Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Bar carts: Another trend or actually useful?

Something I’ve been doing with my free time lately (because, of course) is ponder: Are bar carts on their way out?

Before you take me to task, hear me out: Bar carts aren’t the most functional of household items. They’re effectively open shelving displays of your favorite glassware, liquors, and drink-making supplies, which is moderately humorous, considering the discrepancies in the world of alcohol-as-decor.

We tend to poke fun at more, shall we say, “fratty” displays of alcohol, i.e., lining the tops of cabinets with empty bottles of Jäger or plastering the wall with broken-down boxes of beer. But a tasteful vintage champagne ad or a St. Germain bottle turned bud vase? Refined! Classy! A bar cart stocked with upscale liquors, bitters, and vessels to combine them in? Resplendent!

I happen to adore my bar cart, but the constant wiping down I do of the cart and its contents prompted further investigation, so I posted a poll on Instagram asking, “Are bar carts out? Or still cool?” The responses (to my relief) came back as such: 16% for out, and 84% for still cool.

That said, those in the anti-cart camp had some pretty strong opinions on why, in fact, they’re an impractical investment piece. Come along with me, if you will, through the pros and cons of the bar cart, and at the end, tell me which camp you fall into: out or still cool?

* * *

Some gripes I received:

They’re begging for cat mischief

“Dislike: My cat can easily knock things off of it,” says Margot Maley, an Instagram follower and mischievous-cat owner in Brooklyn, New York. Anything breakable that’s on display is a cat disaster waiting to happen, as most cat owners are aware, and it’s sometimes an issue even for overzealous dog tails and curious, teething puppies.

We may have grown out of them

Unfortunately, many of us may have officially grown out of the beloved Swedish-emporium-style rolling carts for housing our beveragino ingredients. Says my extremely stylish friend, Sophia Guglietta, “I think we’ve grown out of IKEA bar carts, after a year of stuck-in-our-apartments drinking. Now, we need a dedicated piece of furniture.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CNU9YEBA5zM

Does anyone really make drinks on them?

The answer is almost unanimously . . . no. “They’re a logistical nightmare in a party or social setting,” my friend from college, Omar Hamad, points out. “People like to make drinks in the kitchen.” Indeed, you will never actually find me at the bar cart stirring up a cocktail; I’m always at the kitchen counter spilling lime juice and running out of ice, because my bar cart is chock-full of items.

They’re kind of clunky

Quite simply, says Arati Menon, Home52 editorial lead (and small living aficionado), “I have no space for one.” This harkens back to the idea that bar carts really are just a decor piece, one that can be forfeited should the space not allow.

All. The. Dust.

Possibly the worst offender among the list of bar cart problems: the dust that settles on every last item. “I don’t want to see cups out — they belong in a cabinet,” frets Alex Mantia, my very particular friend and a NYC paralegal. “A side table or small cabinet is better so you can keep the glasses dust free, but let your bottles shine on top.” It’s true, each time I reach for one of my gorgeous smoked wine glasses, I have to give it a quick rinse in the sink before using it.

* * *

A swift defense:

The timelessness of it all

“It’s timeless. I will fight anyone who says otherwise,” proposes Mariam Chubidze, the fiercest defender of the bar cart yet. It’s true that cocktail carts have been around for at least 100 years, having reached their peak popularity in the 1950s, when office whiskey was at the ready (hello, Mad Men), and at home, carts actually rolled from room to room while entertaining. It’s still a staple of midcentury design, too.

It just . . . makes sense

“Where else would I put my alcohol if not on my overcrowded bar car?” says Alyse Whitney, Haus aperitif collector and lover of booze storage practicality. “Since I can’t be crammed in a bar with my friends right now, my assortment of bitters, aperitifs, and liquor can all hang out too close together on there.” And if not on the bar cart, they’d likely be taking up precious real estate in a kitchen cabinet.

Do what works for you

Says our resident apartment bartenderElliot Clark, “for the at-home enthusiasts, booze storage isn’t a trend, it’s a necessity.” Whether you opt for a bar cart or a bar cabinet, it’s all really personal preference. “If you’re like me,” Elliot continues, “and have over 300 bottles in your apartment — you might need a bar cart, bar cabinet, and more.”

They really are stunning

Like anything else we decorate our homes with, bar carts aren’t always super functional. Sure, we don’t really roll them around to make drinks on, but does that make them any less beautiful to behold? Not at all. Every afternoon, I look forward to the light coming in and hitting the array of colored bottles on my cart just right, and that little glistening moment is enough to keep me hooked on the open-air display of my sins for some time longer.

Hundreds of PPP loans went to fake farms in absurd places

The shoreline communities of Ocean County, New Jersey, are a summertime getaway for throngs of urbanites, lined with vacation homes and ice cream parlors. Not exactly pastoral — which is odd, considering dozens of Paycheck Protection Program loans to supposed farms that flowed into the beach towns last year.

As the first round of the federal government’s relief program for small businesses wound down last summer, “Ritter Wheat Club” and “Deely Nuts,” ostensibly a wheat farm and a tree nut farm, each got $20,833, the maximum amount available for sole proprietorships. “Tomato Cramber,” up the coast in Brielle, got $12,739, while “Seaweed Bleiman” in Manahawkin got $19,957.

None of these entities exist in New Jersey’s business records, and the owners of the homes at which they are purportedly located expressed surprise when contacted by ProPublica. One entity categorized as a cattle ranch, “Beefy King,” was registered in PPP records to the home address of Joe Mancini, the mayor of Long Beach Township.

“There’s no farming here: We’re a sandbar, for Christ’s sake,” said Mancini, reached by telephone. Mancini said that he had no cows at his home, just three dogs.

All of these loans to nonexistent businesses came through Kabbage, an online lending platform that processed nearly 300,000 PPP loans before the first round of funds ran out in August 2020, second only to Bank of America. In total, ProPublica found 378 small loans totaling $7 million to fake business entities, all of which were structured as single-person operations and received close to the largest loan for which such micro-businesses were eligible. The overwhelming majority of them are categorized as farms, even in the unlikeliest of locales, from potato fields in Palm Beach to orange groves in Minnesota.

The Kabbage pattern is only one slice of a sprawling fraud problem that has suffused the Paycheck Protection Program from its creation in March 2020 as an attempt to keep small businesses on life support while they were forced to shut down. With speed as its strongest imperative, the effort run by the federal Small Business Administration initially lacked even the most basic safeguards to prevent opportunists from submitting fabricated documentation, government watchdogs have said.

While that may have allowed millions of businesses to keep their doors open, it has also required a massive cleanup operation on the backend. The SBA’s inspector general estimated in January that the agency approved loans for 55,000 potentially ineligible businesses, and that 43,000 obtained more money than their reported payrolls would justify. The Department of Justice, relying on special agents from across the government to investigate, has brought charges against hundreds of individuals accused of gaming pandemic response programs.

Drawn by generous fees for each loan processed, Kabbage was among a band of online lenders that joined enthusiastically in originating loans through their automated platforms. That helped millions of borrowers who’d been turned down by traditional banks, but it also created more opportunities for cheating. ProPublica examined SBA loans processed by several of the most prolific online lenders and found that Kabbage appears to have originated the most loans to businesses that don’t appear to exist and the only concentration of loans to phantom farms.

In some cases, these problems would’ve been easy to spot with just a little more upfront diligence — which the program’s structure did not encourage.

“Pushing this through financial institutions created some pretty bad incentives,” said Naftali Harris, the CEO of Sentilink, which helps lenders detect potential identity theft. “This is definitely a case where companies that decided they wanted to be more careful in terms of giving out loans were penalized for doing so.”

Presented with ProPublica’s findings, SBA inspector general spokeswoman Farrah Saint-Surin said that her office had hundreds of investigations underway, but that she did “not have any information to share or available for public reporting at this time.” Reuters reported that federal investigators were probing whether Kabbage and other fintech lenders miscalculated PPP loan amounts, and the DOJ declined to confirm or deny the existence of any investigation to ProPublica.

Kabbage, which was acquired by American Express last fall, did not have an explanation for ProPublica’s specific findings, but it said it adhered to required fraud protocols. “At any point in the loan process, if fraudulent activity was suspected or confirmed, it was reported to FinCEN, the SBA’s Office of the Inspector General and other federal investigators, with Kabbage providing its full cooperation,” spokesman Paul Bernardini said in an emailed statement.

As soon as the pandemic swept across America, Kabbage was in trouble.

The online lending platform had launched in 2009 as part of a generation of financial technology companies known as “non-banks,” “alternative lenders” or simply “fintechs” that act as an intermediary between investors and small businesses that might not have relationships with traditional banks. Based in Atlanta, it had become a buzzy standout in the city’s tech scene, offering employees Silicon Valley perks like free catered lunches and beer on tap. It advertised its mission as helping small businesses “acquire funds they need for their big breaks,” as a recruiting video parody of Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” put it in 2016.

The basic innovation behind the burgeoning fintech industry is automating underwriting and incorporating more data sources into risk evaluation, using statistical models to determine whether an applicant will repay a loan. That lower barrier to credit comes with a price: Kabbage would lend to borrowers with thin or checkered credit histories, in exchange for steep fees. The original partner for most of its loans, Celtic Bank, is based in Utah, which has no cap on interest rate, allowing Kabbage to charge more in states with stricter regulations.

With backing from the powerhouse venture capital firm SoftBank, Kabbage had been planning an IPO. Its model foundered, however, when Kabbage’s largest customer base — small businesses like coffee shops, hair salons and yoga studios — was forced to shut down last March. Kabbage stopped writing loans, even for businesses that weren’t harmed by the pandemic. Days later, it furloughed more than half of its nearly 600-person staff and faced an uncertain future.

The Paycheck Protection Program, which was signed into law as part of the CARES Act on March 27, 2020, with an initial $349 billion in funding, was a lifeline not just to small businesses, but fintechs as well. Lenders would get a fee of 5% on loans worth less than $350,000, which would account for the vast majority of transactions. The loans were government guaranteed, and processors bore almost no liability, as long as they made sure that applications were complete.

At first, encouraged by the Treasury Department, traditional banks prioritized their own customers — an efficient way to process applications with little fraud risk, since the borrowers’ information was already on file. But that left millions of the smallest businesses, including independent contractors, out to dry. They turned instead to a collection of online lenders that have sprung up offering short-term loans to businesses: Kabbage, Lendio, Bluevine, FundBox, Square Capital and others would process applications automatically, with little human review required.

For the platforms, this was also easy money. In the first funding round that ran out last August, Kabbage completed 297,587 loans totaling $7 billion. It received 5% of each loan it made directly and an undisclosed cut of the proceeds for those it processed for banks; its total revenue was likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars. A lawsuit filed by a South Carolina accounting firm alleges that Kabbage was among several lenders that refused to pay fees to agents who helped put together applications, even though the CARES Act had said they could charge up to 1% of the smaller loans (a provision that was later reversed). For Kabbage, that revenue kept the company alive while it sought a buyer.

“For all of these guys, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. If you could do the minimum amount of due diligence required, you could fill up the pipeline with these applications,” said a former Kabbage executive, one of four former employees interviewed by ProPublica. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retaliation at their current jobs or from industry giant American Express.

To handle the volume, Kabbage brought back laid-off workers starting at $15 an hour. When that failed to attract enough people, they increased the hourly rate to $35, and then $40, and awarded gift cards for reaching certain benchmarks, according to a former employee with visibility into the loan processing. “At a certain point, they were like, ‘Yes, get more applications out and you’ll get this reward if you do,'” the former employee said. (Bernardini said the company did not offer incentive compensation.)

In a report on its PPP participation through last August, Kabbage boasted that 75% of all approved applications were processed without human review. For every 790 employees at major U.S. banks, the report said, Kabbage had one. That’s in part because traditional banks, which also take deposits, are much more heavily regulated than fintech institutions that just process loans. To participate in the PPP, fintechs had to quickly set up systems that could comply with anti-money laundering laws. The human review that did happen, according to two people involved in it, was perfunctory.

“They weren’t saying, ‘Is this legitimate?’ They were just saying, ‘Are all the fields filled out?'” said another former employee. As acquisition talks proceeded, the employee noted, Kabbage managers who held the most company stock had a built-in incentive to process as many loans as possible. “If there’s anything suspicious, you can pass it along to account review, but account review was full of people who stood to make a lot of money from the acquisition.”

One situation in which Kabbage approved a suspicious loan became public in a Florida lawsuit filed by a woman, Latoya Clark, who received more than $1 million in PPP loans to three businesses. When the funds were deposited into accounts at JPMorgan Chase, the bank discovered that Clark’s businesses hadn’t been incorporated before the PPP program’s cutoff and froze the accounts. Clark sued Chase, and Chase then filed a counterclaim against the borrower and Kabbage, which had originated the loan despite its questionable documentation. In its response, Kabbage said it had not yet completed its investigation of the incident.

Although the Justice Department rarely names lenders that processed fraudulent PPP applications, Kabbage has been named at least twice. One case involved two loans worth $1.8 million to businesses that submitted forged information, and the other involved a business that had inflated its payroll numbers and submitted a similar application to U.S. Bank, which flagged authorities. Kabbage had simply approved the $940,000 loan. American Express’ Bernardini declined to comment further on pending litigation.

Shortly after the application period for PPP’s first round closed on Aug. 8, American Express announced the Kabbage purchase. But the transaction included none of Kabbage’s loan portfolios, either from the PPP or its pre-pandemic conventional loans. The PPP loans had either been sold to SBA-approved banks or bought by the Federal Reserve. Bernardini wouldn’t say which banks now own the loans, however, and said that no potentially fraudulent loans had been pledged to the Fed.

In April, an Ocean County, New Jersey, resident contacted ProPublica after seeing his name attached to a Kabbage loan for a nonexistent “melon farm.” To see whether it was an isolated incident, ProPublica took basic information the government released after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by ProPublica and others and compared it with state business entity registries. Although registries don’t pick up all sole proprietorships and independent contractors, the absence of a name is an indication that the business might not exist.

As it turned out, Kabbage had made more than 60 loans in New Jersey to unlisted businesses. Fake farms also showed up repeatedly in the SBA’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, according to reports from localnewsoutlets.

A common tie became apparent when the resident of the home to which one nonexistent business was registered said that he was a client of the certified public accountants at Ciccone, Koseff & Company. In March 2020, the firm notified its clients of what it called an “ultimately unsuccessful ransomware attack” that occurred the previous month. According to information filed with Maine’s attorney general, the attackers acquired Social Security numbers and financial information.

Several other clients of the accounting firm, including Mancini, the Long Beach mayor, also had loans registered to their addresses. Reached by phone, firm founder Ray Ciccone declined to comment.

But that CPA’s data breach didn’t account for all of the suspicious loans ProPublica found across the country. Searches for PPP applicants that didn’t show up in state registration records yielded hundreds in 28 more states, with dense clusters in Florida, Nebraska and Virginia. Other lenders had nonexistent businesses as well, but fake farms only showed up in Kabbage loans. Most followed a distinctive naming convention, with part of the name of a resident or former resident of the home to which the business is registered, plus a random agricultural term.

Some of the fake loans listed addresses of people who’d also legitimately applied for their businesses. Hartington, Nebraska, anesthesiologist Bruce Reifenrath received a PPP loan for his practice in nearby Yankton, South Dakota. That’s why the idea of one being approved for a “potato farm” was so strange. “We did a PPP loan last spring and it’s pretty extensive, the documentation,” Reifenrath said.

Reifenrath was part of a cluster of dubious Kabbage loans in Hartington that also included the home of J. Scott Schrempp, the president of the Bank of Hartington, who confirmed that he did not own a strawberry farm. Schrempp said he had noticed the fake loan, and reported it to the SBA.

The SBA data only reflects approved applications received from lenders, some of which are then caught and not funded. The SBA also periodically updates its dataset to remove loans canceled by lenders. But none of the suspicious loans pulled by ProPublica show undisbursed funds, and they all have remained in the dataset for more than eight months.

One possible mechanism for the invented businesses is a technique known as synthetic identity theft, in which a criminal obtains pieces of personally identifiable information — such as a home address, a Social Security number and a birthdate — and combines it with fake information to build a credit profile. The associated bank account then routes to the fraudster, not the owner of the original information.

None of the residents of the phony farms ProPublica contacted were getting notices that they needed to repay the loans they didn’t apply for, because they didn’t get any money. But that doesn’t mean they’re not at risk, according to James Lee, chief operating officer at the Identity Theft Resource Center.

“Just having an address linked to your name on a fraudulent loan can impact your credit,” Lee said. It can also pose problems for pre-employment background checks, insurance applications or new identification documents like passports and driver’s licenses.

Meanwhile, if not corrected, the fabricated identities will stay in circulation and become better at fooling other financial institutions. “Those records get built into the credit and authentication systems used by government and commercial entities,” Lee said. “Each next time they are used and authenticated, the more ‘real’ they become. That’s what makes synthetic identity fraud so insidious.”

This, however, is largely not Kabbage’s problem anymore.

After its huge blitz of PPP loans last summer, Kabbage had hundreds of thousands of borrowers whose loans would need to be serviced until they were closed out. The loans could either be forgiven, if the borrower demonstrated that they spent most of the money on payroll, or paid back with interest. To finish the job, American Express spun off a separate entity called K Servicing, which would also take applications for a second PPP draw that Congress funded in December. The new entity is led by former Kabbage employees and its website looks very similar to Kabbage’s, but American Express says it has no affiliation.

If Kabbage was understaffed for the volume of PPP loans it took on before the acquisition, the situation has apparently worsened since then. Reddit, Yelp, Consumer Affairs, Trustpilot, Facebook and Better Business Bureau threads are replete with complaints from customers whose applications were denied or who received no communication from the company. When the SBA changed the rules in February to make the program more generous to independent contractors, K Servicing couldn’t incorporate the new forms into its processing system. So it told all new applicants to apply through another company, SmartBiz, which had operated as a mostly online processor of SBA loans even before the pandemic.

