industry has mostly phased out for its widely-publicized health risks. Teflon itself, a chemical called PTFE, is still in use but becoming less common, in part due to consumer concern. But while the industry has responded to consumer fears about Teflon by making other nonstick coatings, marketing this new generation of pans as safe, most remain coated with other dangerous PFAS. A testing of pans done in December 2020 by the Ecology Center found that 70 percent of cookware and 20 percent of bakeware contained PTFE, even if they were marketed as being PFAS free. And some were coated with alternatives made from BPA which are also problematic. For those seeking safe nonstick cookware, it can be difficult or impossible to determine what’s okay and what’s not. As we reported earlier, green chemist and Safer Made co-founder Marty Mulvihill recommends avoiding purchasing nonstick pans altogether, pointing out that while the health impacts from cooking with a nonstick pan are negligible, the production and disposal of PFAS-coated pans contributes to the chemicals ending up in our soil, water and, eventually, bodies.

Disposable takeout containers and PFAS

Lots of food packaging, especially paper products that need to resist grease, like salad dressing, are coated with PFAS. Less than two years ago an investigation by The Counter revealed that several fast-casual chain restaurants were using green-seeming, “compostable” bowls and containers that actually contained PFAS. If these bowls even made it into the compost — which is often not the case — they would be releasing PFAS into that compost and eventually into the plants grown in that compost. Several of the chains, including Sweetgreen and Chipotle, responded quickly, committing themselves to sourcing bowls that did not contain PFAS. As of March 2020, Sweetgreen said that all of its restaurants would be PFAS-free by the end of the year.

What if latkes were made with asparagus?

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

* * *

By definition, a latke is a potato pancake — fried in enough oil to splatter your forearms and make your home smell like a state fair — but this unruly recipe needs no potatoes. Not russets, not Yukons, not reds, not blues. Instead? Asparagus.

Yes, sure, this Jewish classic may be the last thing you think of come spring. Its strongest association, Hanukkah, the annual holiday celebrating the rededication of the Temple of Jerusalem, is 201 days away.

But when a latke is so crispy at the edges, so custardy in the middle, so eager to be swooshed through sour cream, so excited to be dolloped with preserves — what a shame it would be to eat it only once a year. So let’s spring-ify latkes. Let’s latke-ify spring.

Juicy, snappy, in-season asparagus is only available for a few months (though the plants live as long as 10 years—can you imagine!). Whether with pasta or rice, however you use it ought to feel special, the sort of minimalist dish that is more about the asparagus than it is about anything else.

Luckily, this is not unlike how my mom taught me to make latkes: mostly potato shreds and shards, with just enough yellow onion for savory oomph, and just enough flour and egg to keep things from falling apart. While she defaults to all-purpose for its reliability, in this case I swapped in rye for its nutty, malty superpowers, a delightfully earthy contrast to the sweet vegetable. (If you don’t have rye, whole-wheat can step in.)

After sizzling in oil for a few minutes, the result is something of a magic trick.

With the same crackly-squishy bite as the potato originals, the same greasy fingertips, the same inability to eat just one — or two or five — my brain basks in the same latke-induced endorphins (a thing!). Even if the main ingredient couldn’t be more different. Even if the color is not yellow or beige, but green as the grass on a May morning.

***

Recipe: Asparagus Latkes

Prep time: 15 minutes
Cook time: 10 minutes
Serves: 2 to 4

Ingredients

  • 1 pound asparagus
  • 8 ounces yellow onion (about 1 medium or 2 small), halved and peeled
  • 2 large eggs
  • 1/4 cup rye flour
  • 1 teaspoon kosher salt, plus more for sprinkling
  • 3/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
  • Neutral oil, for pan-frying

Directions

  1. Coarsely grate the asparagus, starting at the top and discarding the bottoms. (If any stragglers resist the grater, just finely chop.) Coarsely grate the onion. (Same deal with the stragglers.)
  2. Add the grated asparagus and onion to a tea towel. Wring and squeeze over the sink to remove as much water as possible. 
  3. Dump the dried asparagus and onion into a bowl. Add the eggs, flour, salt, and pepper. Stir with a fork until everything is combined. 
  4. Set a large cast-iron skillet over medium-high heat and add 1/4 inch of oil. When the oil looks shimmery-hot, drop a pinch of the latke mixture in. If it instantly sizzles, you’re good to go.
  5. Use a cookie scoop or a couple spoons to scoop and drop latkes into the oil (I estimate about 1 1/2 tablespoons per latke). Use a fork to flatten each mound into a pancake. Cook for 3 to 4 minutes, until the bottoms are deeply browned, then use two forks to carefully flip. Cook for another 3 to 4 minutes, then transfer to a wire rack or paper-towel-lined plate to drain. Sprinkle with more salt, if you’d like. 
  6. Repeat with the remaining latke mixture until you’ve used all of it up.

Is your living room the future of hospital care?

Major hospital systems are betting big money that the future of hospital care looks a lot like the inside of patients’ homes.

Hospital-level care at home — some of it provided over the internet — is poised to grow after more than a decade as a niche offering, boosted both by hospitals eager to ease overcrowding during the pandemic and growing interest by insurers who want to slow health care spending. But a host of challenges remain, from deciding how much to pay for such services to which kinds of patients can safely benefit.

Under the model, patients with certain medical conditions, such as pneumonia or heart failure — even moderate covid — are offered high-acuity care in their homes, with 24/7 remote monitoring and daily visits by medical providers.

In the latest sign that the idea is catching on, two big players — Kaiser Permanente and the Mayo Clinic — announced plans this month to collectively invest $100 million into Medically Home, a Boston-based company that provides such services to scale up and expand their programs. The two organizations estimate that 30% of patients currently admitted to hospitals nationally have conditions eligible for in-home care. (KHN is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.)