K Servicing is run by Kabbage’s former head of program management, Laquisha Milner, who also runs her own consulting firm. “Due to extenuating circumstances beyond our control, currently, our processing function is delayed,” Milner emailed in response to detailed questions from ProPublica. “We are relentlessly exploring all available options to ensure our existing customers are able to maximize their loan forgiveness.”

Jennifer Dienst is a freelance travel and events writer who received her first-draw loan from Kabbage and wants to apply for forgiveness before her window for doing so closes in the fall, but she has been stymied by K Servicing’s failure to make the forms available. “Please be patient with us as we prepare for the new forms,” a message on the loan portal reads.

Meanwhile, Dienst’s account has started accruing interest, which Milner said will not be charged if the loan is forgiven. But it’s making Dienst nervous.

“It’s always the same response from K Servicing — we’re updating our forgiveness forms and they’ll be made available soon,” Dienst said. “They’ve been saying that for months.”

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

On the Capitol riot and the fall of the Super League: A fable of the last days of capitalism

One news event of 2021 that blew by us not long ago vividly serves to illustrate the profound political confusion of our time. One aspect of that confusion is that it barely seemed to have a comprehensible political dimension at all, even though it culminated in a small-scale, low-impact imitation of the U.S. Capitol riot of Jan. 6.

I’m talking about the brief and spectacular career of the European Super League, which proposed to unite Europe’s biggest soccer teams — by definition, among the most valuable and successful sports franchises on the planet — in a closed-competition entity somewhat modeled on the NBA or Major League Baseball. This scheme had been hatched as a semi-open secret for several years by a coterie of billionaire team owners, and was backed by financing from JPMorgan Chase in expectation of a record-breaking TV deal. 

This small group of immensely wealthy men — and evidently all the toadies and financiers around them — believed this was a logical way to streamline and consolidate the awkward business structure of the world’s most popular professional sport, which at present is carved up into numerous national leagues and international cup competitions. On paper, according to the logic that has driven global capitalism over the last several decades, that was an entirely sensible conclusion. It apparently did not occur to them that their plan might run into significant public opposition, probably because they simply hadn’t noticed that the ground under their feet — rather, under everyone’s feet — had shifted dramatically in political, ideological and cultural terms. 

In any case, in the annals of disastrous PR rollouts, a new standard has been set: The Super League was announced with a late-night press release on April 18 and collapsed entirely three days later, after widespread public protests and political blowback, much of it from unlikely sources. (British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for example, has not previously been seen as an enemy of Big Capital.) At least New Coke and the Edsel were products that managed to reach the marketplace. Team owners who briefly believed they had invented the Next Big Thing were left to eat crow on social media, apologize to their fans and vow repentance to their domestic leagues and the sport’s governing bodies. For whatever reason, no one has bothered to shut down the Super League website, which stands as a digital Ozymandias monument to one of the great moments of hubris in recent history.

Two weeks after that, a match between Manchester United and Liverpool — perhaps England’s two most famous teams, both involved in the Super League fiasco — had to be abandoned on May 2 after hundreds of protesters broke through security at Old Trafford, United’s historic stadium. In a startling minor-key echo of what had happened four months earlier in Washington, the interlopers wandered around the stands and the field for a couple of hours setting off fireworks, committing acts of minor vandalism and, of course, posting everything they did on Instagram. I suppose we can’t claim this was a case of history repeating itself as farce, since it had already been farce in the first instance.

Beyond some vague tut-tutting about the importance of peaceful protest — in this case, it’s actually true that a much larger crowd remained outside and did not break the law — the sports media had no idea how to describe what had happened or why. Although there was clearly some connection between the Super League debacle and the Old Trafford riot, no one could quite explain what that was. Exactly what the Manchester United fans were angry about, and what they hoped to accomplish — a great many of them were wearing the team’s expensive merchandise, even as they broke into its own stadium and trashed the place — is even less clear than in the case of the Capitol rioters, who had a proximate (if completely unachievable) goal. 

It’s fair to say that United’s widely-despised American owners, the Glazer family of Florida — who also own the NFL’s Tampa Bay Buccaneers — were the principal targets. But as with the Capitol attack, I think focusing too closely on the details is missing the point. Parochial impulses like anti-Americanism almost certainly played a role in Manchester, and so perhaps did uglier ones like antisemitism. But trying to frame these events in terms of good and evil, heroes and villains — depicting the Old Trafford invaders, for example, as a bunch of Little England bigots staging a micro-Brexit — is overly simplistic, and amounts to deliberately avoiding the lesson history is trying to teach us. 

I’m almost surprised, in fact, that we never saw an op-ed by a professional smart person announcing that the Super League scheme was in some sense historically and socially progressive, and that its opponents were tiny, backward people stuck in the past. I guess there simply wasn’t time for that, and in the current climate of public opinion, taking the side of, say, Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich and Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi — respectively, the owners of Chelsea and Manchester City, who will play in the UEFA Champions League final next Saturday — against the unwashed rabble didn’t seem worth it. 

I guarantee there are professional smart people who feel that way, perhaps more instinctively than intellectually, which points us toward two important elements of that history lesson. The first of those is that such critics would be half right: Everyone is stuck in the past. We live in an age of permanent nostalgia, when nearly everyone seems to believe they’ve lost something important, but can’t, or won’t, say exactly what that is. But if the rioters at both Old Trafford and the U.S. Capitol were trying to recover something unrecoverable (and perhaps indescribable), so too are those of us in the educated classes who sit behind desks and deliver them lectures.

The second part of the lesson is that the world those professional smart people helped create, and whose ideological and intellectual enforcers they have become, is built on the premise that capitalism and democracy are inextricably linked. In the decades since the end of the Cold War, they have assured us that those vaguely-defined terms of art had been bonded together in a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup of historical inevitability and would lead us, sooner or later, to the perfect society.

That has come back around, not to put too fine a point on it, and bitten them in the ass. Now that the perfect union of globalized capital and so-called liberal democracy looks like just as much of a delusion as the Marxist-Leninist permanent revolution, ordinary people around the world have become deeply suspicious of both halves of the equation. It may be vaguely correct to say that the Capitol riot was an attack against democracy and the Old Trafford riot was a protest against capitalism, and to claim that the first presented a dire threat with enduring consequences while the second was entirely symbolic and largely pointless.  

But in the bigger historical picture I think we have to see them as two sides of the same coin. Both were explosions of incoherent popular or populist rage directed at the dominant liberal-capitalist order, whose decades of hegemonic rule (whichever political parties were nominally in power) have produced worsening inequality — both on a global scale and within the affluent nations of the West — along with a widespread sense of political disenfranchisement and cultural dislocation. 

If some of that outrage takes exceptionally unpleasant forms — an embrace of authoritarianism, fascism or white supremacy, for instance — while some of it appears more “progressive” or radical, and a whole lot of it is ambiguous and difficult to define, that should not be surprising to anyone familiar with the patterns of history. 

Our reluctantly deposed ex-president and his followers have famously wrapped themselves in a threat or promise to make America great again, a misty-eyed callback to some fantasy version of the 1950s, with their supposedly unquestioned racial and sexual hierarchies intact. I don’t need to waste time convincing you that nothing about that invented reactionary utopia — America as perceived by Donald Trump in childhood, pretty much — resembles the actual history of the 1950s, a transitional decade characterized by tremendous turmoil and change. 

It’s certainly possible that some of the Old Trafford rioters harbored an equally unsustainable fantasy about a vanished era of bloody turf, early-morning pints and Players No. 6 cigarettes, when Manchester United was in some sense a local or distinctively “English” team and its jerseys (today bearing the iconic logo of an American car) weren’t found on teenage bodies in Shanghai and Cairo and suburban Chicago. It seems entirely plausible that there were racist or nativist undertones to the wave of protests that brought down the billionaires’ dream of a Super League to rule them all. Make footy great again!

But as one of my mentors in journalism told me years ago, not every story has a good guy and a bad guy, and your first responsibility is to tell the truth, not to take sides. For a great many people in the educated liberal classes of the Western world, the entirety of the popular revolt against both capitalism and democracy seems incomprehensible and more than a little bit terrifying. That’s because they also long for their own version of the vanished and largely imaginary past: the age of neoliberal triumphalism, when it seemed obvious that the unified system of liberal democracy and global capitalism would rule everywhere and forever, with people like them (OK, like us) as its meritocratic elite.

Why Sen. Rand Paul says he will not get COVID-19 vaccine

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., one of the foremost right-wing critics of the U.S. COVID-19 response, now says he will not get vaccinated against the virus.

The ultimatum came during an interview with WABC 770 AM radio host John Catsimatidis, during which the Kentucky libertarian called it a “personal decision” informed by his previous bout with COVID-19 during March 2020.

“Until they show me evidence that people who have already had the infection are dying in large numbers, or being hospitalized or getting very sick, I just made my own personal decision that I’m not getting vaccinated because I’ve already had the disease and I have natural immunity now,” Paul said.

The statement from Paul, an ophthalmologist by trade, flies in the face of official recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control, which encourages vaccination for people who have already contracted the virus. Researchers are still trying to determine how long natural immunity lasts — with some reports suggesting that the body’s protection can wane after as few as 90 days. 

Paul has engaged in several public flare-ups with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House chief medical adviser, over guidance that Paul sees as overly strict. Fauci, for his part, has pointed out that the speed at which we vaccinate individuals is also the speed with which the country will return to normal.

During his interview Sunday, Paul compared the strong CDC recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination to “Big Brother,” a reference to the dystopian surveillance state in George Orwell’s novel 1984.

“Are they also going to tell me I can’t have a cheeseburger for lunch? Are they going to tell me that I have to eat carrots only and cut my calories?” Paul added. “All that would probably be good for me, but I don’t think big brother ought to tell me to do it.”

As of Sunday, 38.9 percent of all Americans are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the CDC.

Chris Rock hilariously crashes SNL opening skit during season finale

NBC’s “Saturday Night Live” dispensed with the show’s traditional opening skit to reflect on the difficulty of putting on a sketch comedy production during a pandemic.

The shows stars discussed the difficulties — and then Chris Rock showed up.

“Wait a second,” Rock said. “I hosted the first episode of the season, that feels like six years ago.”

“Here’s how messed up the world was when I hosted. I wanted Kanye West to be the musical guest, but he couldn’t because he was running for president,” he said. “Remember that?”

“Also, the week i was here, the sitting president — who said covid would disappear — got COVID! That was this season, okay? That was this season!”

“Then the election was over. [Trump] loses, right? Big moments for SNL. clearly the right time to leave, to end the season. but no. these idiots did 12 more shows. even Jim Carey knew it was time to go home,” he said.

Watch via NBC:

“Coming out of the closet” with Alzheimer’s: Neurologist Dan Gibbs on his surprise diagnosis

When I think of Alzheimer’s, I don’t think of somebody like Daniel Gibbs. I think of my mother, who doesn’t know what year it is, or that her husband is dead. I think of tragic movie characters in tearjerker films. 

Gibbs would like to change that. As a neurologist, he understands the science of the brain. As an early stage  Alzheimer’s patient, he recognizes there is so much more to the condition than the singular — and extreme —  narrative we may be familiar with.

In “A Tattoo on My Brain,” co-written by Teresa H. Baker, Gibbs reveals how a surprise diagnosis changed his life, and how modern Alzheimer’s doesn’t have to be the confounding “senility” of generations past. With equal parts humility and curiosity, he offers a firsthand account of a disease that affects 5.8 million Americans, and for which there is no cure. And he investigates the new thinking and clinical research that’s offering hope to patients like him, as well as people like me, who wonder what might lurk in our own genetic future.

Salon spoke to Gibbs recently about the myths of misconceptions of Alzheimer’s, and how his sense of smell tipped him off to a bigger problem. As always, this interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

In your book, you call yourself a “lumper.” What do you want people to understand about Alzheimer’s, about dementia, all of those things that we “lump” together?

There’s a parallel with cancer because Alzheimer’s research is about thirty or forty years behind our understanding of cancer. Back in the fifties and sixties, cancer was just all thought to be about the same — the cells went wrong and grew, and if you could kill one cancer, you might be able to kill them all. Obviously, that wasn’t true. Alzheimer’s has been following the same path. When I was first in practice, we couldn’t do anything about any of the dementias. I lumped them together because it didn’t seem to be fruitful to make a distinction between Alzheimer’s disease and Lewy body dementia or Parkinson’s dementia or vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia.

When the first drug, Aricept, came out in the nineties, it became important — for me anyway— to make a distinction, because Aricept provides some benefits to some people with Alzheimer’s, some people Lewy body dementia. But it can make symptoms from frontotemporal dementia actually worse. It was important to get rid of the shotgun approach and more fine tune.

Just in the last year, in the last few months, we’re finding that there are probably subtypes of what we call Alzheimer’s that really aren’t quite the same thing on a molecular level. They probably will respond or not respond differently to various attempts to reverse the disease or to slow it down.

That’s become apparent in the trials of disease modifying medications, like the anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies, the trial that I was in. Early on the trials of the first drug, showed absolutely no benefit. But in those first trials, they weren’t able to test to see if people actually had Alzheimer’s disease. That was before the amyloid pet scan was available. Now, all of the trials require a pet scans for amyloids, to show that the people all have these amyloids in their brain. It doesn’t mean they have Alzheimer’s disease, but it means that they are probably on the path.  

My feeling is we’re going to have to push the target age earlier, working on treatments even before people have cognitive impairment. It’s not as simple as one type of cancer; it’s probably not one simple type of Alzheimer’s disease. We have to understand more about the different subtypes before we figure out how to attack it.

That’s crucial, because a lot of us have a particular narrative in our heads about what it looks like when someone has Alzheimer’s. Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore have won Oscars for it. Yet you start your story with very different symptoms, that we don’t necessarily recognize as being part of Alzheimer’s.

I started to lose my sense of smell at least fifteen years ago, and didn’t think anything of it because everybody, as they get older has a decrease in their sense of smell. But about a year into it, I started to have weird, illusory odors, which incidentally are not the characteristics of Alzheimer’s disease. That there’s nothing in the literature that I could find that showed an association.

But that got my attention because that was weird to have these smells come out of nowhere that were a cross between baking bread and perfume, that would last a few minutes or maybe an hour. I was more interested to see if I might be at risk for Parkinson’s disease, because olfactory disorders are much better recognized in Parkinson’s. Alzheimer’s wasn’t on my radar screen at all.


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


There are psychological symptoms that maybe someone who is looking at changes in their own behavior or mental state may not realize might be symptomatic. What was that like for you?

Apathy is so common. I think it’s probably due to one of the first parts of the brain that starts to accumulate amyloid is the prefrontal cortex. That’s the part of the brain right in the front that is involved in motivation. It’s where we come up with plans for doing things. It just makes sense to me. That probably is the structural correlate of why we get apathy. I certainly have a hard time doing stuff. I’m content with the isolation of COVID and don’t really have a particular interest in going out again now that I can go to the theater or something like that. I have to push myself to do that, or my wife has to push me.

That’s very common and it’s often very early. The things like the paranoia, the real psychiatric symptoms that can be so difficult for everybody, are usually later. Unfortunately I think what we’ve all considered to be Alzheimer’s disease is that late stage. When I was practicing neurology, at least in the first ten or fifteen years, that was the first time I saw somebody with Alzheimer’s. They wouldn’t come to the doctor until those late stages, and there wasn’t really anything to do back then. There still isn’t much to do. And there probably won’t be much to do for those people in terms of trying to reverse the process, because by that time brain cells are dead and we just don’t have a clue how to bring them back.

The first successes in terms of disease modification, in my opinion, are going to be in the earliest stages of the disease, but probably before people have any symptoms and that’s going to be really hard to manage.

Over the past year or so it has been harder for all of us to really assess our own mental and physical health, and that of our loved ones. Do you feel that this pandemic has had a detrimental effect on people who are vulnerable to Alzheimer’s and people living with Alzheimer’s?

I don’t think that I can say that it’s had a detrimental effect on me per se, but I think people who are living by themselves, it must be terrible if they have early Alzheimer’s to have that additional isolation. We have four grandchildren, and for the last couple of months, we’ve been able to get together. I think the isolation has been really hard for the people who aren’t able to interact in person with anybody.

For those of us who are in the caregiver roles or extended family member roles, who see this in our families, it’s scary.  What do you tell those of us who are either facing this diagnosis or worry that we’re going to face it?

It’s so important that we’re able to come out of the closet with Alzheimer’s because there’s been this real stigma attached to it. People are afraid of people with Alzheimer’s. They don’t know how they interact with them, and there’s a drawing back. I see that even from myself. The first reaction that people tend to have when I tell them that I have Alzheimer’s, especially a few years ago, was, “Oh, no, of course you don’t have Alzheimer’s,” because it doesn’t fit the paradigm that people have in their mind of the image of what someone with Alzheimer’s ought to look like. I make it a point to just lay it out there before people can be put off by it. Everybody in our neighborhood  knows I have Alzheimer’s, and I think that’s good.

The people that might want less to talk about it, are older people, because it’s maybe a little more threatening to them. Younger people are more open minded about it. I think that’s really great because that’s my target audience, especially if they have a family history of Alzheimer’s because the biggest risk factor is a parent or a sibling with Alzheimer’s. Those are the people who really need to start doing something about it when they’re middle age or before. There’s really good data that some of these lifestyle modifications that I go into in the book can reduce the risk of getting Alzheimer’s when you’re in your seventies or eighties. But they have to be started early.

If you wait until you’re 70 and starting to have memory issues, the horses are out of the barn to certain extent. I’s much more effective to start exercising regularly and eating well and getting sleep. There was a really good study that came out a few weeks ago that gave us the best data yet about how important it is to have adequate sleep in midlife. And that’s the hardest time to get adequate sleep, because we’re so busy. They found that that people who got six or less hours of sleep a night had a 30 percent greater risk of getting Alzheimer’s than people who got seven or more hours of sleep at night. I go into some of that about sleep in the book about why that might be happening. The glymphatic circulation in the brain.

Tthe bottom line is it really does help, but it needs to be midlife. It doesn’t help start trying to get a lot of sleep when you’ve already got Alzheimer’s. By that time, it’s really hard to get adequate sleep because Alzheimer’s stalls up sleep patterns. It’s got to be early, and that’s going to be the case for the drugs that finally work to slow down or keep us from getting Alzheimer’s. I think they’re going to have to be used in people in their fifties, before they have any signs of disease, but that’s a bit of a controversial assertion.

How do you feel about early genetic testing and testing if you don’t have symptoms? 

A reason to get tested would be, if you had a family history, and if you’re interested in getting involved in a study. We’re going to need thousands of people in that category, to have an impact on preclinical disease. I don’t recommend that people go out and get tested for Alzheimer’s without any structure. I think if you want to get tested that’s okay, but it should be done under supervision so that somebody can explain what your risk really is.

That’s going to get even more complicated within a few years, because I think we’re just a few years from having really good blood tests for both amyloid and tau available that will really prove the diagnosis of pre symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease.

If have a first degree relative without Alzheimer’s, so then you ought to be out there getting 10,000 steps or running, getting your aerobic exercise every day, or at least three times a week at the very least. A lot of people don’t enjoy or think don’t think they enjoy the heart and brain healthy diets that are more plant-based, but that would be a good thing to at least make an effort to head towards. It’s good for your heart, it’s good for your blood pressure, it reduces risk of diabetes and it’s good for your brain. I would recommend at least those modifications and trying to get some sleep and staying intellectually active. You don’t have to know whether you’ve got the gene for it, or whether you’ve got tau or amyloid in your brain. At least for right now, just for those who have a family history, I would really recommend making the lifestyle modifications. It doesn’t matter whether or not you know that you have a genetically disposition or already having amyloid.

I was thinking recently how much my fear of cancer has changed because of my dad dying at 60, when I was only 16. I’ve always been worried that I was going to have cancer. I was really dreading it. Now that I have Alzheimer’s, my view of cancer is totally changed and I’m not afraid of cancer anymore. I’m hoping that the things I’m doing in my life to mitigate the effects of Alzheimer’s will prolong my life, prolong my healthy brain part of life, for as long as it takes for something else to kill me. Because I don’t want to die of Alzheimer’s disease.

ExxonMobil found the real reason for the climate crisis: You

ExxonMobil is known for pumping cars full of gas. But according to a new study, it may have also pumped our language full of BS.

Using machine learning, researchers at Harvard University scrutinized 50 years’ worth of the oil giant’s memos, studies, and advertisements to spot hidden patterns in how the company talked about the climate crisis — in public and in private. The evidence suggests that ExxonMobil used subtle rhetoric to shift the blame for climate change from fossil fuels to individuals and that this kind of “discursive grooming” might have shaped the way that scholars, policymakers, and the public discuss the problem today.

“What they’ve done is skew the conversation and make it much more about you and me than about them,” said the study’s co-author, Geoffrey Supran, a Harvard researcher studying the history of fossil fuel companies and the climate (and a member of the Grist 50 last year). “And that’s very problematic and misleading.” 

In the new study, Supran and Naomi Oreskes, a professor of history at Harvard, used computational linguistics to help reveal patterns in language that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. They used algorithms to process the rhetoric in 180 company documents, including publicly available internal memos, peer-reviewed academic studies written by ExxonMobil scientists, and paid advertorials published in the New York Times op-ed pages — what Supran called a “treasure troves of information.”

They found that in company communication and academic papers, ExxonMobil often used phrases like “fossil fuel” and recognized the major role their products play in heating up the globe. But its public communications focused on “consumers,” “demand,” and “energy efficiency,” implicitly pointing the finger elsewhere.

“They’re basically biased toward what we call individualistic framings of not only who is responsible for causing climate change, but who is responsible for solving it,” Supran said. It all adds up to what the study calls a “fossil fuel savior” frame, which depicts oil companies as innocent, trustworthy innovators simply giving the people what they demand. Other oil giants have tapped into this narrative. In November, Shell put out a poll on Twitter, asking “What are you willing to change to help reduce emissions?” Meanwhile, BP has been touting carbon footprint calculators for more than 15 years. 

To be sure, individuals — especially rich jet-setters — do bear some responsibility for global warming, as Kimberly Nicholas, a sustainability scientist, writes in the book Under the Sky We Make. But personal efforts can only go so far without systemic political and economic changes.

The new study builds on previous research by Supran and Oreskes. In 2017, the pair demonstrated that ExxonMobil had historically “misled the public” on climate change, acknowledging the dangers of fossil fuels in private while casting doubt on the science in public. In their new study, Supran and Oreskes turned to what they call “the subtle micro-politics of language” — the often hidden ways that fossil fuel companies have been trying to manipulate the climate conversation. One example they uncovered was an emphasis on “risk.”

ExxonMobil’s public communications shifted from blatant science denial to language about “risks” in the early 2000s. The word choice suggests a potential threat somewhere in the future, rather than a disaster already unfolding. If you visit Exxon’s climate change page today, you’ll find six references to the “risks” of climate change. 

“Exxon and Chevron and ConocoPhillips, they all continue to call climate change a ‘risk’ rather than the reality,” Supran said. “And that’s rather rich when it’s literally harming and killing people today and yesterday.” 

The study draws parallels between the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry, which used similar rhetoric about risk and consumer responsibility to deflect blame for selling products linked to cancer. Supran and Oreskes warn that the oil industry may use a similar strategy in court.

In recent years, cities and states have begun filing lawsuits against the fossil fuel industry for knowingly lying to the public about climate change, seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for deceptive marketing practices. Last month, New York City added to the pile of lawsuits, suing ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute for “false advertising” and greenwashing, a PR move in which a company parades minor sustainability efforts without changing its polluting ways. Supran and Oreskes anticipate that the findings in their new study may be of interest to lawyers involved in these kinds of cases.

In a statement, a spokesperson from ExxonMobil said that the oil giant “supports the Paris climate agreement, and is working to reduce company emissions and helping customers reduce their emissions while working on new lower-emission technologies and advocating for effective policies.”

The new research, he said, “is clearly part of a litigation strategy against ExxonMobil and other energy companies,” pointing to the study’s support from the Rockefeller Family Fund, which has donated more than $3 million to organizations that support climate liability lawsuits, and Oreskes’ support for these lawsuits.

Supran and Oreskes said that Exxon’s argument was just its latest attempt to attack their work with logical fallacies. “ExxonMobil is now misleading the public about its history of misleading the public,” they wrote in a statement.

While the new study doesn’t prove that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies have shaped the way Americans talk about climate change, it suggests that they may be “one source” of the idea that it’s an issue of consumer choice. “I think there’s probably good reason to suspect that if there’s so many of these texts over decades, that it’s going to have some kind of influence,” said Richard Besel, a professor of communications at Grand Valley State University in Michigan who was not involved in the study.

Besel suggested that what Exxon didn’t say in these documents might also be just as important as what it did. “The way they’re selecting and framing things, it’s also simultaneously deflecting from things and taking our attention away from other sorts of ways of thinking about climate change,” Besel said. Future experiments could test the effects of these framings on public perception. Supran pointed to a study showing that framing the climate crisis as a personal responsibility can make people less likely to support climate-friendly political candidates or reduce their own emissions.

“The most pernicious effect of all this,” Supran said, is that the fossil fuel industry may have left its fingerprints on how people think and talk about climate change. “We’re groomed to see ourselves as consumers first and citizens second.”

Mixing two different vaccine doses might actually strengthen COVID-19 immunity, not hurt it

In mid-April, the New York Post ran a story about a worried patient who suffered a vaccine mix-up. “Man accidentally gets one Moderna and one Pfizer COVID vaccine,” the headline read

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer coronavirus vaccines, which are being distributed in the United States, require two separate shots to be complete; the Moderna vaccine is delivered in two injections spaced 28 days apart, while for Pfizer, the difference is 21 days. 

The patient involved in the mix-up, New Hampshire man Craig Richards, told his local news station that the experience made him “uneasy.”  

A supervisor at the site came over and assured Richards he would be okay and that he was fully vaccinated.

Now, new research reveals that Richards might actually be better than fully vaccinated. Indeed, scientists are learning more about mixing vaccine shots, and what they have found so far is encouraging.

Take, for instance, a recent study performed by a group of researchers in Spain led by that country’s Carlos III Health Institute. It found that vaccinating patients with both the Pfizer–BioNTech and Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccines developed a strong immune response against SARS-CoV-2, the virus which causes COVID-19.

The news may help countries that have received varying quantities of each vaccine, where supply is limited. Likewise, it provides countries that have safety concerns about the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine with an alternative for patients who already used that medicine for their first shot.

Moreover, it is intriguing to note that the body’s immune system may actually develop a stronger immune response with a mix-and-match approach to vaccines than if you simply get two doses of the same vaccine.

“It appears as if they’re at least as good or better,” Dr. William Haseltine, chair and president of the global health think tank Access Health International, told Salon. “You’re presenting the immune system with something it has seen before, but in a slightly different version, and that can make a positive difference.”


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


At the very least, it appears that someone who mixes vaccines does not have to be worried. As Haseltine noted, “almost everybody has received mixtures of vaccines over time, both for influenza and for many other diseases.”

“There were really no potential risks of mixing and matching vaccines,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, wrote to Salon. “We do this all the time for other vaccines and don’t even know the brand names of them at this point.”

Dr. Russell Medford, Chairman of the Center for Global Health Innovation and Global Health Crisis Coordination Center, elaborated on Gandhi’s observation.

“For example, there are two main types of vaccines for influenza: an inactivated influenza vaccine that is administered by injection and a live attenuated influenza vaccine that is given by nasal spray,” Medford told Salon by email. “Both are effective and safe.”

In fact, one of the main lessons from the new study is the very fact that it shows these two different types of vaccines can work when mixed.

“The most important takeaway is that a vaccination approach with an adenovirus-vectored vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine is likely to be safe and immunogenic, but further evaluation is needed,” Dr. William Moss, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and Medicine, wrote to Salon. Notably, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is an adenovirus vaccine, whereas the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines

“Being able to use different vaccines for the first and second doses, and potentially for booster doses, is important because it allows for greater flexibility in vaccine schedules, particularly if there are shortages of one type of vaccine. And some combinations may be more immunogenic,” Moss said.

Yet Moss and other scholars noted that this is very early research, and as such we should be cautious about celebrating its conclusions.

“We are identifying new ways to potentially make the vaccines more effective but only time will tell,” Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon by email. Medford echoed that thought, saying that we do not know for sure what to make of the effects of mixing different COVID-19 vaccines but that the “early reports of clinical studies in humans regarding reactogencity is very encouraging.”

While there is not as much reason to be concerned about mixing vaccines, the same is not true for the millions of Americans who are only getting one shot of vaccines that need to be administer in two doses to be complete. 

“It may result in an under-vaccinated population making it difficult to achieve herd immunity,” Benjamin told Salon by email last month.

Salon reached out to the team behind the study for comment and has not heard as of the time of this writing.

A tale of two Romneys: Mitt Romney’s resistance to Trump comes straight from his father

Once upon a time a very long time ago (in the late 1960s), the Republican Party had a moderate and competent Midwestern governor some thought could become their presidential nominee.

He was a prosperous businessman with a reputation for bipartisanship, was impeccably honest and (according to polls) had a good chance of winning a general election. While these things rarely matter in terms of political strategy discussions, he also would have broken a historic barrier by becoming America’s first Mormon president (which we still have not had). As it happens, this man was also on the right side of history when it came to key issues like civil rights and the Vietnam War — another consideration that may not matter to strategists, but does to historians.

Yet George W. Romney made a mistake. At one point while discussing the Vietnam War, he offhandedly used the term “brainwash” to describe how he had been treated by policymakers. The press, which already thought Romney was prone to embarrassing himself, deemed that word choice to be both hilarious and disqualifying. Before he knew it, he was dealing with a PR nightmare (some claimed to be offended by the remark, some ridiculed him, etc.) and his 1968 candidacy — which had already been struggling — became a punchline. The Republicans instead nominated Richard Nixon, who was eventually elected and appointed Romney as his secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Before long the controversy was mostly forgotten, particularly the fact that Romney had only used that word to describe how President Lyndon Johnson’s officials were lying to the American people about the war. As pundits indulged themselves in a frenzy of self-righteous snark, they conveniently ignored that Romney had been right. Like many other Americans, he had initially supported Johnson’s policies because he had been misled.

America may well owe George Romney something of an apology, as well as an acknowledgment of the ways his son, Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, is or is not carrying on his father’s legacy.

“George Romney was unlike any other politician,” Rick Perlstein, the American historian and journalist who has penned acclaimed books on the 1960s and 1970s like “Before the Storm” and “Nixonland,” told Salon. He described Romney was independent-minded and even to the left of some Democrats on certain issues. “His remarks about Vietnam generally, running for president in 1967 and early 1968, were absolutely prophetic,” Perlstein explained. “We’re talking more what someone like Robert F. Kennedy] was saying than what Hubert Humphrey was saying — how it was colonialist. He had this prophetic mode, which was really unique among politicians, and spoke his truth in a way that was quite brave.”

Romney’s stances against right-wing extremism in his party stand out the most. Romney was a tireless advocate for civil rights (and was attacked by some fellow Latter-day Saints for this) and made it clear that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was welcome in Michigan when King arrived to protest racial discrimination. Romney insisted, in speech after speech, that race should play no role in determining how a human being is treated by other people. He was horrified when the segregationist Barry Goldwater became the Republican nominee in 1964, and refused to back him.

George Romney’s legacy is not without controversy. (Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor has criticized Romney’s policies as a Nixon cabinet official.) But he was described by Pulitzer-winning historian Theodore H. White as having “a sincerity so profound that, in conversation, one was almost embarrassed.” Furthermore, a political figure does not need to be perfect to receive credit for courage. Indeed, the notion that we must always add caveats to any praise we offer a person from “the other side” is symptomatic of a much bigger problem in American politics.

This brings us to Mitt Romney.

You may already know that the trajectory of the younger Romney’s career mirrored his father’s: Success in business, serving as governor in a non-Western, non-Mormon state (Massachusetts instead of Michigan), presidential campaigns (unlike his father, Mitt won the Republican nomination, but lost to Barack Obama in the 2012 general election) and then election to the Senate from Utah.

In an email to Salon, Mitt Romney discussed his father’s influence. “I saw in my father a person without guile,” the senator observed. “He acted from principle, not politics. He was a man driven by what he thought was right and did not worry about the consequences. His commitment to civil rights put him ahead of his time. Throughout my personal and political life, I have tried to live by the example he set.”

Perlstein does not agree that Mitt Romney has lived up to his father’s example, and referred back to what he wrote in a 2012 article for Rolling Stone. 

Mitt learned at an impressionable age that in politics, authenticity kills. Heeding the lesson of his father’s fall, he became a virtual parody of an inauthentic politician. In 1994 he ran for senate to Ted Kennedy’s left on gay rights; as governor, of course, he installed the dreaded individual mandate into Massachusetts’ healthcare system. Then he raced to the right to run for president.

Perlstein raises legitimate criticisms of Romney’s policies and philosophy, and his chameleonic ability to say different things to different audiences (once describing himself as “severely conservative” during the 2012 campaign). But on at least one point, I disagree.

“I think Mitt Romney and Donald Trump are bad and dangerous in different ways,” Perlstein said. “I think Mitt fits into this tradition where you only dip into enough demagoguery to maintain your political respectability, and Trump is more in a tradition where you blow through respectability and go into pure demagoguery.” Speaking about Romney’s potential role in his party, he added, “I’m cynical of a lot of Never Trumpers. I think a lot of them have placed a strategic political bet that Trumpism collapses and they can inherit the ruins of the Republican Party.”

I don’t think that’s entirely fair. Romney has suffered tremendous blowback for his opposition to Trump. He recognized that Trump was a fraud during the 2016 campaign and forcefully called him out on it at the time. He was the only Republican senator who voted to convict Trump twice, and has refused to play along with Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election. Romney has been consistent and clear in saying that his loyalty is to his principles, not to his party or any individual leader. He has even followed in his father’s civil rights-era footsteps by joining Black Lives Matter protesters. Let’s give him credit where it’s due.

Romney has made no small sacrifice in standing up to the Trumpers. He has been harassed, booed and personally attacked. He must know that if he continues to oppose Trump, things will likely get worse. Trump willingly put his own vice president in physical danger during the Jan. 6 insurrection attempt. He has insulted and belittled other former opponents like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, in the process reducing them to sycophants — because they now see the political danger of crossing him.

Romney is aware of that danger too, but has not backed down. Of course it’s legitimate to disagree with Romney’s political views, but acts of courage tend to be preserved by historians long after immediate partisan passions have cooled. When that happens, Mitt Romney will likely be remembered as one of the few truly courageous Republicans in the Trump era. In that sense, at least, he’s a credit to his dad, who taught him to build bridges between communities instead of burning them down, and to believe that honor matters more than political factionalism.

‘Sickening’: Marjorie Taylor Greene ripped for comparing masks to the Holocaust

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) compared mask rules to prevent coronavirus to the Holocaust, and got ripped to shreds on social media.

The Georgia congresswoman told a conservative podcaster that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to require masks in the House chamber, where 100 percent of Democrats say they’ve been vaccinated but fewer than 45 percent of Republicans will disclose they have, was basically the same as the Nazi persecution and extermination of Jews.

“You know, we can look back at a time in history where people were told to wear a gold star, and they were definitely treated like second-class citizens, so much so that they were put in trains and taken to gas chambers in Nazi Germany,” Greene said, “and this is exactly the type of abuse that Nancy Pelosi is talking about.”