Several other well-known hospital systems launched programs last summer. They join about two dozen already offering the service, including Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Presbyterian Healthcare Services in New Mexico and Massachusetts General Hospital.

But hospitals have other financial considerations that are also part of the calculation. Systems that have built sparkling new in-patient facilities in the past decade, floating bonds and taking out loans to finance them, need patients filling costly inpatient beds to repay lenders and recoup investments.

And “hospitals that have surplus capacity, whether because they have newly built beds or shrinking populations or are losing business to competitors, are not going to be eager about this,” said Dr. Jeff Levin-Scherz, co-leader of the North American Health Management practice at consultancy Willis Towers Watson.

Medicare gave the idea a boost in November when it agreed to pay for such care, to help keep non-covid patients out of the hospital during the pandemic. Since then, more than 100 hospitals have been approved by Medicare to participate, although not all are in place yet.

Tasting opportunity, Amazon and a coalition of industry groups in March announced plans to lobby for changes in federal and state rules to allow broader access to a wide range of in-home medical services.

“We’re seeing tremendous momentum,” said Dr. Bruce Leff, a Johns Hopkins Medical School geriatrician who has studied and advocated for the hospital-at-home approach since he helped establish one of the nation’s first programs in the mid-1990s.

Leff and other proponents say various studies show in-home care is just as safe and may produce better outcomes than being in the hospital, and it saves money by limiting the need to expand hospitals, reducing hospital readmissions and helping patients avoid nursing home stays. Some estimates put the projected savings at 30% over traditional hospital care. But ongoing programs are a long way from making a dent in the nation’s $1.2 trillion hospital tab.

While the goal is to shift 10% or more of hospital patients to home settings, existing programs handle far fewer cases, sometimes serving only a handful of patients.

“In a lot of ways, this remains aspirational; this is the early innings,” said Dean Ungar, who follows the insurance and hospital industries as a vice president and senior credit officer at Moody’s Investors Service. Still, he predicted that “hospitals will increasingly be reserved for acute care [such as surgeries and ICUs].”

Challenges to scaling up include maintaining the current good safety profile in the face of rapid growth and finding enough medical staff — especially nurses, paramedics and technicians — who travel to patients’ homes.

The attraction for insurers is clear: If they can pay for care in a lower-cost setting than the hospital, with good outcomes, they save money.

For hospitals, “the financials of it are, frankly, a little tough,” said Levin-Scherz.

Those most attracted to hospital-at-home programs run at or near capacity and want to free up beds.

Even so, Gerard Anderson, a health policy professor at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, said hospitals likely see the potential, long term, for “huge profit margins” through “saving a lot of capital and personnel expense by having the work done at home.”

But Anderson worries that broad expansion of hospital-at-home efforts could exacerbate health care inequities.

“It’s realistic in middle- and upper-middle-class households,” Anderson said. “My concern is in impoverished areas. They may not have the infrastructure to handle it.”

Suburban and rural areas — and even some lower-income urban areas — can have spotty or nonexistent internet access. How will that affect the ability of those areas to participate, to communicate with physicians and other hospital staff members miles away? Proponents outline solutions, from providing patients with “hot spot” devices that provide internet service, along with backup power and instant communication via walkie-talkie-type handsets and computer tablets.

Social factors play a big part, too. Those who live alone may find it harder to qualify if they need a lot of help, while those in crowded households may not have enough room or privacy.

Another possible wrinkle: Not all patients have the necessary human support, such as someone to help an ill patient with the bathroom, meals or even answering the door.

That’s why both patients and their caregivers should get a detailed explanation of the day-to-day responsibilities before agreeing to participate, said Alexandra Drane, CEO of Archangels, a for-profit group that works with employers and provides resources for unpaid caregivers.

“I love the concept for a resourced household where someone can take this job on,” said Drane. “But there’s a lot of situations where that’s not possible. What If I have a full-time job and two children, when am I supposed to do this?”

The programs all say they aim to reduce the burden on families. Some provide aides to help with bathing or other home care issues and provide food. None expects family members to perform medical procedures. The programs supply monitoring and communication equipment and a hospital bed, if needed.

“We see the patient in their home setting,” said Morre Dean, president of Adventist Health’s hospital at home program, which serves a broad area of California and part of Oregon. “What is in their refrigerator? What is their living situation? Can we impact that? We aren’t reliant on the family to deliver care.”

Patients are typically visited in their homes daily by various health workers. Physicians make home visits in some programs, but most employ doctors to oversee care from remote “command centers,” talking with patients via various electronic gadgets.

All of that was delivered to James Clifford’s home in Bakersfield, California, after he opted to participate in the Adventist program so he could leave the hospital and finish treatment for an infection at home. It required coordination — his wife had to be at their house for the set-up team even as she was scheduled to pick him up — but “once it was set up, it worked well.”

At home, he needed treatment with antibiotics every eight hours for several days and “one nurse came at 2 a.m.,” said Clifford, 70. “It woke up my wife, but that’s OK. We had peace of mind by my being at home.”

Adventist launched its program a year ago, but it hasn’t achieved the scale needed to save money yet, said Dean. Ultimately, he envisions the hospital-at-home option as “our biggest hospital in Adventist Health,” with 500 to 1,500 patients in the program at a time.

Medicare’s payment decision gave momentum to such goals. But the natural experiment it created with its funding ends when the pandemic is declared over. Because of the emergency, Medicare paid the same as it would for in-hospital care, based on each patient’s diagnosis. Will hospitals be as enthusiastic if that is not the case in the future? Commercial insurers are unlikely to pay unless they see lower rates, since there are already concerns about overuse.