Jewish groups quickly condemned Greene’s remarks, calling on her to immediately retract them and apologize, and social media users called her out, as well.

Former Trump campaign staffers file lawsuit in Ohio

In Stark County, Ohio, a continuation of the fight over the 2020 presidential election is in full swing although the right-wing arguments are founded on a Big Lie. According to Talking Points Memo, former Trump campaign staffers have filed a new lawsuit focused on allegations of “misconduct by the county board of elections.”

The problems began back in December when the Stark County Board of Elections voted in favor of investing $1.5 million for the purchase of new voting equipment from Dominion Voting Systems. However, in March the Republican-led Stark County Board of Commissioners pushed back with a vote opposing the purchase of 1,450 machines after received an influx of complaints from Trump supporters.

“They believe the election was stolen from Trump and we should stand by Trump and the Dominion machines have been known to be hacked,” Commissioner Richard Regula said to the Canton Repository. “It’s been the most calls I’ve ever received as a county commissioner. … I had 17 voicemails in one day.”

In addition to their arguments, the commissioners released a statement explaining their decision to block the county’s purchase of the machines as they raised questions about the cost of voting machines.

“Whenever there exists a potential cloud (as acknowledged by the Dominion representative at the February 2, 2021 work session) or public perception or concern regarding a vendor’s long-term viability, regardless of the cause or reason, the County must take a vendor’s long-term viability into account,” they wrote.

Now, the county board of elections has filed a lawsuit against the commissions. The lawsuit, filed in Ohio Supreme Court, is reportedly pleading for “justices to force the commissioners to cough up the money — and fast.” With a special election in August and another election set for November, officials worry they may not have an adequate number of machines.

Per Talking Points Memo, the lawsuit states:

“To have the new ICX voting machines in place for the November 2, 2021, General Election, Stark County must sign a contract with Dominion by June 15, 2021, but this deadline will not be met absent an Order, Judgment, and/or Writ from this Court before then directing the County Commissioners to acquire the ICX voting machines,” adding: “Although this is the last date possible, allowing additional time is highly advisable to guarantee a smooth 2021 General Election for the Stark County voters and Board of Elections personnel.”

As this lawsuit presses forward, Trump is also joining the Big Lie bandwagon as far-right news outlets are attempting yet again to perpetuate the Big Lie. “The Mainstream Media and Radical Left Democrats want to stay as far away as possible from the Presidential Election Fraud, which should be one of the biggest stories of our time,” Trump wrote in a statement over the weekend, following up with a warning about the nonexistent fraud on OAN this week: “It’s being uncovered now.”

How to poison a feral pig? It’s not easy

Early one winter morning in 2020, Kurt VerCauteren discovered a cluster of dead birds in a barren field in northwest Texas. They were small birds, mostly dark-eyed juncos, but also a smattering of white-crowned sparrows.

VerCauteren’s team had poisoned them, inadvertently. The clues were clear, the death uncomplicated: The birds had flown in before dawn to scavenge deadly morsels of a contaminated peanut paste, left behind after a sounder of wild hogs had torn through the area in a feeding frenzy. The birds likely died within minutes of eating.

“I couldn’t even see the crumbs,” says VerCauteren, a wildlife biologist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Fort Collins, Colorado, who has spent years developing and testing pig poisons. The birds were the unintended victims of a field experiment to test a toxicant — one intended for feral pigs, but no other animals — that had been developed in Australia. In the days before, VerCauteren and his collaborators had assembled heavy, sophisticated feeders and filled them with the mash laced with a heavy dose of sodium nitrite, a salt often used in processed meats. When the pigs ate, they’d left tainted crumbs behind — not many, but enough.

“It takes a handful to kill a hog,” says VerCauteren. But it only takes an amount the size of “a grain of rice to kill a little bird,” he adds.

There are currently no poisons that can be legally used in the United States against wild hogs, but not for a lack of options. For nearly a century, scientists have investigated chemicals that can fell big, vertebrate pests — particularly feral swine. The animals have become a growing scourge across the country, with as many as 6 million of them causing enormous damage to crops, livestock, and native habitats from North Carolina to California and Texas to Florida. “When you have a grossly overabundant species, the kind of damage they can do is huge,” VerCauteren says. “Sometimes you have to remove the animals to solve the problem.”

Wild hogs pillage cornfields, forests, and cemeteries, leaving behind messes that look like the work of angry asteroids. Between destruction and control costs, the animals cost the country at least $1.5 billion annually, according to the USDA, though ongoing research indicates the actual figure is considerably higher. Analyses of their stomach contents and feces show that they eat almost anything, including tree stumps, small vertebrates, sea turtle eggs, amphibians, baby goats, turkey eggs and turkey hens, and young deer — “anything containing carbon,” says VerCauteren.

But feral hogs don’t wreak havoc in a vacuum. What they eat, other animals like raccoons and bears also eat; and when they die, other scavengers may eat them. Poisoning is a vastly complicated undertaking that not only requires knowledge of what the animals eat, but also when they eat, and where they go, and what other animals are around. It’s a quest that scientists like VerCauteren won’t solve with biology and chemistry alone, but also with engineering and technology informed by game theory and risk calculation.

How do you find something that will kill a hog, and only a hog?

“You want it to be effective, you want it to be humane, and you want it to only kill what you want to kill,” says VerCauteren. But pigs “are smart, they’re risk averse, and they don’t want to die. If there’s a signal that it could be dangerous, they’ll pick up on it.”

* * *

States have developed a spectrum of strategies to control the menace. Many allow hog hunting, but “recreational sport hunting only takes about a quarter of the wild hog population every year,” says Jack Mayer, a researcher at the Savannah River National Laboratory in South Carolina. In addition, hunting seasons can worsen the problem when landowners truck swine to their properties to encourage paying hunters. And, of course, the hogs can escape. On top of that, they’re smart: The animals have been observed changing their daily foraging patterns to avoid human hunters.

Another option is trapping: State-of-the-art traps use remote control gates and tree-mounted cameras equipped with motion sensors. But trapping isn’t foolproof and doesn’t effectively control hog populations in large regions. It also doesn’t fool all the pigs all the time. Trapped hogs have been known to pile on each other’s backs to scale fences 5 or 6 feet tall, says VerCauteren. They can run 30 miles per hour and jump 3 feet in the air, and can also learn to avoid traps altogether.

Poison sounds like an appealing addition to the arsenal of solutions. There have been many candidates over the years. Sodium fluoroacetate, an odorless salt used in New Zealand and a handful of other countries to control pests, has no antidote and kills an animal by interrupting its metabolism. But scavengers that eat poisoned carcasses may die, too. The United States banned widespread use of the salt in 1972 after people raised concerns about its humaneness and the high probability of accidental poisoning.

Other options include yellow phosphorus, but the amount that would be required to kill a 200-pound hog makes it untenable. In August 2019, the Trump administration reauthorized the use of cyanide bombs — small contraptions that release clouds of deadly poison when triggered by an animal — but a week later, the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged that of the more than 20,000 public comments it received, nearly all opposed the bombs and withdrew its support. The following December, the agency re-reauthorized limited use of the deadly tool for controlling coyotes, red fox, gray fox, and wild dogs believed to threaten livestock or human health, but the poison is not permitted against feral hogs.

At the moment, there are two main toxicants under intense study in the U.S., and the USDA has made getting a product on the market a priority. One is warfarin, a blood thinner that was one of the first registered rodenticides in the U.S and is still found in rat traps today. A warfarin-based product was briefly approved under an emergency order for use against feral hogs in Texas before a judge blocked it and the manufacturer rescinded its application. The other is sodium nitrite, the heavy salt used in the Texas trials last year. Warfarin has had a controversial run in this country, while sodium nitrite looks a little more promising — if biologists can figure out how to package it. The pigs, meanwhile, continue to run rampant.

* * *

About 30 million people in the U.S. take a few milligrams of warfarin daily to prevent blood clots. Since 1948, it’s also been sold as a pesticide. Once rodents like rats and mice ingest even a small amount, warfarin causes fatal internal hemorrhaging. It’s the active ingredient in many rodent bait stations.

Fourteen years ago, biologist Richard Poché saw the potential of using high doses of warfarin to control pig populations. At the time, Poché ran Genesis Laboratories, a Wellington, Colorado company that focuses on wildlife that carry and spread diseases, which is now owned and operated by his son, David. Rodent baits typically contain a warfarin concentration of about 250 parts per million. Poché says that lower fractions — even one-fifth the ratio used in rodenticides — would be lethal for hogs. “We cut the dosage and still had excellent control of hogs,” he says.

In 2014, the EPA issued Poché a permit for Genesis to test warfarin in Texas, authorizing the first field test of a hog-targeted toxicant. Poché’s group used a warfarin bait called Kaput, manufactured by a company called Scimetrics, which is owned by Poché and at the time was run by his wife, Linda.

Richard Poché’s group added a fat-soluble tracer to the poisoned food that colored the dead animal’s innards bright blue to alert hunters that the hog had ingested the poison (and to avoid eating the meat). Over an eight-week period, Poché reported, warfarin bait killed about three-dozen hogs and no other animals. He also noted that when the researchers searched the area, they found no carcasses of other animals that had been inadvertently poisoned. The EPA authorized its use, and in February 2017 Texas became the first state to allow commercial use of warfarin against feral hogs.

“The ‘feral hog apocalypse’ may be within Texans’ reach,” Sid Miller, the state’s agricultural commissioner, declared at a press conference at that time.

Hunting groups and companies that process boar meat quickly filed a complaint against the state, pointing out that Australia had phased out use of warfarin because it was such a cruel killer. “Hogs die by bleeding to death — including bleeding out the eyes, nose, mouth, and other body orifices,” the complaint read. “The death is painful and gruesome.”

One of the complainants was the Wild Boar Meat Company in Hubbard, Texas. The company processes wild hog meat for pet food, and it pays hunters for every carcass — alive or recently killed — that they bring to the shop. Its owner, Will Herring, estimates that since it opened, the company has processed 800,000 carcasses.

Herring says he is not opposed to poison, but maintains that Scimetrics, Kaput’s manufacturer, didn’t provide enough information to ensure the product was safe for other animals or the environment. “There were quite a few details not disclosed,” he says, “like how effective it was, or how much it costs.” It wasn’t clear, he says, how the product would affect the food chain.

In March 2017, just a month after the state gave warfarin the green light, a judge blocked its approval. In April, Scimetrics decided to withdraw its application to register the product in Texas. Poché says he felt blindsided. “We didn’t anticipate that these hunter groups felt we would be cutting into their livelihood, but there are enough feral hogs to go around for everybody,” he says. “Kaput was pulled so everyone could regroup and see what was going on.”

Since then, James Beasley, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Georgia, has been leading one of a handful of ongoing efforts to study warfarin. “People felt they needed some additional clarification,” he says. “All the published literature was based on studies from the manufacturer. Naturally, that begs for more research from independent researchers to try and validate those findings.”

Beasley’s group has run pen tests — experiments in which the hogs’ only choice of food was poisoned bait — showing that warfarin effectively kills the animals. It also appears to be humane, as Beasley says he rarely observed more upsetting effects like external bleeding and didn’t see the vocalizations reported in trials in Australia, though many of the pigs exhibited vomiting shortly before death. But when he tested the bait in the wild, Beasley found that the pigs kept their distance. “We quickly realized that hogs were coming but not interested in the bait,” he says.

Meanwhile, Poché continues to test warfarin. He’s confident that as the hog problem worsens, warfarin will look more appealing. “Once it reaches a crisis level, which we’re fast approaching, things will be really stressful for farmers,” he says. “Then they’ll say, let’s do something about the pigs.”

* * *

The leading alternative to warfarin is sodium nitrite, the compound that killed a cluster of small birds in the northwest Texas trial last year. In its crystalline form, sodium nitrite looks like a yellower cousin of table salt. It occurs naturally in arugula, beets, and other vegetables; in concentrated doses, it’s used to cure sausage and bacon.

When a hog eats sodium nitrite, the salt triggers a condition called methemoglobinemia, which means red blood cells stop delivering oxygen to tissues. Inside the body, the blood darkens. The animal stumbles. “They suffocate from the inside,” says VerCauteren. “They get lethargic and lay down and go to sleep. It puts them in a coma and they don’t wake up.”

He likens it to death by carbon monoxide poisoning. Compared to other poisons, he says, sodium nitrite is more humane. That word — humane — invokes another obstacle that a pig poison has to clear. “Humaneness has got a different meaning to everybody,” says Beasley. “You and myself and five other people in the room would define it differently.”

Ngaio Beausoleil, an animal welfare researcher at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand who studies the intersection of people and wildlife, says humane is a relative term. She and her colleagues define a humane method of killing an animal as one that causes the least “welfare harm.” But that definition invokes a number of further questions: “What is the kind of harm, what is it like for the animal to experience that, how intense is that experience, and how long does it last?” Compared to other poisons, she says, sodium nitrite does seem more humane.

VerCauteren began investigating sodium nitrite eight years ago using an Australian product called Hoggone. In 2013, his group launched their first pen test in Texas. The scientists mixed Hoggone with corn bait and took a bucket to Justin Foster, a biologist who coordinates wildlife toxicology research projects for the state of Texas.

“We always have him give the sniff test,” says VerCauteren. “He has a sensitive nose.” Foster recoiled: The odor was overwhelming. “If he can detect it, the hogs can detect it, and they’re not going to eat it,” VerCauteren says.

Through laboratory and pen trials over the next few years, supported by the USDA’s National Feral Swine Damage Management Program, the researchers refined their approaches. They began with chemistry, disguising the intense salty odor and flavor by encapsulating crystals of sodium nitrite to create tiny capsules that dissolve inside a hog’s stomach. “Imagine a grain of salt with a candy coating,” VerCauteren says.

Then came biology, with a dash of food science: They couldn’t pack the poison in anything water-based because water would dissolve the capsule and release the salt. They also needed something that would stick together, so they came up with a recipe that mixed tiny capsules of the poison in peanut paste. “If I give my kid a graham cracker, there’s crumbs everywhere. If I give ’em a marshmallow, there’s no crumbs,” says VerCauteren.

Then came engineering the feed boxes. In order to keep off-target animals out, including stronger ones like bears, the scientist modified their feed box using artificial intelligence. Whenever a hog roots around the box and makes hog-noises, a microphone picks up the sound and sends it to a computer program that can analyze a video image and determine if it’s really a hog. If it’s not — if it’s a bear, for example — then the door remains locked. If it is a hog, the door unlocks, and the hog is free to lift and eat, and die. Because the AI-enabled boxes are expensive, VerCauteren says, they will only be used in areas shared by pigs and bears.

The bear-proof box design was finished in early 2016, according to VerCauteren, but the researchers are still refining the acoustic and visual system to unlock the smart feeder. In pen tests, the smart feeder killed just as many hogs as earlier setups using sodium nitrite, which suggested that the right animals were getting in. “We were feeling pretty good with all these changes,” VerCauteren says.

In recent years, the group has launched field studies at two sites, both heavy with hogs: one in the hot, damp forests of Alabama, and the other in the hot, dry plains of west Texas. In Alabama, the bait box successfully blocked raccoons, possum, and other small vertebrates. Only the hogs ate the sodium nitrite and died.

But during the Texas tests in 2018, the scientists discovered more than 170 dead birds and eight dead raccoons. “We were killing those birds,” says VerCauteren.

Clearly, there was a spillage problem. The researchers continued to tweak the bait — reducing the concentration, thickening the paste — until the winter of 2019-2020, when they ran another field test in Texas. By this time, VerCauteren says, they’d reduced the total spillage to a fraction of what it had been before. They were confident, totally convinced, that no animals could get in. There were no crumbs in sight.

But again, they found dead birds.

Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, VerCauteren has been hunkered down in Fort Collins — but he’s been busy trying to solve the bird mystery. His wife, Tammy, runs the Bird Conservancy of the Rockies, so he’s suddenly interested in everything she knows. “I am quizzing her constantly, and her biologists,” he says, “to make sure I’m not screwing this up.”

In the spring of 2020, VerCauteren tested four bird-repellant strategies near his government lab in Colorado. One uses a grate installed beneath the feeder box to catch the crumbs after the hogs eat. Previous studies showed that most of the poisoned birds died within 18 inches of the feeder, so that’s the size of the grate.

The second tested the effects of spraying methyl anthranilate around the bait box. Methyl anthranilate is a nontoxic compound responsible for the grape flavor found in grape-flavored bubble gum and candy and soda; it’s also a proven bird repellant. VerCauteren hoped the change would not only drive birds away, but also attract hogs with the sweet smell.

The third experiment used an inflatable scarecrow called the Scary Man. “It’s a human-sized balloon effigy,” VerCauteren says. Every morning, he donned a headlamp and trudged out to the field an hour before sunrise to flip the switch that brings the Scary Man to life. “This guy pops up out of nowhere, then scare, scare, scare, then deflates,” he says. The Scary Man should save the birds’ lives by shooing them away, “but that didn’t work very well,” said VerCauteren.

The fourth experiment tested what was essentially an inflatable snake that danced above the bait box, called a Scare Dancer. With a 96 percent reduction in bird visitation, the Scare Dancer emerged victorious. In June, VerCauteren ran another field trial in Texas, combining the bait boxes with the inflatable snakes, and didn’t find a single dead bird. After reviewing the data, the EPA gave VerCauteren the green light to launch two larger field tests this summer, returning to Alabama and Texas. A commercially available sodium nitrite-based bait is likely at least three years away, he predicts.

Finding a hog poison that can clear all the hurdles, says Beasley, the University of Georgia researcher, would be a welcome weapon. “There’s no one approach that’s going to work in all situations,” he says. “Each individual hog, each local population, responds differently to different control measures.”

“A toxicant is not a silver bullet,” he adds. “It’s just another tool in the toolbox that people have to control pigs.”

* * *

Stephen Ornes is an award-winning science writer who lives in Nashville, Tennessee, and covers feral hog research as often as he can. His work has appeared in Discover, Quanta, Scientific American, and other outlets.

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

When stalking is part of the “college experience”

A few years ago, a young woman was murdered on the campus of my hometown’s university, the same campus where I received my doctorate. It made national news, so even though I teach on a campus thousands of miles away, I heard about it.

She was a track star murdered in a parking lot. She knew her killer. I called my brother, who lives within a couple of miles of campus, and he told me terrible details. She had felt threatened by this man before, she had notified police. She had dated him, and things had gone awry. He hadn’t gotten the point.

He was stalking her.

She asked for help.

No one helped.

And now she was dead.

When I talked to my brother after it happened, I was out in my yard on a balmy Louisiana night, far away from the mountains where this took place. In many ways, I was often out of my own body at that point: I was pregnant, a junior professor, working my ass off daily to try to prove myself to myself. Imposter syndrome doesn’t even begin to describe it.

But in that conversation, I was more than in my own skin. I know this, I said to my brother. I know this because I watched it happen to someone else.

Seven years earlier I had been teaching a creative writing class as a graduate student on the same campus where the girl was murdered. I had a bright student, whom I’ll call Jenny here. Jenny, when she came to class, was a fabulous writer. She handed in great work. But she often did not come. Her absences became more and more frequent, or she’d show up an hour or more late. Finally, Jenny approached me after class one day and told me the very practical reason for her inconsistent attendance: She was being stalked.

Her tone as she told me this in an empty classroom still astonishes me. She was matter-of-fact, but clearly exhausted. She was afraid, she said. Often times her stalker, who knew her schedule, was waiting outside my classroom for her. She’d try to come to class many times, she said, only to turn the corner, see him down the hall, and turn back around. She did not feel safe leaving, or walking to her car. This man was a campus employee, and she told me he had already sexually assaulted her once.

I had so many questions; I wanted to swoop in and fix it all. Had she reported the assault? She had. The campus police had sent her to the city police. The city police had never called her back. She had contacted the counseling center, the dean of students.  The man still held his job on campus.

She had been desperately trying to get help, I told my brother years later.

I offered to walk her to her car and did so that afternoon. I offered to call someone. I offered to meet her and walk to class with her every week for the rest of the term. Then she contacted the Office of Equity and Diversity and finally things changed. They assigned her a security escort to classes. They started an investigation. She came to every class the second half of the semester, and rocked it.  

That didn’t happen for the track star.

Lauren McCluskey repeatedly asked for help from campus police. She had started dating a man who turned out to have lied about his age, who turned out to be a convicted sex offender. When she broke up with him, he went full-on “crazy ex.” Whatever play you can imagine, from pretending to be dead to telling her to kill herself, he did it. She blocked his calls. Reported him to campus police. She was literally told by an officer, “Not much can be done.”

I recently listened to a 911 call Lauren made nine days before her death about her murderer. Her tone matches that of my student in my classroom all those years ago. Calm, but exhausted. Women working against stereotypes of “drama” and “hysteria,” but in such a way that no one realizes how afraid they are.

I didn’t tell my brother on the phone that night the other reason I knew this story: I too was stalked in college. In fact, a lot of college women are. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, people aged 18-24 have the highest likelihood of being stalked, one in six women are stalked, and three-quarters of victims know their stalkers.

When I was being stalked, we didn’t call it stalking. Instead, it was a joke. We will call my stalker Casey. Even though his behavior was typical of stalking patterns, all of my friends laughed it off. He’s just so in love with you, they’d say. He was their friend, too.

Stalking is often a joke in our parlance. We laugh and use phrases like, “Stop stalking me” or “I’m, like, totally stalking him” to refer to all sorts of normative behavior in flirting and dating. Like when you notice your crush goes to the café at noon, so you start showing up around then too, hoping to run into each other. But our ability to joke about it in day-to-day life enables authorities to ignore it. This is doubly true of college students. Kerri Raissian, a specialist in child and family and interpersonal violence, says in Inside Higher Ed, “College students are often dismissed when they bring up troubles in relationships because the turbulence is just considered ‘part of the college experience, something you experience as a young adult.'”

My former student, Jenny, had also very briefly dated her stalker before he allegedly assaulted her. In her interview with police, they cited the fact that she had dated him as a challenge to pressing any charges because then it would be about consent, a matter of he said/she said. But she had agreed to one date — that’s all.

My stalker called multiple nights a week at one or two a.m., his speech slurred. I was encouraged even by my boyfriend to be a good sport. I’d pick it up, say, “Go to bed, Casey,” and disconnect the phone. Sometimes at night he’d come to my dorm room door, bang on it or just stand outside. Almost all students lived on campus at my college, and this went on for three years. At the time I thought, Well, not much can be done. If I make a fuss, I’ll just lose a lot of friends. After three years you get used to it, too. Even though there’s something not right, and you know it, you laugh it off along with everyone else.

McCluskey’s situation was far more dire, and she knew it. She did ask for help. She was explicit as to how threatened she felt. Later, critics would cite campus police’s failure to visit her dorm. If they had, they would have seen how she’d blacked out her window, afraid he was watching her. Who is anyone kidding? He was watching her.

The Salt Lake Tribune would later report that she had contacted campus police more than 20 times before she died.

Leigh Gilmore, in her brilliant book, “Limits of Autobiography: Trauma and Testimony,” writes that an essential question of the history of women’s narratives, especially involving trauma, seems to be, “Can women tell the truth?” And, if they can, does it matter?

One night the fall of senior year when I was living in an apartment-style dorm, Casey knocked on my bedroom door and I answered. I had broken up with my boyfriend and was dating someone new and feeling free, and I had been out. I was a little drunk. I was fully dressed and knew my dormmates and their boyfriends were right on the other side of thin walls. I did not feel threatened. I don’t remember now what he said but I do remember laughing a little. Laughing, I thought, at our three-year-long shared joke. Not at him, but at us. Isn’t this ridiculous? Like I said, I was little drunk.

And then he hit me. On the jaw. It wasn’t a hard punch, just hard enough that the bone was tender afterwards. I didn’t need concealer makeup or a bag of frozen peas. The lack of a bruise would add to my sense of disbelief that it had actually happened in the following days. Our joke had a punch line? And it was literally a punch? Ha. I told no one. Not a soul, for seven years, until a student came to me to tell me she was being stalked.

At the time I felt that to tell would have made me a victim. There would have been many questions implicitly asking what I had done to bring this on. (I had been drinking, remember? And why I hadn’t reported his concerning behavior earlier?)  He probably would have denied it, and I was not sure whose side our friends would take. I would have failed at being “the cool girl,” the one who had been told by male and female friends alike not to “make a big deal out it.” He’s just, like, in love with you.

But my relationship with Casey changed after that night. He left a crying message on my phone. I told him to stay away from me and started turning my phone off at night. Whatever the story was in his head, it shifted. He finally started dating someone else and at first, I was relieved. It was short-lived, though: Six months later she would file assault charges. Next time I saw her on campus, her face was bruised and she had two black eyes. He was suspended and mandated substance abuse rehab and counseling. But he was ultimately not expelled. He was allowed to graduate. People expressed concern with some of the same rhetoric others would later use for a certain Stanford swimmer: Don’t let this one mistake ruin his life!

Donald Glover has a comedic bit he does where he talks about his crazy ex-girlfriends, and then says he’s been wondering, “Why don’t women have crazy man stories? And then I realized, and I was like, ‘Oh! It’s because if you got a crazy boyfriend, you gonna die.'”

Glover isn’t wrong. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 81% of women stalked by a cohabitating partner were also physically assaulted by that partner; 76% of women murdered by intimate partners were stalked first; 89% of femicide victims who were assaulted before their murder were also stalked in the year prior to their death.  

On October 22, 2018, Lauren’s stalker texted her, pretending to be campus police. She alerted campus police, but the officer didn’t file a report of the impersonation. Later that night, her stalker grabbed her while she was outside of her dorm on the phone with her mother, put her in a car, and shot her. 

Stalking is directly related to violence against women, even murder. And yet we still joke. We still don’t take women seriously when they talk about their “crazy exes.” We still don’t believe them when they tell us they need help.

According to the NCADV, 54% of femicide victims reported the stalking to the police before their murder. Like McCluskey did, like Jenny did, like I wish I had had the courage to do. Each of these events — my own experience, my student’s, and McCluskey’s — happened about seven years apart, and if there’s one a bright spot in this story, it’s that women younger than me felt they could get help. That they should get help. They tried to get help. The #MeToo movement has had concrete positive effects on women speaking up. How much more disappointing then, that the system continues to fail them.

I’ve spent the COVID year back in my hometown where Lauren McCluskey was murdered. Even though more than two years have passed since she died, it seems like she is in the news weekly. Just this fall, the university settled with her parents, paying them $10.5 million and making a $3 million donation to a foundation in her name. After initial resistance, the university finally admitted it had completely failed one of its students (and likely many more, if Jenny’s own experience is any indication). More recently, The Salt Lake Tribune revealed that campus police officers not only ignored McCluskey’s desperate pleas for help, but before she was murdered, a university police officer showed intimate photos of McCluskey that were part of the investigation (her stalker was also blackmailing her) and made “crude remarks” to several colleagues that were part of her case file, bragging that he “could look at them whenever he wanted.” After she was shot, that very same night, the same officer showed a nude photo of McCluskey — the same images her stalker had used to humiliate and exploit her — to a superior who had wondered out loud “what she looked like.” 

I do want to be clear that I do not think there is anything particular to this university that makes it a hotbed for stalking and violence against women. In fact, statistically and logically, it stands to reason that the events that happened here could happen anywhere, and that this behavior is the rule rather than the exception. My own experience happened at a small liberal arts college in Vermont.

I think the larger picture is this: College campuses from the upper administration on down are still deeply patriarchal. Now that I am a professor — who was recently told by a female student when I walked into class the first day that “you are not what I was expecting,” who has had course evaluations that compliment my sense of style, and who is aware of systemic gender inequity at my institution — this feels more true than ever. Despite their emphasis on progressivism and intellectualism, campus cultures all over the country still normalize violent and threatening behavior toward women. Just last year, a female student told a story in those chatty moments before my class started about how she had been in a car chase over the weekend: Her cousin’s “crazy ex” had been after them. She tells it like a joke, like I did. I tell her that that’s not OK. I ask her if she feels safe in this moment. I tell her there are resources I am happy to help her find. She looks at me like I am an alien, but other students are listening, quietly, and they will approach me in private later. Female faculty carry this burden often, ferrying female students to the Title IX office, handing out tissues in our own offices.  We continue to feel frustrated when we send them to get help and they return, telling us that the campus police advise along the lines of, “Not much can be done.”  And we’re terrified of the day when the joke a student makes in class will turn into a story on the nightly news.

The layers of stalking-related violence against women are many: We jest; we forget; we brush aside; we don’t listen or believe; we let someone be beaten; we let someone be murdered. And we have got to stop. The crime is in our very language, our cultural blind-spot to women telling the truth and needing real help, and the deep-seated patriarchy of college campuses. It’s been 43 years since Take Back the Night came to the U.S., 25 years since Eve Ensler premiered “The Vagina Monologues” and three years since #MeToo started trending. It is past time for a radical self-audit of our campuses and our culture at large, and it’s time we stop treating stalking like a joke and more like the red flag that it is.

And it is time, too, to deal with my own past as a victim of stalking. This essay also marks the moment in my own story when I will finally share what happened with my brother and my parents. I imagine they will want to know why I didn’t tell them sooner, and in some ways the answer is so complicated. I was on my own for the first time and I wanted to prove I could take care of myself; I did not have want them to worry; I didn’t want to sully the pride they felt at sending me to a competitive school. But in other ways the answer is astonishingly simple: I was embarrassed. Ashamed that I was somehow complicit in a man’s violence toward women, toward myself. I had been willing to treat it as a joke, and I didn’t know how to tell the story without the language of a joke (see punchline comment above), and it feels like it is only when I call for a restructuring of our language around stalking, and write that out, that I suddenly feel that I can call my brother. Call him this time from down the street, to ask him if he wants to talk more about Lauren McCluskey and my student — and by that, I mean to talk more about me.

In “Everyone’s Table,” Gregory Gourdet shares healthy recipes and an amazing story of perseverance

In many ways, Top Chef star Gregory Gourdet’s new cookbook arrives on bookshelves at the perfect time. After a year in which we found ourselves grounded at home, “Everyone’s Table: Global Recipes for Modern Health” presents us with a much-needed guide for eating healthier. Amid a conversation about equity in the food space, it presents us with globally inspired dishes that should be staples in every American home. At a time when mental health is top of mind, Gourdet also opens up about how his sobriety.

When Gourdet entered recovery, he not only audited his life but also his pantry. Now, he’s sharing the concept of “modern health,” as well as the recipes from his own kitchen, with the world. This is a healthy cookbook that isn’t about exclusion; as Gourdet points out, fried chicken makes the cut, and there’s even a whole chapter about dessert.

“There’s a full desserts chapter in the book, and I think the fried chicken and the example of the pineapple cake, which has almost three cups of sugar in it,” he recently told Salon. “It’s maple syrup and coconut sugar, which are far better sugars, but at the same time, it’s still sugar.”

“It’s about having a great alternative to some of the ingredients within that recipe and not eating it every day. Of course you can enjoy fried chicken every once in a while,” he continued. “The fried chicken in the book has an African-inspired marinade. It’s got some habanero. It has a nice spice to it. It’s coated in tapioca starch, and it’s fried in avocado oil. It’s a little healthier. It’s definitely still a decadent item, but with a few tweaks, you can have something a little bit healthier on the table.”

What Gourdet presents us with is a way to eat healthy that not only makes us feel good but also is 100% attainable. This is exactly how Gourdet cooks in his own home, even when he doesn’t feel like cooking.

RELATED: Click here to purchase a copy of “Everyone’s Table: Global Recipes for Modern Health”

“When I’m at home, I’m busy. I don’t want to cook. I have a small apartment. I don’t want to get the kitchen dirty,” he said. “The way I cook at home is really inspired by these dishes that are in the book. They’re super easy to make, for the most part. You can pretty much shop at your local grocer for most of the ingredients.”

When Gourdet recently appeared on “Salon Talks,” we talked about the new season of Top Chef, how he got sober and tips for eating healthier at home. To learn more, read or watch our conversation below.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

It goes without saying that if our readers aren’t lucky enough to have tried your food, they’ve seen you on TV. Can you tell us about your experience shooting Top Chef?

I’ve been on Top Chef numerous times. I’ve competed twice. I think my first season was about six, seven years ago. Time flies. Currently, I am featured as a judge and mentor to our current season, which was filmed in Portland, Oregon, last fall, right smack dab in the middle of the pandemic.

Is there anything you can tease us for the rest of the season?

I think I thoroughly enjoyed watching the season, and it’s a little different with being a judge and not being a center figure and watching myself the entire time because I’m not competing. I get to just really dive into the other chefs, and I get to watch it as a spectator, as well. Even though we were there and seeing things happen, there’s a lot that happened with the chefs that we didn’t see. I’m watching a lot of it for the first time, like with the other viewers. I think we’re going to see some really cool challenges come up, and we’re going to see some really beautiful, iconic locations in Oregon and in Portland, and some really great ingredients being featured.

I think as it thins out, it definitely gets harder. I know that for a fact, and the critiques get a little bit more challenging. We’re going to see the chefs really push themselves. I truly think Top Chef is a story about perseverance and endurance and really tapping into yourself. I think we’re going to see some really great food from some of these chefs. It’s a really diverse cast, and they all come from different culinary backgrounds and different ethnic backgrounds, so it’s going to be really fun to see the rest of the season.

Speaking of endurance and perseverance, that’s your personal story, as well. Your new cookbook starts off with a story about a car crash. I was wondering if you can tell us a little bit more about that because that’s not necessarily an expected way to start a cookbook. 

The book starts at the beginning, and the beginning for me isn’t memories of cooking with my mom as a child. My book is a health book, and it is based on the style of eating that I’ve enjoyed for the past 12 years. I wanted to explain how it came to be. It’s a diet-centered book because it is geared to dietary distinctions. It’s gluten-free, it’s dairy-free, it’s soy and legume-free, it’s grain-free for the most part and it’s refined sugar-free.

At the same time, it’s really inspired by global flavors, having a global pantry, spices from around the world, chilis from all around the world, both year-round produce and seasonal produce. It’s really a book that everyone at the table can enjoy. You don’t have to be on any kind of special diet to enjoy the book. I feel like oftentimes books have said that, but you’re left kind of reading the recipes or eating the recipes and you feel like something’s missing or you’re eating something “healthy.”

For me, it really started with my story of recovery. After fighting a seven-year battle with drugs and alcohol, I decided I wanted to get my life back together. I wanted to take some steps forward to just pick myself up. That included the first step of getting sober, then kind of getting healthy. A really pivotal point in my life was this tremendous car crash that I had in California about 13 years ago. The funny thing is, that really wasn’t what got me sober, but that was definitely one of those moments where you look back in your life and you realize that 100% I could have died in that car crash.

I was wearing my seatbelt, thank God. The car flipped over in the air. It was totaled. I was arrested immediately. It could have been a pretty traumatizing thing, but I walked away unscathed. It’s one of those things — when you look back at your life and you take stock — you’re like, “Hey, that really was something that I’m extremely grateful I’m still alive today.” I’m grateful for that. It just helped trigger my recovery — and here we are.

I have been gluten-free and dairy-free for about a decade. At the same time, I’m a chef who works at different types of restaurants. I’ve been able to travel the world and eat all different types of foods. When I’m at home, I’m busy. I don’t want to cook. I have a small apartment. I don’t want to get the kitchen dirty. The way I cook at home is really inspired by these dishes that are in the book. They’re super easy to make, for the most part. You can pretty much shop at your local grocer for most of the ingredients. The other ingredients, you just keep in your pantry. Maybe go to your Asian or Caribbean grocer once a month and just stock up on these ingredients, and just create beautiful, interesting food that’s full of flavor, that’s full of life.