“From a societal perspective, it’s great if these programs replace expensive inpatient care,” said Levin-Scherz at Towers. But, he said, it would be a negative if the programs sought to grow by admitting patients who otherwise would not have gone into the hospital at all and could have been treated with lower-cost outpatient services.

“Hidden tongue-ties” in infants have scant scientific backing

When Amanda Green had a baby in 2015, she had no idea how hard it would be to feed him. After struggling to breastfeed for months and attending numerous appointments with lactation consultants and her pediatrician, the experts suggested that her son could have a condition called posterior tongue-tie, which might make it difficult for him to feed. They referred Green to a pediatric dentist, who made a painful slice with a laser under her 3-month-old’s tongue.

It didn’t help the baby to breastfeed. And now, five years later, her son has speech problems that the procedure was also supposed to prevent. Green says she wonders whether or not it was worth it.

Tongue-tie, or ankyloglossia, is caused by tissue that restricts tongue movement and is often blamed for breastfeeding struggles. According to several studies, tongue-tie occurs in 4 to 11 percent of newborns, but there has been a dramatic rise in corrective procedures — one study indicated a 10-fold increase between 1997 and 2012. According to some experts, this is partly due to the growing pressure to breastfeed. But the procedures are also increasing because the definition of tongue-tie broadened during that time. The exact number of procedures each year is impossible to know, since they mainly occur in private practices, but there are tens of thousands performed each year in hospitals alone.

Traditionally, ankyloglossia was easily diagnosed as a thin, translucent membrane that restricts the movement of the front of the tongue and draws it into a heart shape. Surgical textbooks as far back as 1679 showed how to snip this tiny bit of tissue. Then, in 2004, a new kind of tongue-tie was brought to the clinical mainstream in an opinion published in a physician’s newsletter — a hidden, or posterior, tongue-tie, which is “difficult to visualize,” the opinion piece says, and requires a revision procedure that some experts say can be more invasive. The procedure can also be lucrative for providers.

Since then, books, websites, testimonial videos, Facebook groups (the largest of which has more than 85,000 members), and some health care providers have contributed to the idea that tongue-ties are associated with long lists of issues — and that the condition requires medical intervention. These proponents of tongue-tie surgeries say that the thick band of tissue in front of the tongue muscle, if left intact, can not only interfere with breastfeeding, but also may cause speech difficulties or dental issues down the line. While many experts believe a classic, anterior, tongue-tie might make it harder to breastfeed, remove food stuck around teeth, or say certain sounds, there is considerable disagreement — and little evidence — about whether posterior tongue-ties cause such problems. And there is even less science supporting other claims, which link tongue-ties to poor facial growth, difficulty sleeping, hyperactivity, mouth breathing, neck tension, and picky eating. Still other sources, including some naturopaths and pediatric dentists, link a common gene variation with tongue-tie, without any evidence, giving the false impression that the condition is pathological.

“There’s a lot of controversy and very little study on whether posterior tongue-tie is even a legitimate diagnosis,” says Karthik Balakrishnan, a professor and physician of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery at Stanford University, “much less whether it affects tongue function or breastfeeding.”

* * *

The procedure for a hidden tongue-tie requires more than simply snipping a thin piece of tissue. With hidden tongue-tie, a provider sometimes slices through the thick band of tissue under the tongue all the way to the base of the muscle. Casey Lynn, a pediatric dentist in Apollo Beach, Florida, compares tongue-ties to a sailboat: A classic tongue-tie is just the sail, or the thin web under the tongue. With a hidden tongue-tie, he says, “it’s the mast portion of that sail, which is that thick, restrictive connective tissue that’s holding the base of the tongue down.”

But many experts argue that this tissue, called a frenulum, is part of people’s normal physiology — not something that needs to be cut. Whether tongue-tie is considered a problem for breastfeeding can depend on the provider — a survey from 2000 indicated only about 6 percent of pediatricians believe it frequently causes feeding issues compared to 69 percent of lactation consultants. And the procedure comes with risks including accidentally severing the nerves that carry sensations from the front of the tongue, as well as infection, says Pamela Douglas, a University of Queensland scientist who studies breastfeeding difficulties.

Balakrishnan says with a classic tongue-tie he prefers to cut the thin membrane under the tongue, but that it’s difficult to know what to do when an infant is diagnosed with a hidden tongue-tie. Although he acknowledges the lack of scientific evidence surrounding hidden tongue-ties, depending on the circumstances he will do the procedure, maintaining that it is low risk. For instance, if a baby is experiencing breastfeeding difficulties and their nursing parent has been working with a lactation consultant, but isn’t seeing improvement, Balakrishnan will cut a posterior tongue-tie. However, because the evidence is lacking, he warns such parents, “there’s a significant risk that it will make no difference at all in breastfeeding.”

Providers typically treat both classic and hidden tongue with either scissors or a laser. The advantage of the laser procedure is that there is no bleeding, says Anna Messner, an otolaryngology-head and neck surgery physician at Texas Children’s Hospital and professor at Baylor College of Medicine. But Messner also uses scissors for tongue-tie corrections, and says the heat from the laser, which can extend beyond the cut site, may increase the risk of nerve damage. While Balakrishnan does use a laser for certain procedures, he avoids it for tongue-tie revisions, because he says that laser cutting generally takes longer to heal and causes more pain. But, Balakrishnan says, there isn’t enough evidence to say one approach is better and Lynn says some types of lasers offer less risk than others.

Lasers are also expensive, and Balakrishnan wonders whether the investment might make providers more likely to use them. Tongue-tie revisions can be lucrative, according to Douglas. Pediatric dentists, whose procedures often aren’t covered by insurance, charge between $500 and $900 for a tongue-tie revision. “I don’t think we can completely ignore the financial incentive that many of these practices have,” Messner says. Balakrishnan points out the American fee-for-service model can influence physicians, too. In Canada, which has universal health care, the Canadian Pediatric Society wrote in a position statement that “most of the time, ankyloglossia is an anatomical finding without significant consequences for infants.” Though in Canada, the tongue-tie procedure rate is also increasing.