At the same time, as a professional chef, I want to give people lots of tips and tricks to up their game. It’s definitely written with the home cook in mind. The recipes are extremely detailed and extremely explained, a step-by-step process — because I want everyone to be successful in recreating them.

Thank you for being so open and honest with your story. Addiction is a prevalent issue in the industry. What advice you would give others who are struggling, as well?

Sure. My addiction was definitely founded working in the kitchen. I mean, it starts earlier. Since high school, I was experimenting with drugs, and in college I was a very vigorous recreational drug user. Honestly, a lot of my friends are in recovery because of that experience. We’ve all moved to separate states, but a lot of us are in recovery — our own recovery.

It really was working in kitchens in New York City and that period of my life that really coincided with the worst of it. The first time — the pinpoint of the start of my addiction — I consider, I remember the first day I was late for work because I had drunk too much the night before. I clearly remember that day. I really can point to that day as the first day of a seven-year battle that just got worse over time, which was really bad for the last two years. It was an era of “you work really hard and you play really hard.” We would work 12, 14 hours a day, oftentimes off the clock. It was a very high-pressure situation.

I worked in fine dining, Michelin stars and New York Times stars. It was a very high-pressure situation, where perfection was absolutely expected. It was the standard. To counteract that, you go to the bar, and it’s New York City. The bars are open till 4:00 a.m. To counteract working hard, I definitely played hard. Oftentimes, when my friends would responsibly go home at four in the morning, I would go back out with people who had even less responsibility than I did and maybe even more penchant for drug use than I did.

I think a lot of conversations have happened nationally over just health and wellness and mental health and addiction and recovery in the industry. I feel the counterbalance to all of that today is openly talking about sobriety in the industry, making sure that we make space for discussions about mental health and really changing the way the industry looks. I think we’re still deeply in those conversations with a huge industry reckoning — with workers saying that they’ve been treated unfairly over the past many, many years of them working. The younger generation — that’s our current workforce — and a lot of chefs who have had a lot of trauma or have come out of these crazy experiences and how that impacts their leadership.

I definitely think the conversation is changing. I think it’s really important that we just destigmatize addiction in the industry. I’m very grateful to be a part of a group called Ben’s Friends, which is specifically a recovery group for people in the hospitality industry.

The new book was also born out of recovery. That included going to CrossFit and adopting the paleo diet, which you still more or less follow today. The new cookbook is categorized as “modern health.” Can you explain exactly what you mean by “modern health?”

Modern health is a term that came out with, I think, the paleo diet. I think the paleo diet was really, really big 10 years ago. I think CrossFit was really big 10 years ago, and that’s how I stumbled into it. I think modern health to me just really means being able to make some smart choices — not feeling like you’re being restricted, not feeling like you can’t have some things that you enjoy.

Really, what it truly means to me is understanding that while Mother Nature makes all these amazing things that have nutrients that come out of the earth — not all of them are the best foods for you. It’s really about focusing on the plants and the proteins and all the amazing ingredients that are truly the healthiest. The superfoods: kale, sweet potatoes, organic meats, all those types of ingredients that you can truly have as much of it as you want. All the ingredients featured in my cookbook are based on the top 100 superfoods.

It’s understanding that when we talk about something like grapeseed oil, which is an extremely chemically processed ingredient and it’s made by a harsh chemical process, and instead use something like avocado oil, which is just avocado squeezed, which is a far more natural ingredient. Making these small switches and being confident that having these best ingredients, you can eat as much of them as you want.

One of our readers’ favorite foods is  not surprisingly  chicken. First, you have a fried chicken recipe in the book. How can fried chicken be healthy?

This is what I mean by modern health. It’s just being comfortable that what you’re eating makes you feel good or you’re happy about it — and we can still enjoy the foods that we love. There’s a full desserts chapter in the book, and I think the fried chicken and the example of the pineapple cake, which has almost three cups of sugar in it. It’s maple syrup and coconut sugar, which are far better sugars, but at the same time, it’s still sugar.

It’s about having a great alternative to some of the ingredients within that recipe and not eating it every day. Of course you can enjoy fried chicken every once in a while. The fried chicken in the book has an African-inspired marinade. It’s got some habanero. It has a nice spice to it. It’s coated in tapioca starch, and it’s fried in avocado oil. It’s a little healthier. It’s definitely still a decadent item, but with a few tweaks, you can have something a little bit healthier on the table.

You also have an entire section where you have different kinds of sauces and blends that we can make at home. Do you have any tips or tricks for making sauces healthier in our diets?

There’s a huge sauce chapter in the book actually, and there’s a huge pantry section. It’s sauces, there’s a fermentation chapter, there’s a pickles chapter, there’s a spices, spice mix chapter. I personally love those chapters because those are all things you can make and keep in your fridge. Oftentimes, they feature ingredients like fish sauce and great spices and chilis, and a lot of them are shelf or pantry-stable or fridge-safe for a week — maybe even a few months if it’s a pickle or a ferment.

Oftentimes, having those ingredients on hand is an easy way to just spice up anything. If you have a simple roasted chicken or even just some sauteed chicken thighs, you can just grab the chili-lime sauce, the Vietnamese-inspired chili-lime sauce. It’s fish sauce and garlic and chilis and lime juice, and it’s pungent and it’s funky and it’s a little bit spicy. A few drops of that on your chicken, and you have a pretty delicious dinner made in just a few minutes. All my sauces — all the sauce work in the book — are definitely featured with alternative ingredients. They have that health-mindedness in mind, from using tamari instead of soy sauce, from using prunes and dates instead of sugar, to really get those nutrients in there.

 

Read more: 

A nourishing soup to heal the cracks

Good food is worth a thousand words — sometimes more. In My Family Recipe, a writer shares the story of a single dish that’s meaningful to them and their loved ones.

* * *

Back in April of last year — when ambulance sirens screamed hourly of yet another coronavirus casualty in a climate fraught with PPE shortages and simmering with racism against Asian Americans — my Korean immigrant mom headed to work the COVID-19 shift every day at Manhattan’s VA hospital.

Soon, she, too, began having trouble breathing.

Slammed with the terror of ventilator scarcity, I reached for what always brought me comfort on sick days: my mom’s gomtang (beef bone soup). It had gotten me through body aches so deep even my skin hurt, throats so inflamed only the hot, unctuous broth could soothe it. But this time — for the first time — I was making it for her.

As parents and children age, the caregiver and care-beneficiary roles eventually reverse. That inflection point, precipitated by a pandemic made even scarier by the growing number of attacks against Asian Americans, happened that April in my family. And one chilly night, I found myself wrist-deep in blood and water, asking myself: How do I care for my mom? Am I ready for this new path? Do I forgive old sins?

I filled two ceramic bowls with water, jostled the beef marrow bones out of their plastic bag into one, and planted the three-pound hunk of chuck roast into the other. The bones were hard.

“Soak your bones. Soak your beef.”

My mom always began her soups that way. Bowls of bones and meat, swirling red, were common fixtures in our kitchen. It ensures a cleaner taste, she’d advise, guiding me to cook healthy, delicious Korean food for myself once I eagerly left my parents’ house.

Dipping back into her cooking wisdom, I Tetris’ed all the pieces — smooth, oblong segments of femur bone, cut crosswise every inch or two — so they’d stay immersed in the water. They revealed gelatinous, beige bone marrow at the center, a richness of collagen, omega-3s, and vitamin A.

Am I doing this right?

My mom learned to make gomtang from her mother, who was, in turn, taught by her mother. It is a recipe that embodies generations of love and decades of nurture. My mom would snap to make it every time I shivered with the flu or the family sniffled and sneezed during cold winter months. Now, here was my 67-year-old mother with a cough, chest pain, and sore limbs after having been exposed to a deadly virus so new at the time that even medical experts struggled to understand how to treat or contain it. What I did know: 80% of deaths occurred among those 60 years of age and older, and the COVID-19 case count in NYC was exploding.

Another ambulance blared outside.

So am I cooking this right? No matter. Nutrition overrides perfection.

Onto the next step. I chopped the onion, scallion, and radish, their incense unfolding into a kitchen already teeming with ruminations. How do I care for the rock of the family? A mother who worked two, no, three jobs around the clock my whole life to raise a growing family; survived a robbery on her way to the hospital in the dark of dawn to earn money for the family in late-’80s Flushing; took care of a husband who’d been stabbed by robbers at their gold jewelry store in early-’80s Chicago and bore the unresolved anger of a Vietnam War veteran fighting for a foothold in America. My less-than-perfect grades and his struggles to support a family at the store, which later relocated to East Harlem, provoked red-hot anger, and she often stood by him, fearfully caressing the craggy edges of their shared American dream, difficult and violent. Her caregiving, while backbreaking, was flawed. But the perfect parts spooled through every hot, savory meal she would cook for us on days of laughter and nights of tears.

I shattered a clove of garlic. My eyes teared up.

In March, a photo of nurses improvising PPE out of Hefty bags made its rounds on social media, and our then-president tweeted the term “Chinese virus,” giving license to racists across the country to attack Asian Americans. It was the latest chapter in our country’s history of anti-Asian discrimination, which, politically, instigated the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Japanese internment camps of World War II, and culturally, has kept us virtually invisible in films, TV shows, and commercials.

I took stock of the ingredients on my chopping board. I’d smashed through a whole head of garlic. The smell pierced the air.

Until her first symptoms, my mom, not even trained on the proper disinfection for the reuse of her N95 mask, was going to work every day. She was risking her life to save U.S. veterans in the epicenter of the pandemic, even as bigoted idiots full of disrespect blamed her for the virus. At that time, the CDC was flip-flopping on mask use; media companies stopped short of reporting on anti-Asian attacks; and the president continued to spread a hateful narrative, unwilling to protect our borders from a virus.

The ground fell out from under us, but no matter our layered past, I was going to catch my mom. It was my turn to care for her.

I returned to the bones. They were still hard. But I was even harder, fortified by my singular resolve to beat the virus that had invaded my mom’s body. I rinsed the bones and beef, and pressure-cooked all the ingredients in my Instant Pot for two hours. The beef had to be so tender that my soup ladle would cut through it and my mom could delight in the softness of the meat, the tastiness of the broth—even though it wouldn’t match up to her perfection — and the immune-system-boosting powers of a soup she had cooked for me for decades. That night, my husband dropped off the gomtang at her doorstep.

Now, a year later, my mom has received her vaccine, having survived the virus after weeks of illness. And in January, our new president signed an executive order denouncing anti-Asian discrimination. But then, on March 16 — after a year that sustained 3,800 hate incidents, according to reporting forum AAPI Hate (compared to roughy 100 incidents annually in previous years)—the entire nation was forced to reckon with the wave of racist violence, primarily perpetrated against women and the elderly, that the Asian American community had been painfully following over the course of the year. On that tragic day, a gunman in Atlanta murdered eight people, including six Asian American women, four of whom were Korean like my mom, my grandma, my aunt, my sister, myself.

On a recent visit from my mom, I handed her a batch of miyeokguk (a superfood seaweed soup) with a side of safety tips. “Be wary.” “Stay away from weird people.” “Carry hair spray.” “Scream loudly.”

This is the world we inhabit now, where daughters must protect their mothers.

I look back on that brisk April night a year ago. Disquieted by the strangeness of a break from our complicated past and riddled with worries that I hadn’t yet perfected her gomtang recipe, I still made good on my promise to take care of her. Calamities like the ones we confront today can rattle family dynamics, prematurely turning the roles of the protector and the vulnerable upside down. As I soak beef to make another batch of bone soup for my mom, I’m reminded in more ways than one that blood is thicker than water.

***

Recipe: Gomtang (Beef Bone Soup)

Prep time: 1 hour
Cook time: 5 hours
Serves: 4

Ingredients

  • 3 1/2 pounds cow heel bones
  • 2 pounds beef brisket
  • 5 to 6 garlic cloves
  • 4 scallions, chopped
  • Sea salt, to taste
  • Freshly ground black pepper, to taste
  • Cooked short-grain white rice, for serving

Directions

  1. Soak the cow heel bones and beef brisket, separately, in water for at least an hour. 
  2. Smash the garlic.
  3. Rinse the bones. Fill a pot with water, leaving room for boiling. Bring the pot to a boil. Add the bones and garlic.
  4. Boil (not simmer) over medium-high heat, with constant medium-size bubbles, for at least 5 hours. About 1 hour into boiling, add the brisket and cook for 1 to 1 1/2 hours, until soft. Add more boiling water when the liquid level in the pot drops.
  5. After 5 hours of boiling, the broth will turn thick and white. Hand-shred the brisket into chunks and chop scallions for garnish.
  6. Ladle the soup into a bowl. Leave all the bones in the pot so that you can keep boiling the other batches. Top with shredded brisket and scallions. Add salt and pepper to taste. Serve with cooked rice.

CNN drops Rick Santorum following controversial comments on Native American culture: report

CNN is dropping senior political analyst Rick Santorum, less than a month after the former Republican Senator made a series of racist remarks at a student event, according to a report.

Santorum, a two-time failed presidential candidate picked up by the cable network in 2017, sparked a firestorm of criticism after saying there was “nothing” in the United States before European settlers arrived and that Native Americans have not contributed to American culture. 

“We came here and created a blank slate. We birthed a nation from nothing,” he said at Young America’s Foundation’s Standing Up for Faith & Freedom conference. “I mean, there was nothing here. I mean, yes, we have Native Americans but candidly there isn’t much Native American culture in American culture.”

He received a lukewarm reception after joining Chris Cuomo on his primetime CNN show to explain those comments, saying that the remarks were “taken out of context” — and refusing to apologize.

A senior executive at the network told the Huffington Post that the Cuomo interview was the last straw for Santorum.

“Leadership wasn’t particularly satisfied with that appearance,” the anonymous executive told the outlet. “None of the anchors wanted to book him, so he was essentially benched anyway.”

“I think after that appearance, it was pretty clear we couldn’t use him again.”

CNN had been facing withering criticism from Native groups, which spent much of the last month demanding Santorum’s firing. 

“Rick Santorum is an unhinged and embarrassing racist who disgraces CNN and any other media company that provides him a platform,” National Congress of American Indians president Fawn Sharp said in a statement. “Televising someone with his views on Native American genocide is fundamentally no different than putting an outright Nazi on television to justify the Holocaust. Any mainstream media organization should fire him or face a boycott from more than 500 tribal nations and our allies from across the country and worldwide.”

Santorum has not commented publicly on his departure from CNN.

The best heavy cream substitutes for cooking and baking

There are thousands of recipes on our site that call for heavy cream, like penne alla vodka and creamed greens and  frozen honey mousse. But do you actually need the cream? Can you replace it with milk? Or coconut milk? Or something else entirely? Today, we’re going to answer those questions and more.

* * *

But first, an ask-me-anything heavy cream lightning round! Let’s go:

What is heavy cream?

Cream comes by way of milk. As food science authority Harold McGee explains it, “Cream is a special portion of milk that is greatly enriched with fat.” So, if you find yourself with a bucket of straight-from-the-cow milk, and you let it hang out for awhile, the fat will rise to the top, yielding a layer of cream.

Can I substitute light cream for heavy cream?

Depends on the recipe. Light cream generally has a fat content of 20%, while heavy cream is at least 36%. If you need the cream to whip, light cream won’t cut it (there isn’t enough fat to form a foam—try to say that five times fast). But if the recipe is more forgiving (like a pureed soup or mashed potatoes), swapping in light cream shouldn’t cause any major issues.

Can I make whipped cream with half-and-half?

Sorry, no. Half-and-half’s fat content hovers around 12%, which is great for pouring into coffee and over fresh fruit, but isn’t fatty enough for whipping.

Can I substitute whipping cream for heavy cream?

Ah-ha! Trick question. They’re pretty much the same. Pretty much because whipping cream has a fat content of at least 35%, while heavy cream (which also goes by heavy whipping cream) has a fat content of at least 36%. Which is to say, both are good for the same things, like whipping, reducing in cheesy gratins, and posset-ing.

Can I substitute evaporated milk for heavy cream?

Again, depends on the recipe. Evaporated milk is pressure-cooked until it loses roughly half of its water content; the beige-hued result has a high concentration of lactose and protein. If you’re making whipped cream or a baked good (say, cream scones or apple butter pie), stick to what’s called for. But, if you’re working with a soup or saucy-something, you can do a 1:1 substitution of evaporated milk in place of heavy cream.

* * *

Heavy cream substitutes

These are some of the most common cream replacements. We’ll get to know each ingredient, then learn how to put them toward specific recipes in the section below.

Half-and-half

Half cream, half milk, this dairy hovers between 10–12% fat. It can’t be whipped and shouldn’t be swapped into baking recipes, but is great for enriching soups and mashed or creamed vegetables.

Light cream

Heavier than half-and-half, but lighter than heavy cream, with an 18–30% fat content. Still too lean to whip, but good for enriching soups and mashed vegetables, and can be used for sauces.

Whole milk

With about 3.5% fat, this is the creamiest milk around, but still significantly leaner than heavy cream. Use for mashed vegetables or other forgiving cooking preparations. Trying to reduce milk like cream would cause curdling (though sometimes this is on purpose).

Evaporated milk

This canned product has had 60% of its water content removed. To use as a heavy cream substitute, look for the whole-milk variety, which contains at least 7.9% fat. It works very well in sauces, but has a slightly cooked, caramelized flavor.

Coconut milk or cream

Rich in fat, both of these products are a great vegan substitute for heavy cream. Try in sauces and soups; the cream can be whipped. Avoid light varieties and don’t confuse with cream of coconut, which is sweetened.

Cashew cream

Another great vegan substitute, with a much milder flavor than coconut. You can make your own cashew cream by soaking nuts, then blending them until smooth. If you’re buying store-bought, make sure to avoid sweetened varieties.

Onion “cream”

Yep. This sorta-substitute, made by roasting and puréeing onions, is so out there, it’s Genius. Don’t even think about using it for sweets, but “you can swap it in for cream in your risotto, add to pasta with fresh herbs for a healthier, brighter, but still decadent-tasting dish, whip it into your mashed potatoes, or use it in a quiche to lighten up the base,” according to its creator chef Grant Lee Crilly.

* * *

How to substitute heavy cream in recipes

Now, onto some specific recipes. Below are six heavy cream–loving dishes. We’ll break down whether or not you can substitute, and which substitutes are your best bet.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in mashed potatoes? 

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Whole milk, evaporated milk, coconut milk, onion cream
Caveats: Dairy is a free-for-all in mashed potato recipes. If you read enough of them, you’ll come across heavy cream, milk, cream cheese, goat cheese, sour cream, butter, and often the freedom to pick your favorite (like when a recipe says “1/2 cup whole milk or half-and-half”). So, there’s a lot of flexibility here. Just keep in mind that if you opt for a vegan option, like coconut milk, you’ll notice its flavor.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in soup? 

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Evaporated milk, whole milk, coconut milk, cashew cream, onion cream
Caveats: A lot of non-dairy milks are sneakily sweetened. Double check the ingredient list to make sure you aren’t about to turn your chowder into dessert.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in alfredo sauce? 

Short answer: Technically, Alfredo sauce isn’t supposed to have heavy cream in it—in traditional versions, the creaminess actually comes from the starchy pasta water, butter, and cheese—but, yes, a lot of contemporary Alfredo recipes do contain cream, and yes, you can substitute it. 
Recommended substitutes: Evaporated milk. Or, pureed cauliflower! 
Caveats: Because of the way it’s boiled down, evaporated milk has an almost sweet, caramely flavor. To make sure this isn’t too noticeable, don’t skimp on the Parm.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in quiche? 

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Half-and-half or whole milk. 
Caveats: Some quiche recipes call for all cream, some call for a mixture of cream and whole milk (with a popular ratio of 1:1), and some call for all milk. You can swap out the cream for half-and-half or milk, but it will result in a less flavorful, less silky custard. Don’t use low-fat or non-fat milk, which would give the custard a blander flavor and spongier texture, with a higher risk of curdling.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in whipped cream?

Short answer: Yes. 
Recommended substitutes: Coconut cream. 
Caveats: While you can’t swap out heavy cream for a lower-fat dairy, like half-and-half or milk (it won’t whip up), you can turn to a dairy alternative: coconut cream. You can either buy this straight or refrigerate a can of coconut milk for at least 12 hours, then scoop up the cream layer on the top.

Can I substitute the heavy cream in ice cream?

Short answer: Sort of. 
Recommended substitutes: Half-and-half. Or, go vegan. 
Caveats: Many ice cream recipes call for a 2:1 ratio of cream to milk. You can replace the cream portion with half-and-half, or you can replace both the cream and milk with half-and-half. Just remember that the less butterfat your ice cream has, the icier and harder it will turn out (aka not creamy). To compensate for this, you can swap out some of the granulated sugar for a liquid sweetener, like corn syrup or honey, which will encourage a creamier result. On the opposite side of the spectrum, you can skip the dairy altogether and make a vegan ice cream with coconut milk or cashew cream instead (here is our full guide on how to make dairy-free ice cream).

These cream-filled recipes are the, ahem, cream of the crop

(But you can still use a swap!)

Cream Biscuits

These biscuits call on heavy cream instead of the classic buttermilk for a simpler mixing process, and a rich and tender final product. If you don’t have heavy cream on hand, feel free to use half-and-half or milk, or better yet, just go back to basics and use buttermilk for a tangier biscuit.

Pre-Seasoned Mashed Potatoes

By heavily seasoning the cooking water for the potatoes with salt, garlic, peppercorns, and aromatics, you can skip the step of seasoning after they’re mashed. These potatoes emerge from the water brimming with flavor and perfectly cooked, meaning you can mix them less, which lowers the risk of over-working your mashed potatoes into a gluey, starchy mess. Just add a little butter, cream, and plate up your potato-y perfection.

Rigatoni With Vodka Sauce

We love this recipe from editor Rebecca Firkser for many reasons. As Firkser writes, this vodka sauce gets the bulk of its creaminess from “a mixture of grated Parm and pasta water, both of which are more salty and nuanced than cream.” Music to any lactose-intolerant ears! It does still call for some cream, which can be subbed for a little half-and-half or whole milk, without compromising the whole dish (as is typical of cream-less attempts at vodka sauce).

Creamy Mushroom Soup

This mushroom soup delivers on the promise of creamy, with an ultra-comforting, bisque-like consistency. A little cream goes a long way here, as does a touch of cognac. For a more sophisticated depth of flavor, use a mix of mushrooms: cremini, shitake, button, hen of the woods, oyster, and chanterelle will all do nicely here.

Triple Layer Mousse

Leave it to Resident Baking BFF Erin Jeanne McDowell (of Bake it Up a Notch) to come up with a dessert this fun to look at — and eat! Vanilla-, strawberry-, and chocolate-flavored mousse get layered for a whimsical Neapolitan effect, but you can easily just make one (or two!) flavors of mousse to tailor to your desired effort-level and ingredient-availability.

This post contains products that are independently selected by Food52 editors and writers, and Food52 may earn an affiliate commission.

How Tig Notaro became a badass action star at age 50

At age 50, stand-up comedian Tig Notaro has become a bonafide action star. But playing a brash helicopter pilot in Zack Snyder's zombie heist flick "Army of the Dead" has come with some unexpected talking points that go beyond the usual discussion of acting and stunt work.

Perhaps unfairly, Notaro has also had to weigh in on sexual misconduct – and it's not the first time she's worked on a project associated with a man implicated in #MeToo. In 2017, Louis C.K. had been removed as executive producer of Notaro's Amazon series "One Mississippi" after several accusers came forward. This time, Notaro is replacing Chris D'Elia, who originally filmed the role in "Army of the Dead." Last year he was accused of sexual harassment, among other misconduct with underage girls, and Snyder made the decision to remove his character and digitally replace him with Notaro.

"If somebody is harassing or assaulting somebody, I feel like there should be consequences for that," Notaro told Salon. Her statement is firm but also creates an awkward pause in the interview. D'Elia isn't present to answer for himself, and Notaro's worthy attention for this role comes at the cost of his displacement, which was not her call. It's an awkward position to be in.

But Notaro has never shied away from the uncomfortable. Nearly nine years ago, she opened her act at the Largo in Los Angeles with the words, "Good evening, hello, I have cancer!" A couple of years later she recorded a set topless to show off her double mastectomy scars. Even the semi-autobiographical series "One Mississippi" stars Notaro as a version of herself dealing with her mother's death and cancer. 

Therefore, it's not that surprising then that Notaro has tackled her unexpected "Army of the Dead" role head-on . . . once she understood that Snyder did indeed want her for the role even though she and D'Elia are nothing alike.

"When I met with Zack, I had been sent a link for me to see the original film, and I thought it was so amazing. I thought Chris was excellent in the role," said Notaro. "I just had concerns about how I could possibly do this. And Zack said, 'I'm having you because I want you to do what you do. That's what I want you to do.' And so it was just kind of full throttle support and encouragement to bring what I bring to the thing, whatever that is."

What Notaro brought set the internet on fire when the trailer for "Army of the Dead" dropped in April. In the film, she plays Marianne Peters, a military pilot with a penchant for foul language and aviators. She's part of a team of mercenaries hired to steal $200 million from a vault under the Las Vegas Strip. The catch? Sin City has been walled in because it's overrun by zombies.

With ammo strapped across her chest, a pistol on her hip, and a cigar clenched between her teeth, Peters is unlike any role that Notaro has played before. And apparently, it's a look that works for fans who've posted comments online calling her "sexy AF" or suggesting she replace all problematic actors, ranging from Armie Hammer to James Franco, onscreen. 

Notaro doesn't mind green screen acting, and is open to doing multiple roles in the same movie, much like Eddie Murphy did in "The Nutty Professor" or even a movie akin to "Being John Malkovich." 

"I would do that in a heartbeat as long as I'm not replacing anybody this time around," she stipulated.

Notaro has already performed some light stunt work as Starfleet engineer Jett Reno on "Star Trek: Discovery," which essentially boils down to dramatic falling onto mattresses. Her "Army of the Dead" role was an altogether different challenge. Green screen acting requires precision and a lot of imagination to pretend to interact with people, objects, creatures and backgrounds that will be digitally filled in later. Add to that having to match the movements of an actor who had already performed the part, and the whole endeavor becomes nerve-wracking.


Tig Notoro as Marianne Peters in "Army of the Dead" (Netflix)

Nevertheless, Notaro slowed down or sped up her walk as needed, mimicked piloting an out-of-control helicopter and was alone on the set except for the few times her assistant would don a green suit for her interactions with other characters. 

The effort paid off, and unless one is scrutinizing the film, the switcheroo is undetectable. In an earlier Vulture interview, Snyder revealed that filming Notaro and digitally inserting her into scenes still cost less than creating the movie's zombie white tiger. 

Notaro stuck to the script for playing Peters while bringing her signature dry delivery. She only tweaked one detail to make the role entirely her own.

"The only thing I changed was the character smoked cigarettes. I quit smoking 25 years ago and the way I quit smoking was to not socialize for about a month and hang out in my house," said Notaro. "And I smoked those cigars. I inhaled that type of cigar, the Swisher Sweets and made myself sick to the point of never wanting to smoke again. So I couldn't bring myself to hold a cigarette. But I thought the best thing I could do is make it a cigar that made me quit smoking."

Beyond "Army of the Dead"


Tig Notaro in "Together Together" (photo courtesy of Bleeker Street)

Meanwhile, Notaro also appears in another film that requires far less effort; all she does is sit and talk. In the platonic comedy "Together Together," she plays a therapist to a soon-to-be dad (Ed Helms) and his surrogate (Patti Henderson) as they navigate their odd relationship.

"My agent sent me the script with an offer for me to play the the therapist," said Notaro. "I've been friends with Ed Helms for years and I just think he is one of the greatest and most ridiculous people I know. And I thought it'd be so fun to do that movie together. And I also have the experience of having had my children through surrogacy, and so it's close to my heart."

She reunites with Helms on one of her podcasts, "Don't Ask Tig," an advice show in which she and a guest – ranging from Nicole Byer and Will Farrell to Andrew Yang and Fran Lebowitz – field real-life listener questions. She also co-hosts the  "Tig and Cheryl: True Story" podcast with "Curb Your Enthusiasm" star Cheryl Hines in which they discuss documentaries.

"I had a podcast probably about 10 years ago at this point and I had been looking at getting back into podcasting. We just landed at American Public Media, and it's a fun way to connect with people out in the world that are looking for earnest answers to their questions," she said. 

"I'd say Aisha's Tyler's the best [at giving advice] and I'd say who's terrible is Sarah Paulson. Sarah Paulson and I were just outrageous, we just really spiraled into nonsense on our episode."

Currently, Notaro is in Toronto to shoot the fourth season of "Star Trek: Discovery." But she's not completely done playing badass pilot Peters just yet. Netflix is also producing an animated spinoff, "Army of the Dead: Lost Vegas," a prequel set a few years prior during the initial zombie takeover of Vegas. She – along with certain "Army" stars – will reprise their roles vocally, while big names like Christian Slater and Joe Manganiello will join the fun.

"I didn't find out [about the series] initially when my agent called about the movie. That was just a fun addition to to this whole curveball that's come my way," she said. "I've always wanted to be a voice on a cartoon; that's been a secret desire of mine. So I'm really excited about that."

Even without green screens, everything is coming up Tig. Notaro also has an animated stand-up special coming to HBO this summer. 

"I've had my stand up animated over the years and different little pieces. It's been really fun to see jokes and stories animated, and so I thought it would be cool to have a special," she said. "I love animation and I'm neck deep in the middle of animation in my day-to-day just because I have two four-year-olds that watch animation all the time." 

During quarantine when she wasn't working or watching "Paw Patrol" and "Octonauts" with her twins, Notaro found the time to get certified as a plant-based nutritionist. She gave up meat a few years ago, embracing a vegan diet to help her with post-surgical pain and hasn't looked back.

"I'm just learning more about it and trying to help other people that have an interest, who want to change their lives or their way of eating, trying to be supportive and lead them in the right direction," said Notaro. "So much good can be done for our environment and for animals and your health, everything. I got into it for health reasons, and I already loved animals, but it just really opened my eyes to that world."

With this in mind, Notaro only has one solution to her ethical dilemma if she ever falls victim in a zombie apocalypse.

"If as a vegan I became a zombie, what would I do? I guess I would lean towards the plant-based people."

"Army of the Dead" is currently streaming on Netflix. "Together Together" is now in theaters and on demand

Sexual misconduct in film and TV: how intimacy coordination can help to address the historic issue

Allegations of serial sexual misconduct by more than 20 women against British actor, director and producer Noel Clarke have revealed a grim picture about the state of the UK film and television industries. At time of writing, more women have come forward.

Four years after the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the rise of the #MeToo movement, it’s clear there’s still an extraordinary amount of work that needs to be done to make film and television production cultures safe for workers – especially women.

As feminist media studies scholars who recently began a two-year study into intimacy coordination in UK television culture, we believe that intimacy coordinators play an essential part in wider efforts to stop sexually predatory and abusive behavior in entertainment.

What do intimacy coordinators do?

Intimacy co-ordinators help to plan and choreograph intimate scenes (including sex scenes), mediating between actors and a range of roles – including writers, directors, costume designers and prop departments – to ensure that actors feel comfortable with every aspect and stage of the process.

Intimacy coordination ensures that on-set production practices are safe for all involved and that intimate and sexual representations are handled transparently and with care. While this role was developed prior to the #MeToo and Time’s Up campaigns, it’s taken on greater significance following heightened awareness of gendered abuses of power in film and TV.

Testimonies of abuse in this field draw attention to the fact that these aren’t isolated incidents, but rather part of a pattern of behavior. As with Weinstein, in cases like these it’s alleged that many industry figures are aware of sexually abusive and inappropriate conduct and yet do not speak out. While the silence of bystanders is often framed as cowardice or moral failure, there are structural reasons that allow those who abuse their power to “hide in plain sight.

Although it’s imperative that abusers are held accountable for their actions, it’s equally vital that reports about sexual abuse in British film and TV are positioned in relation to a wider context of gendered structural abuse and workplace harassment in the sector.

Sexual mistreatment in Hollywood

There’s a long history of female actors being treated as objects on and off screen. In her recent memoir, “The Beauty of Living Twice,” Sharon Stone reflects on what it was like to perform sex scenes as an actress in the 1990s. On the set of Basic Instinct (1992), which Stone starred in, the actor has recounted how she felt manipulated into the infamous police interrogation room vagina-shot, which she saw on screen for the first time in “a room full of agents and lawyers.”

On a Desert Island Disc episode from 2000, Kathleen Turner told then host Sue Lawley that when she first arrived to shoot for “Body Heat” (1981) director (Lawrence Kasdan) expected her to do a nude scene without advance warning. When she expressed how nervous she was, her male co-star, William Hurt, reportedly pulled her aside and told her to drink a bottle of wine to relax herself. Though Turner frames the anecdote as humorous rather than abusive, it indicates a casual lack of regard for female actors around shooting sex scenes.

In a disturbing example from the 1970s, Maria Schneider said that she felt a “little raped” by both director Bernardo Bertolucci and actor Marlon Brando during the infamous anal rape scene in “Last Tango in Paris” (1972), which was shot without obtaining her consent.

It’s important to remember what it was like for actresses in the pre-intimacy coordination world – and often continues to be like for them without well-established production guidelines. That it’s taken so long for the male-dominated entertainment industry to allow space for such a role, let alone grant intimacy coordination the cultural legitimacy it deserves, is telling.

A culture of consent

Among many disturbing revelations about sexually predatory and abusive behavior in the British film industry are accusations of coercing women into performing naked auditions, filming women without their knowledge and sharing video footage of these auditions with others.

Following allegations against Clarke, Kaya Scodelario, the former star of UK teen drama, Skins (2007-2013), posted a Twitter thread in which she recounted being asked to take all her clothes off for a first audition with a big-name director (who she has yet to name publicly). She explained that it was only her agent’s refusal to let this happen that saved her from an exploitative – and potentially dangerous – situation.

Intimacy coordinators have also been using Twitter to advise actors that no screen tests or auditions should ever involve nudity. As Lizzy Talbot, an intimacy coordinator who worked on the set of Bridgerton, tweeted important information:

Ita O’Brien, author of the Intimacy on Set guidelines and a forerunner of intimacy coordination, has also issued a statement calling for the dismantling of toxic behavior and abuses of power in the industry.

In response to recent allegations, charity Time’s Up UK highlights how important it is to organize around “safety guidelines to help people working in entertainment understand they have (…) a right to report sexual harassment and misconduct, free from prejudice and fear.” In the largely freelance and highly competitive film and television sector where speaking out has traditionally led to fears of being blacklisted, this advice is particularly important.

But intimacy coordination isn’t the sole answer to fixing structural inequalities. Nor is it the only way to make women safe in an industry with such stark gendered power imbalances, especially as some allegations of abusive behavior take place off set. What it can help with, however, is establishing clear guidelines around what is and isn’t acceptable. That includes seeking explicit consent, looking at approaches to auditions and screen tests, requiring greater transparency over the filming processes of intimate and sexual scenes, ensuring closed sets and advocating for actors’ boundaries to be respected. Prioritizing these measures is an important – and necessary – step forwards.