Underlying the lack of expert consensus on tongue-tie — and its treatment — is a lack of research. There aren’t many relevant studies, and those that exist include small numbers of patients and self-reports, which make the results more uncertain. Most of the studies don’t distinguish between the types of tongue-ties, muddying their interpretation further. Even if studies did have all the relevant information, they still may not show a clear link between tongue-tie revisions and better breastfeeding. Sometimes it takes several weeks for breastfeeding to improve in an infant who has a tongue-tie surgery. Messner points out that improvement in breastfeeding may not have anything to do with the procedure; in many cases, breastfeeding simply becomes easier over time.

Some practitioners disagree. Lynn, for instance, says that it may take a while for breastfeeding to improve after a surgery because the tongue-tie caused the infant to “learn bad habits,” which, he adds, takes time to resolve. While Lynn says he commonly sees infants with breastfeeding issues, he also treats children with tongue-ties that he associates with problems in sleep, feeding, and speech.

But there is no solid data that tongue-tie is associated with poor sleep or picky eating, says Balakrishnan, although that there also isn’t enough evidence to rule out a connection. For speech delay, Messner says that while some parents might think that a tongue-tie is preventing their child from saying certain sounds, it’s normal for children to be unable to make all sounds until they turn six.

Based on the available research, the one area where tongue-tie procedures may make a difference is improving a breastfeeding parent’s discomfort, although the evidence is still just “a little bit convincing,” says Balakrishnan. But even if tongue-tie revisions reduce nipple pain in the short term, it’s not clear whether these procedures are necessary, or whether other interventions could help. In 2019, a study in the journal JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery showed that parents who had been referred for tongue-tie revision and had been offered a consultation to improve breastfeeding typically opted out of the surgery. And a 2018 study from New Zealand showed similar results: A program to provide breastfeeding support reduced tongue-tie revision rates without changing breastfeeding rates.

The most definitive way to unpack whether the surgeries lead to positive outcomes, Balakrishnan adds, would be a study that randomly assigns babies with posterior tongue-tie to either have it revised, or not, and follows them for years to track breastfeeding, speech, sleep, and the other things blamed on the condition. But “nobody has done that study,” he says, “and probably nobody will.”

* * *

Despite the lack of evidence, parents are increasingly seeking out tongue-tie surgery, fueled in part by social media, says Messner. New parents who join large Facebook group dedicated to tongue-tie often post pictures of their babies’ tongues and ask the group whether a child has the condition, sometimes after feeling dismissed by a pediatrician. Responses often direct the parent to a regional tongue-tie Facebook group, which provide references to what the group members call “tongue-tie savvy” providers, often pediatric dentists who specialize in tongue-tie revisions. Messner calls the process “a loop that feeds into itself.”

Behind the social media groups is a strong desire to breastfeed. That desire is backed, in part, by research; Douglas points to a decades-long focus on the value of human milk for babies. But there hasn’t been the same focus, she adds, when it comes to the “care of mothers and babies,” which has led to a dearth in evidence-based practices to help people with breastfeeding problems. According to Douglas, research from her lab and others indicates that current theories about how babies suckle are inaccurate; these misconceptions, she says, may be contributing to the rise in tongue-tie diagnoses. There are likely other issues causing breastfeeding pain, she adds, for instance when babies aren’t positioned well or don’t latch quite right, which can damage the breast tissue and cause pain.

The fundamental problem with tongue-tie is the disagreement on both diagnosis and treatment. “Overdiagnosis is a genuine concern, and unnecessary surgery is a genuine concern,” says Balakrishnan. “But the problem is that there’s not consensus on what’s unnecessary, and what’s overdiagnosis.” This puts parents in an awkward position, he adds, because “it’s like the Wild West. The parents and providers are really on their own trying to figure it out, hopefully working with each other, but without a lot of guidance.”

Even one of the authors of the 2004 opinion that introduced posterior tongue-ties to the medical community thinks the condition is overdiagnosed. Catherine Watson Genna, an international board certified lactation consultant, draws a parallel to tonsillectomies. “In my generation we all had our tonsils out. If you still had tonsils by age six, you were an outlier,” she says. “And then, the pendulum swung. And for a while they weren’t taking anyone’s out. Now they’re just really judicious. So I think the same thing will happen with tongue-tie.”

Like tonsils, everyone has a frenulum. Messner believes only a minority need to be cut. The focus on tongue-tie, she adds, distracts from what could be a serious issue that can cause poor breastfeeding in babies, like a heart condition. But Balakrishnan finds that many parents who struggle with breastfeeding have already made up their minds to have the procedure done. After ruling out other causes for their problems, he usually does it, he says, because “it’s a pretty straightforward thing to do. It’s generally a safe thing to do with relatively low risk.”

When Green’s second child was born, she experienced the same problems nursing as she did with her first. Her pediatrician said that tongue-tie could be the problem, but Green ultimately decided not to have her younger child’s tongue-tie revised. For the pain she experienced while breastfeeding both her children, Green says, “there just wasn’t a solution.”

* * *

Christina Szalinski is a freelance science writer with a Ph.D. in cell biology based near Philadelphia.

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

Scientists may have just cracked a great mystery about why “earthquake lightning” happens

It sounds like something out of a Bible passage or horror movie: Earthquakes and lightning happening simultaneously, as though cracks in the ground were unearthing a fountain not of water but of electricity.