* * *

The Rape Crisis England and Wales national freephone helpline is open daily from 12:00 – 14:30 and 19:00 – 21:30: 0808 802 9999

Susan Berridge, Lecturer in Film and Media, University of Stirling and Tanya Horeck, Associate Professor in Film, Media & Culture, Anglia Ruskin University

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

Jeffrey Epstein’s prison guards admit to falsifying records about his suicide: report

Two Bureau of Prisons guards responsible for watching over deceased wealth manager Jeffrey Epstein at the time he committed suicide have admitted to falsifying records about their work that night.

Tova Noel and Michael Thomas were accused of sleeping and scanning the internet instead of making their required rounds every 30 minutes during their eight-hour shift, and Epstein’s cell was just 15 feet from them when he killed himself in August 2019, according to Axios.

“The two have entered an agreement with prosecutors and will avoid jail time,” the website reported. “They will instead be subjected to supervised release and 100 hours of community service. They must also cooperate with the Justice Department in an ongoing probe. A judge will need to approve the deal, which could come as soon as next week.”

This new development matches previous reporting, which indicated that guards had skipped mandatory checks on Epstein’s cell prior to his death.

Epstein, who became infamous over a decade ago after being given a controversial sweetheart plea deal amid an investigation for child sex trafficking, was finally arrested for the full extent of his crimes in 2019.

He was found dead in his cell of apparent suicide at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City, which — given the top security measures at the facility and the supposed requirement he be on regular watch — led to a raft of conspiracy theories questioning whether it had really been suicide or even whether he was really dead.

“It almost felt like the world would end”: On being a medical resident during the pandemic

Detroit native Selina Mahmood was in the first year of her neurology residency when the pandemic hit. Abruptly, she was thrust into a healthcare crisis of urgent need and conflicting guidance, a period of intense demands — and profound loneliness.

Now, those early days of COVID-19 and a previous presidential administration feel like another era in history. The threat is not obliterated and the pain and grief have not dissipated, but that initial confusion and exhaustion have transformed. And Mahmood’s “A Pandemic in Residence: Essays from a Detroit Hospital” is a profound, moving and unfiltered account of not just a frontline worker’s experience at an unprecedented moment, but a story of family and identity, of pop songs and PPE.

Mahmood spoke to Salon via phone recently, after getting off from a night shift, about her pandemic year, and what it taught her about our healthcare system. As always, this interview has been condensed and edited for print.

The book takes us through December of 2020. What do your days look like now compared to what they were a year ago?

At this point last year, I was still living in the hotel. I was thinking back about it yesterday, like, “I can’t believe I lived in a hotel.” It’s kind of surreal. It was not nice. It was super lonely and very strange. It already feels so long ago.

I’ve become much more comfortable in being a doctor, I was a junior when I wrote that book. I’m senior right now and there’s a junior under me, so the roles have reversed and I’m overseeing things. Just last night I had a patient who coded on the floor. She had acute respiratory distress. It’s crazy comparing myself to my first year versus what it’s like now. We called the code blue; we called in anesthesiologists to intubate the patient. Something I realized, because I had a junior under me, is I this isn’t about being smart. When you do the same thing and experience it enough again and again, it’s crazy how much you actually end up learning.

What was your experience, as a doctor in training, when this started?

It felt very catastrophic, and things were things flipped upside down. I remember thinking, “Oh my God, I cannot believe that this is happening.” When we initially started hearing about the COVID cases rising, it was like, “It’s happening. It’s happening.” I remember when the day that the surgeon general recommended stopping all elective surgeries. I’ve never had that happen, ever. Then the economy dropped and then everything in the hospital changed. It emptied out. At the same time, there was the sense of urgency, just wearing masks everywhere and not being able to see people’s faces anymore.

A lot of people I was looking forward to working with, I didn’t get to work with because everything shifted. And then, it’s so strange that it’s still going on. I thought it almost felt like either the world will end or will go back to normal. Being at this end is strange, because this is just normal existence now.

As you write very early on in the book, being where you are in America, there was not the sort of unified response that we had here in New York City. You talk about hospitals having very different procedures and the frustration of that as well.

The hospital down the next county was dealing with things differently. You expect it to be science, right? Science is supposed to be fact. That there was so much fiction in what should have been scientific. To me, that’s super frustrating.

I’m curious how you wrote this book. At what point did this move from being something you were writing to anchor yourself in this time to feeling that this was actually a body of work?

It started formulating into a body of work while I was living in the hotel. I was super isolated. There were no other humans except for literally the bellboy. You already feel super disorientated, the anxiety goes up. I didn’t know what to do, so I just started putting it together. Obviously, I didn’t finish the writing while I was there, but that was the initial point where it started coming together.

But I started writing even before I moved into the hotel that first week, just because it felt so monumental. That Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, I actually started writing right off the bat. It just started off as notes in my cell phone, just for something for me to remember myself. I would actually write in the hospital while walking to a bathroom break, or getting lunch. I would write things in the moment sometimes if I felt them.


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


It’s hard doing that in real time, because when you’re writing about events as they are happening, you don’t have that distance from them.

There’s this Lit Hub article on writing about an event as it occurs, and how that can either be a huge failure or work out. If you get a feeling intuition of what’s going on and things unfold differently, your work kind of collapses. When I was writing about Trump, even though I kept thinking, “I don’t think he’s going to win and he feels like the past,” I knew I was going to have to edit that out if he ends up winning.

You also write a lot about you family and about your relationship to them, about race. What are the boundaries around that? It’s so different from the other parts of the book.

I ran through a lot of the stuff that I wrote about my family to them, to make sure they would be okay with it. You don’t necessarily know what’s going to offend other people or not sometimes. I actually didn’t end up editing any of it out, because I have written other stuff in the past and I think my parents and my sisters are used to me writing.

What was the hardest part to write about? Were there parts of this where you thought, “I’m not sure how to tell this story” because you’re so deep in it?

For some of the parts, it was starting off and admitting that you’re not perfect in the beginning, and that you make mistakes and medicine is super hard.

Doctors aren’t encouraged to do that.

Especially because the repercussions are so high. But that’s how we learn. That’s why we’re in training in the first place.

When I started off, I was much more emotionally invested in patients, and that’s something that we’re not encouraged to do either really. You’re told to distance yourself from patients all through med school as well. I did not start off with that emotional distance at all. That’s something I’ve had to work on significantly. I realize how much I have managed to distance myself when I see new interns who are that emotionally invested.

It’s such an ethical conundrum for physicians, because you have to figure out your sweet spot of emotional distance and having an emotional investment.

Sometimes I’m glad it’s this way rather than it being the other way, that I came in over invested and had to move away rather than having come in super distanced and having to make my way in. I feel like it’s harder to do it the other way around.

You’ve seen so much up close now and experienced so much in a way that goes above and beyond the already incredible rigors of being a resident. How do you think that’s going to inform you as a doctor?

First of all, I don’t even know when things are going to go back to normal anymore. Is this still going to be the world I start my practice in or become a staff? That uncertainty is very much up in the air.

The public health issue of everything has become much more in the forefront of things. I don’t know if it’s just the normal intern experience or because it’s been heightened by COVID, but all the problems with lack of community, lack of insurance, they’re just so in your face. There’s a bigger problem than my patient coming in with a migraine. There’s a whole social structure behind this patient, which isn’t working. And that’s a huge problem.

“What’s Going On” at 50 — Marvin Gaye’s Motown classic is as relevant today as it was in 1971

Motown wasn’t really known for its politically conscious music. Then came “What’s Going On.”

Released on May 21, 1971, at the height of the Vietnam War, Marvin Gaye’s album became a monster, spawning three hit singles on its way to becoming Motown’s best-selling album to date. The album also marked a turning point for Motown and for Marvin Gaye as an artist.

As a scholar of race and culture in the U.S. and the host of the weekly radio show “Soul Stories,” I am struck by how many of the themes Gaye explores remain as relevant today as they were when he first wrote about them 50 years ago.

Gaye’s evolution

Some of the songs on the album speak directly to the state of the world in the early 1970s.

The title track, with its timeless lyric “war is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate,” condemned the nation’s involvement in Vietnam. But the song provides an insight into the evolution of Gaye’s music to encompass overtly political themes.

“What’s Going On” contrasts with his earlier work from the Vietnam War era that presents a different perspective. For example, “Soldier’s Plea,” the first single from Gaye’s second album, “That Stubborn Kinda Fellow” in 1962, offers a decidedly romantic view of war:

While I’m away, darling how often do you think of me?
Remember, I’m over here, fighting to keep us free
Just be my little girl and always be true
And I’ll be a faithful soldier boy to you

“Soldier’s Plea” fits neatly into Motown’s early business model. Both Berry Gordy – who founded Tamla Records in 1959 and then incorporated it as the Motown Record Co. a year later – and the songwriters he brought in mostly avoided political content.

Motown singers such as Mary Wells, The Supremes and The Temptations were to be, as the label liked to say, the “Sound of Young America,” not political activists. Gordy told Time magazine in 2020, “I never wanted Motown to be a mouthpiece for civil rights.”

While song lyrics did not explicitly mention the ongoing civil rights protests emerging across the nation in the 1960s, Motown didn’t entirely ignore racial politics. The label released the spoken-word album “The Great March to Freedom” on the same day as the March on Washington – Aug. 28, 1963. The release commemorated the Walk to Freedom, a Detroit mass march from earlier that summer, and featured a speech by Martin Luther King Jr.

Motown also created the Black Forum label, which released other political speeches by King, such as his 1967 “Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam,” and Stokely Carmichael’s song “Free Huey!” pleading for the release of fellow Black Power leader Huey Newton in 1970. The label also released albums of poetry by Amiri Baraka, Elaine Brown, Langston Hughes and Margaret Danner.

By and large, though, early releases on the Motown label were restricted to the apolitical.

But the world had changed by 1971. The freedom struggle had taken a more radical turn with the emergence of the Black Power movement, the Chicano Movement, the Young Lords and the American Indian Movement. The first Earth Day, April 22, 1970, focused attention on the emerging U.S. environmental movement. Meanwhile, anti-war activists protested the draft, escalating violence, and the sight of body bags returning from Vietnam.

The U.S. musical soundscape shifted alongside these political, social and economic transformations. Art and politics merged through 1969’s Woodstock festival. Meanwhile, Black Power-driven messages started to emanate from the soul and gospel music distributed by the Stax label in Memphis and a host of other musicians who offered searing critiques of U.S. imperialism such as Nina Simone, Curtis Mayfield and Gil Scott-Heron.

Hollering love across the nation

Alongside this political shift came internal pressure in Motown to give artists more agency over their own output. As Motown performers matured artistically, some felt stifled by Gordy’s model and demanded more artistic control.

Gaye produced “What’s Going On” himself – a revolutionary act at Motown. The result is a painfully beautiful protest album from first track to last.

The opening lines of the album are sung softly, yet urgently: “Mother, mother, there’s far too many of you crying/ Brother, brother, brother, there’s far too many of you dying.”

Lyrics grapple with the effects of the war on families and the lives of young men sent overseas. The next song follows one of those young men home to a nation grappling with an unemployment rate of 6%. “Can’t find no work, can’t find no job, my friend,” Gaye laments on “What’s Happening Brother.”

The album’s final track conveys frustration: “Makes me wanna holler how they do my life … this ain’t living, this ain’t living.”

In between, we have everything from an exploration of faith to the environmentalist anthem “Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology)” concluding with the refrain “How much more abuse from man can she [the earth] stand?”

Yet “What’s Going On” expresses hope. Gaye repeats the affirmation “right on” – a phrase distinctly grounded in black urban vernacular – throughout the album and on a song bearing that name. We first hear this phrase on the title track, “What’s Going On.” Gaye affirms “Right on, brother” to men who respond in kind at different points in the song. The call and response communicates a sense of shared concern, shared struggle, and shared redemption – an ethos Gaye took from the gospel tradition that informs his musicality.

This call and response is repeated in “Wholy Holy,” with Gaye utilizing a multitracking technique to layer two versions of his own vocals:

We can conquer (yes we can) hate forever (oh Lord)
Wholy (wholy holy, wholy holy)
We can rock the world’s foundation
Everybody together, together in wholy (wholy holy)
We’ll holler love, love, love across the nation

Still a hit

Gordy was initially reluctant to embrace Gaye’s new direction. But Motown could not ignore the album’s success. The title track reached the top spot on Billboard’s R&B chart and peaked at No. 2 on the Hot 100. The album remained on the charts for 58 weeks.

Gaye’s classic album still resonates with audiences on its 50th anniversary. The environmental messages of “Mercy Mercy Me (The Ecology)” are just as germane today as 1971, as are the powerful statements on race, war and poverty on other tracks.

As someone who teaches courses on the history of music in the United States, I’ve noticed that most of my students immediately recognize songs from “What’s Going On” – an album released decades before they were born. In a nation where people continue to protest white supremacy, endless wars, environmental damage, police brutality and poverty, “What’s Going On” remains as relevant as ever.

Tyina Steptoe, Associate Professor of History, University of Arizona

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

Georgia heads for yet another long-shot 2020 election review

A Georgia county appears headed for another review of last year’s presidential election results — the latest in a long string of increasingly long-shot attempts by Trump allies to uncover seemingly nonexistent voter fraud and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

This most recent review in Atlanta-area Fulton County cannot change the state’s results — which were certified earlier this year and have withstood several recounts already — but plaintiffs in the lawsuit that spurred the review say they’re still seeking evidence of fraud and improper counting by election officials.

A Georgia judge agreed to unseal more than 145,000 absentee ballots as a part of the inquiry, but crucially decided to keep physical copies in possession of Fulton County officials, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The move is seemingly a play to avoid the bizarre, headline grabbing antics of Trump loyalists in Arizona who have subjected hundreds of thousands of ballots from metropolitan Maricopa County to a series of incredibly strange tests: scans with ultraviolet light to uncover nonexistent watermarks and forensic analysis seeking the presence of bamboo fibers (evidence of their source in “Asia”), for example.

Henry County Superior Court Judge Brian Amero, who is handling the case, said the ballots will likely be scanned to produce high-resolution images that the plaintiffs, nine Georgia voters, will be able to review. They are seeking evidence that large numbers of the ballots were printed by machines and not filled out by voters themselves. These claims have been thoroughly debunked — the AJC points to expert testimony rebutting such claims, a full hand recount that failed to uncover any evidence of widespread fraud in Georgia, and analysis from Trump’s own Attorney General and election security head.

Fulton County Commission Chairman Robb Pitts blasted the review in a statement.

“It is outrageous that Fulton County continues to be a target of those who cannot accept the results from last year’s election,” Pitts, a Democrat, wrote. “The votes have been counted multiple times, including a hand recount, and no evidence of fraud has been found.

“The fact remains that Fulton County safely and securely carried out an election in the midst of a public health crisis.”

The nine plaintiffs have agreed to pay for the review.

Formation of a black hole: On the spectacular implosion of the Republican Party

Lately I’ve been reading about space and time and quarks and protons and neutrons — all things I never learned about in physics, because I never took that course in high school or college. I was a biology major for a couple of years, vaguely pre-med, until I saw physics and organic chemistry looming ahead and changed my major to journalism. While studying the hard sciences, I had also fallen hard for theater, so the shift away from the study of science was partly due to the time-suck of memorizing lines and rehearsals. The gravitational pull exerted by one excellent lecture course on Shakespeare and some superb theater professors set me on a new course.

I never lost interest in the things I walked away from then. I have numerous science books around the house that I thumb through and still hope to read. On my desk right now are two stacks of books which contain (along with novels and poetry and a book about running) “The Mathematics Devotional” and “30-Second Biology.” For some years I had a cool retro “Calculus for the Practical Man” that I kept thinking I might be able to comprehend.

Reading about how black holes form, I can’t stop thinking about the implosion of the Republican Party. The metaphor is perfect, even when extended.

Astrophysicists tell us a black hole is created when a star of a certain size begins to cool and thus loses the heat that keeps the force of gravity at bay. In his A Brief History of Time,” Stephen Hawking compares the steady state of a star with a balloon, the air inside (representing the star’s heat caused by nuclear fusion) pushing against the skin, which pushes back (the star’s internal gravity). Once the heat dissipates, the star begins to collapse inward until it becomes so dense that light can no longer escape the gravitational pull. The boundary where light reaches, but can go no further, is called the event horizon.

Sound familiar? Swap in “truth” for “light” (light being a standard metaphor for truth) and you have the current condition of the former Grand Old Party. 

Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but in human terms we know that falsehoods travel much faster than the truth. One thinks of the quip, often attributed to Mark Twain, which runs something like, A lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. (Apparently, the concept goes back to Jonathan Swift, who wrote in 1710: “Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it.”) So lies have a higher velocity than the truth — especially in the age of social media — and continue to be emitted daily from the Republican black hole.

You cannot see a black hole, but it still exerts a gravitational pull on nearby objects. Astronomers can see this by watching other stars orbit around seemingly nothing. (Speaking of “seemingly nothing,” a comparison is inescapable, which would be pretty funny if it weren’t so scary.)

One wonders whether Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney and others who are now trying to distance themselves from the black hole centered on Mar-a-Lago can garner enough velocity to pull away from the singular density of all the lies, mendacity, grifting, gaslighting, bad-faith dealing, authoritarian praising, anti-democratic espousing, white supremacist messaging and conspiracy-theory reeling.

As Hawking writes: “Stars in the galaxy that come too near this black hole will be torn apart by the differences in the gravitational forces on their near and far sides.”

Cheney and Romney are certainly feeling those effects.

Only stars beyond a certain size can become a stellar black hole, something Indian-American astrophysicist and mathematician Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who spent his career at the University of Chicago, noted in a series of papers in the 1930s. He received the Nobel Prize (with British physicist Ralph Fowler) for his work in 1983 — about the time Donald Trump opened his namesake tower on Fifth Avenue.

Although I’m referencing stellar black holes here, it should be noted that Donald Trump was never truly a star. From the first moments he came into public view, he ceaselessly tried to create a name for himself, even stooping to pretend to be a press agent for himself (remember how “