Yet the prospect of lightning and earthquakes happening at the same time is not science fiction or fantasy, but a relatively normal occurrence. Throughout history, scientists have often documented earthquakes being associated with a phenomenon known as luminescence, creating an all-nature lights show known as “earthquake lightning” which happens while the Earth literally trembles beneath our feet. One of the most notable occasions happened during the Matsushiro earthquake swarm in Japan from 1965 to 1967, which caused a nearby mountain to flicker with light.

Yet for years, no one has been entirely sure why earthquake lightning happens. Now, Professor Emeritus Yuji Enomoto of Shinshu University in Japan, may have figured it out. 

“I was able to quantitatively explain the geomagnetic fluctuations observed in the Matsushiro earthquake swarm that occurred in central Japan in 1965-1967,” Professor Emeritus Yuji Enomoto of Shinshu University recalled to Salon in an email. “It is well known that this earthquake swarm caused the earthquake lights to be photographed for the first time in the world.”

Indeed, in a recent paper published in the journal Earth, Planets and Space, Enomoto and his colleagues find support for the idea that fluid stored in the earthquake’s epicenter assists in generating large electrical currents. Those currents, in turn, might lead to the various electromagnetic anomalies that can occur before and after an earthquake, including those that result in earthquake lightning.


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


By conducting laboratory experiments on indoor rock fracture and gas-electric interactions using rocks like granite, Enomoto and a team from Shinshu and Japan’s Genesis Research Institute were able to back up their hypothesis that a fault-valve forms before an earthquake in the epicenter area of a seismic fault. Over time, dense layers form in the crust and trap fluids, meaning it is only a matter of time before some stimulus will cause the fault valve to crack. When that happens, high-pressure fluid rises along the fault while the pressure slowly goes down, instantaneously degassing dissolved carbon dioxide or methane in ways that expand their volume and thus the cracks. This weakens the fault, accelerates the fissuring process and causes an earthquake.

Meanwhile the gas becomes electrified and, since it is negatively charged, generates a current while it moves.

This knowledge may eventually help clear up the mystery that confounded ancient Egyptian and Roman historians and has mystified people in recent years from Mexico to New Zealand.

As Enomoto emphasized to Salon, however, there is still much to learn about earthquake lightning.

“Of course, it would be good if we can predict the earthquake occurrence by catching the [electromagnetic] anomalous signal prior to an earthquake,” Enomoto says. However, he adds that researchers first need to make more observations of electrical current during earthquakes, in order to “grasp the relationship [between] the signals and the characteristics of the earthquake.” This will take a long time, but he believes that it’s possible.

NYT reporter explains Trump’s plan to “tar” New York criminal investigations

While the criminal investigations of former President Donald Trump often make the news with fresh developments, many of these revelations don’t truly amount to much. On Tuesday, though, there was a significant exception to this pattern when multiple reports found that New York DA Cy Vance, who is working with the state’s Attorney General Letitia James, has impaneled a special grand jury of his investigation of Trump and the Trump Organization. This suggests that serious charges may be on the horizon.

After the news broke, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, a longtime close observer of the president, explained how he will fight back against the investigations as it threatens to ensnare him or his interests.

“Trump is going to use talk of running again as a way to tar the Vance/James probes,” she wrote on Twitter. “From his latest statement in response to the grand jury being empaneled: ‘Interesting that today a poll came out indicating I’m far in the lead for the Republican Presidential Primary…'”

He has already suggested that he intends to run for president again in 2024 (even as he insists that he really won in 2020 and thus should be president now.) It’s one way he can maintain power in the Republican Party and at least some level of attention from the media.

But Haberman is right that dangling a run — genuine or not — can be helpful in his effort to tar the investigations that target him. As long as he remains a potential candidate, he can say that criminal charges are just an effort to keep him out of power by his political enemies. Of course, that won’t make an indictment go away — but it will likely be a potent message for his fans.

Since many are already primed to believe the 2020 election was stolen from him, it’s not hard to imagine the prospect of his facing serious criminal charges could inspire more dangerous and lawless actions from his supporters like those seen on Jan. 6.

In the case of Letitia James, the criticism that she’s a political enemy of his does have some genuine force. She explicitly campaigned in 2018 on investigating Trump, and she has used her investigation of him to elevate her profile. Vance is a more complicated story though. A ProPublica report actually found that Vance went easy on the Trump family as his office prepared to indict two of Trump’s children in 2012. After Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz donated $25,000 to Vance, he reportedly overruled his own prosecutors and declined to bring the charges.

Trump regime’s amazing list of crimes keeps getting longer — but we can’t afford to look away

Sometimes people refuse to ask a question when they know the answer will be painful. Instead, they convince themselves that not asking the question will make the underlying reality change.

Donald Trump and his regime committed many criminal, evil and otherwise despicable acts in plain sight. Those include, with no attempt to be comprehensive: 

Of course, the Republican Party and its followers and propagandists are doing everything in their power to sabotage any efforts to investigate the public and private crimes of the Trump regime. For reasons of political expediency or incompetence, perhaps coupled with pathological weakness, the Democrats seem all too willing to ignore the Trump regime’s crimes in an effort to “move forward” and bring the country back to “normalcy.”

Nonetheless, Trump’s box of crimes, malfeasance and misdeeds is not tightly closed and continues to leak its secrets. Ultimately, a hellscape vision of what America might have become in Donald Trump’s second term will be revealed. This fully Trumpified America would have been far worse than even the most cynical and pessimistic critics could likely have imagined.

Here are some recent revelations about the Trump regime and its normalization of political crimes and other antisocial and anti-democratic behavior.

Several weeks ago, we learned that the Trump regime spied on journalists at the Washington Post who were investigating the Russia collusion scandal. More recently, reports have revealed that the Trump regime also spied on CNN reporter Barbara Starr. This is part of a broader pattern of retaliation against those media outlets and journalists that Trump viewed as his “enemies.”

CNN reports that the Justice Department has told Starr “that it had obtained phone ‘toll records,’ which would include calls made to and from the targeted phones and the length of the calls,” along with information from her email accounts that revealed recipients, senders, dates and times, although (presumably) not the actual content of her emails.

The Justice Department did not say why Starr’s communications were being sought. During the two-month timeframe listed in the letter, Starr reported on US military options in North Korea that were ready to be presented to Trump, as well as stories on Syria and Afghanistan.

This past week, we learned that a little-known office within the Department of Commerce, the Investigations and Threat Management Service (ITMS), spied upon the department’s own employees for “evidence” that they were under “foreign influence.” In practice, at least during Trump’s administration, that meant being insufficiently loyal to the then-president’s policies and views. Even more chilling, the ITMS also spied on private citizens who raised criticisms of the Trump regime’s attempts to manipulate the census — which is overseen by the Commerce Department

We have also learned in recent days that the Trump regime’s notorious “family separation” policy, designed to inflict as much harm and cruelty as possible on nonwhite migrants and refugees, was even worse than previously known.

On Monday, The Hill reported:

A new report from a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) watchdog found the Trump administration failed to give some parents the option of reuniting with their children before deporting them under its family separation policy.

A report from DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found the Trump administration separated families even in instances when parents facing deportation wished to return to their home country with their children.

“ICE removed at least 348 parents separated from their children without documenting that those parents wanted to leave their children in the United States,” OIG wrote in its report, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“In fact, ICE removed some parents without their children despite having evidence the parents wanted to bring their children back to their home country.”

In another underreported story, we now know that Donald Trump actually wanted the National Guard to protect his followers as they gathered at a rally in Washington early on Jan. 6 — the rally that would serve as the launching pad for their attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Trump and his movement’s attack on the free press was and remains central to their campaign to end American democracy. Using the Nazi language of “lügenpresse” (i.e., “lying press” or “fake news”) and the strategy of the Big Lie, along with encouraging direct violence against reporters and journalists, Trump and his regime declared a free press to be “the enemy of the people.” Such declarations were not mere hyperbole.

The United States was once a world leader and beacon for freedom of the press. That title was thoroughly revoked during the Age of Trump. NPR reported on this last year:

The United States has become a less safe place for journalists, and the threats they face are becoming the standard, according to a new report by an international press freedom organization.

Reporters Sans Frontières, or Reporters Without Borders, dropped the U.S. to No. 48 out of 180 on its annual World Press Freedom Index, three notches lower than its place last year. The move downgrades the country from a “satisfactory” place to work freely to a “problematic” one for journalists.

“Never before have US journalists been subjected to so many death threats or turned so often to private security firms for protection,” the report stated. …

The report also pointed a finger at President Trump who, it said, “exacerbates” press freedom problems with his repeated declarations that journalists are an “enemy of the American people,” his accusations of “fake news,” his calls to revoke broadcasting licenses and his efforts to block specific outlets from access to the White House.

As RSF executive director Sabine Dolan told NPR, Trump’s rhetoric “has created an environment where verbal, physical and online threats and assault against journalists are becoming normalized.”

Emboldened by the Trump regime’s war on free speech, America’s police and other law enforcement have greatly escalated their specific targeting of members of the media at rallies and protests in support of progressive causes such as Black Lives Matter.

Writing at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press website, Courtney Douglas elaborates:

Law enforcement officers are responsible for most of the attacks, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, an organization that documents assaults and arrests of journalists. But some journalists have endured violence from protesters and other members of the public.

As of Sept. 1, the Tracker has confirmed 238 press freedom violations in 2020 — including physical assaults, arrests, and equipment searches and seizures — more than three quarters of which occurred while journalists were documenting the Black Lives Matter protests. That’s compared to 152 total press freedom violations in 2019, 132 in 2018 and 144 in 2017, according to the Press Freedom Tracker. …

“These attacks not only endanger our free press,” Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce Brown said in a statement during the first weekend of protests, “but also threaten our democracy and the essential role that journalists play in safeguarding constitutional rights.”

For the sake of America’s democracy, safety and security the crimes and other misdeeds of the Trump regime must be fully exposed for the world to see. Appropriate punishments should be meted out under the law if criminal wrongdoing is revealed.

The American people, and especially Trump’s followers, should feel compelled to look in the mirror and engage in some degree of critical self-reflection about all the things the Trump regime did in their name — which many of them wholeheartedly supported. Of course, Trump’s followers will do no such thing. Most have lost their moral compass, quite possibly before he came on the political scene in 2015. In any event, the Trump cult has reoriented their reality.

Those Americans who chose to be bystanders during the Trump regime must also be held accountable. Perhaps when they see their image reflected in the Trump regime’s evil, cruelty and malfeasance they will be shocked into a new sense of civic responsibility.

One can also hope that those Americans who belonged to the “resistance” and then rapidly demobilized after Joe Biden’s victory will be reawakened by these new revelations of Trump’s horrors, and what they portend about the country’s future if right-wing extremists seize power again.

Trump and his regime represented the worst of the American people, but he did not commit his crimes alone, or with only a small circle of powerful allies. There were and remain many collaborators.

It is up to the American people now to choose the difficult things over the easy ones, to choose right over wrong, in order to preserve and improve American democracy by directly confronting the Age of Trump and its still-ascendant fascist movement. Whether they will take up that challenge, or instead choose to cling to childish beliefs that ours is an exceptional nation where somehow “the good guys” always win, remains very much in question.

In a huge advance for gene therapy, inserting algae genes in a human partially cures blindness

Dr. Botand Roska remembers the slight all too well. The Hungarian biomedical researcher, who currently works for the University of Basel in Switzerland, was at a conference where he described a radical gene therapy proposal that he believed could one day help blind people.

“People at the conference thought that I lost my mind to propose to put genes from algae [in] humans,” Roska told Salon by email. “Indeed, one participant told me that he hopes that I do not think seriously that this approach will be ever used in humans.” Roska says his colleague’s words were a let-down.

A few days later, Roska recalled, he was approached by French ophthalmologist Dr. José-Alain Sahel, who currently chairs the Department of Ophthalmology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Sahel liked Roska’s idea and instilled confidence in the young scientist.

“This collaboration which also turned into a close friendship became a very important one in my research and personal life,” Roska told Salon.

The collaboration has also borne fruit, very much in line with that young scholar’s wild-eyed vision. As detailed in a recent study published by Roska, Sahel and a team of researchers in the scientific journal Nature Medicine, the team was able to partially restore a blind 58-year-old man’s vision using their gene therapy approach. The patient suffers from retinitis pigmentosa, a vision disease caused by genetic mutations which damages light-sensitive cells in the retina at the back of the eye. Some victims become totally blind, while others only have their vision partially altered. One out of 4,000 people worldwide have retinitis pigmentosa.

In their experiment, Roska and his colleagues engineered a light-sensitive protein called ChrimsonR, which is found in unicellular algae, and then inserted them into modified viruses that were injected into one of his eyes. With the viral vectors hopefully positioned to make the cells in the patient’s retinas sensitive to yellow-orange light, the patient began to wear special goggles that projected an intense amber image onto his retina. This type of light-based gene therapy, in which the light itself is used to control neurons, is known as optogenetic therapy. Other types of gene therapy include traditional gene therapy, which simply replaces an unhealthy gene with a healthy one, and gene editing that more precisely alters genes within DNA strands.

The experiment appears to have worked. After months of building up ChrimsonR in his retinas, the patient described marked improvements in his vision. He was able to more effectively count, distinguish between objects and physically manipulate his environment through his sense of vision. It was, as the authors wrote in their report, “the first reported case of partial functional recovery in a neurodegenerative disease” after the specific type of gene therapy that they used.

Gene therapy has had a rather bumpy history. The concept burst onto the scene in the scientific community in 1972 after American scientists Dr. Theodore Friedmann and Dr. Richard Roblin published a paper called “Gene therapy for human genetic disease?” At first, it was billed as a holy grail of sorts for medicine, as it would theoretically allow for the correction of genetic diseases by altering the patients’ DNA entirely to edit out the errant genes that caused disease. 

After finally being sufficiently developed such that scientists began cautiously using it in 1990, the theoretical treatment suffered a major blow to its public perception in 1999, when an 18-year-old named Jesse Gelsinger died during an experimental procedure. It has taken years for governments to start approving gene therapy treatments, with advances in viral vector technologies (the ones that allow the modified genes to be stored in viruses like the ones injected into the blind patient’s eye) slowly soothing regulators’ fears.

“Gene therapies appear to be becoming more tailored to highly specific targets, with fewer noted side effects, as seen with this study and similar ones (including the CRISPR trial for sickle cell anemia),” commented Dr. Andrew G. MacLean, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Tulane National Primate Research Center. (MacLean was not affiliated with the study.) “The early years of gene therapy had some unfortunate false starts,” he noted.

“Every new endeavor comes with great challenges, but ophthalmology applications of gene therapies, which are currently being developed under the leadership of Dr. Jean Bennett at the University of Pennsylvania, demonstrated safety and efficiency for vision restoration, paving the way to the approval of the first gene therapy,” Dr. José-Alain Sahel told Salon by email. “Many clinical trials testing efficacy and safety of gene therapies for vision disorders are ongoing, and it’s a very exciting time to be in this line of research.”

He later added, “Gene therapy is an emergent, promising and fragile field. We are still in the beginning of a very long road, but the future looks bright and full of possibilities.”

Roska echoed Sahel’s observation about the potential implications of their study — and the fact that they are only at the beginning.

“We need to study more patients and we need to refine the method,” Roska told Salon. “But at the end of the road we would like to target patients who lost vision due to photoreceptor disease and restore some visual function.”

MacLean, as an observer, was also cautiously optimistic.

“This is the first step down the road to a potential treatment for a progressive blindness, and I am encouraged that this appears to be a long-lasting therapy (at least several months), using a vector that is tolerated,” MacLean explained. He marveled at how the patient was able to do much of the training on his own because of COVID-19 era restrictions, describing it as a “phenomenal breakthrough” that “his brain had to relearn what the signals from his eyes were conveying.”

MacLean did mention that the ChrimsonR treatment had at least one “drawback.” “It took some time (seven months) before the patient noted a marked improvement,” he noted. “The particular design of this study requires the use of highly specific goggles, but down the road, this design could be improved further.”


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


Narcissism and aggression go hand in hand, study says

While narcissism is a personality disorder, psychologists remain curious about how it can manifest physically.

According to a thorough analysis of 437 studies on narcissism around the world, there appears to be a strong correlation between narcissism and aggression — regardless of gender, age, and country of residence. The analysis was published in the journal Psychological Bulletin this week.

“The link we found between narcissism and aggression was significant – it was not trivial in size,” said Sophie Kjærvik, a graduate student in communications at Ohio State University who led the study, in a press statement. “The findings have important real-world implications.”

Interestingly, subjects’ level of narcissism didn’t have a significant impact on the link to aggression and violence. The researchers’ analysis showed that even narcissism “within what is considered a normal range” is linked to aggression. 

“It is a pretty straightforward message: Narcissism is a significant risk factor for aggressive and violent behavior across the board,” said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and professor of communication at The Ohio State University, in a press release.

In their comprehensive analysis, researchers examined 437 independent studies with a total of 123,043 participants.

While narcissism is a general term used to describe a personality trait, narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a specific condition in which a person has an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and attention, and a lack of empathy for others. The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), the go-to for official mental diagnoses, has a specific set of criteria that must be met in order for an individual to receive an NPD diagnosis. In other words, there are ranges and subtypes of narcissism. 

Notably, Ohio State Researchers found that all ranges of narcissism are linked to various forms of aggression — for example physical, verbal, bullying, and online bullying.

“Individuals who are high in narcissism are not particularly picky when it comes to how they attack others,” Kjærvik said. “That’s a highly important finding now that we live in an online world.”

People with higher levels of narcissism were more likely to be described as “cold, deliberate and proactive” in their forms of aggression.

The researchers emphasized that this analysis doesn’t only apply to people who are pathological narcissists, but instead to everyone who likely has some degree of narcissism.

“All of us are prone to being more aggressive when we are more narcissistic,” Bushman said. “Our results suggest provocation is a key moderator of the link between narcissism and aggression; those who are high in narcissism have thin skins, and they will lash out if they feel ignored or disrespected.”


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


QAnon content “evaporated” online following post-Jan. 6 social media crackdown, study finds

New social media policies meant to limit the spread of QAnon conspiracies online appear to be working, new research shows. 

The study, conducted by the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Lab, found that QAnon conspiracy-related phrases “evaporated” from both mainstream and alternative social media sites, like Parler and Gab, following high-profile moderation efforts from companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter. 

In the place of a widespread Q following that grew to incredible size during the Trump presidency — a number of the Jan. 6 rioters who breached the U.S. Capitol were QAnon believers — the movement is now “a cluster of loosely connected conspiracy theory-driven movements that advocate many of the same false claims without the hallmark linguistic stylings that defined QAnon communities during their years of growth,” according to the researchers, Jared Holt and Max Rizzuto.

They analyzed more than 40 million mentions of 13 widely known QAnon catchphrases and related language, including “WWG1WGA” (Where we go one we go all), “the storm,” “great awakening,” “trust the plan,” “save the children,” “Pizzagate.” Their usage began in earnest last March as the COVID-19 pandemic first barrelled through the U.S. and peaked during last summer’s racial justice protests — spiking again before Jan. 6 and dropping precipitously in the days following the insurrection, presumably due to the moderation changes at major social media firms.

For example, Twitter told CBS News in March that it had banned as many as 150,000 accounts for promoting Qanon conspiracies since January. Axios reported around the same time that YouTube had removed 30,000 videos promoting similar content, while its parent company, Google, banned ads on its platforms referencing Jan. 6 or even the 2020 election. Facebook implemented a fact-checking program to place warnings on posts with false or misleading information — though to what extent the warnings were used on Qanon content is still unclear. Last year, Facebook did announce a wide-ranging initiative to ban Q-related accounts.

Holt and Rizzuto do note some alternative explanations for the drop in QAnon-related content following the Capitol riot, including an extended silence from Q, who inspired the original conspiracy, self-censorship of well-known phrases in order to evade social media moderation and the dispiriting impact of Trump’s loss on Q followers, who were some of the former president’s biggest fans.

Perhaps most surprising were the downstream effects of mainstream social media moderation on alternative sites with little to no oversight — researchers concluded that more right-wing friendly Parler and Gab did not absorb the displaced Qanon activity from banned users of the more mainstream sites.

“Concerted content moderation works,” Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, told Axios Wednesday about the study. “When they put their minds to it, the mainstream platforms can have a very big effect on marginalizing or eliminating toxic content.”

Trump-loving MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell kicked out of GOP governors event

The Donald Trump-loving MyPillow CEO got thrown out of a meeting of the Republican Governors Association.

Mike Lindell told Politico he flew to Tennessee to attend the three-day meeting starting Tuesday, but an event coordinator told him after gathering his credential at Nashville’s JW Marriott Hotel that he wasn’t allowed at any official RGA events.

“These events are for RGA members, and Mike Lindell is not currently an RGA member,” an RGA official told the website.

The RGA official explained Lindell tried to join a group of members riding out to the Governor’s Mansion but was denied.

Earlier that day Lindell told Steve Bannon’s radio show that he intended to confront Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, RGA’s chair, about alleged election fraud in their states, although GOP officials and others in both states have found no evidence to back up those claims.

Lindell attended last year’s meeting, where some GOP governors and Trump encouraged him to run for Minnesota’s governor.

Marjorie Taylor Greene doubles down on anti-Semitic remarks: “I have done nothing wrong”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Wednesday insisted that she had “done nothing wrong” after comparing mask mandates to “gas chambers in Nazi Germany.”

While speaking to Real America’s Voice host Steve Bannon, Greene reacted to Republican leaders — like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) — who have condemned her remarks as anti-Semitic.

“They fear me because they know that I’m with the people,” the lawmaker explained. “The media tried to destroy me right from the start. And the Democrats are trying to take me out as we speak. They have a resolution to expel me.”

“But I’ve done nothing wrong,” she continued. “I have literally done nothing wrong. The only thing that I have done that they’re so offended by is I go in every single day and I speak exactly how real Americans talk at their kitchen tables, how real Americans talk when they’re on break at work, how real Americans talk to one another.”

Greene added: “Americans are the country — we created equality. Through the Civil Rights Movement, we got rid of racism. We fought against it and that’s something that we’re all proud of. And the Republican Party needs to stand up against racism that is constantly preached from the Democrats through the media, we need to stand up against the critical race theory, and we need to stand up against the constant non-stop rhetoric of racism and the constant throwing of the race card by the Democrats.”

Watch the video below from Real America’s Voice: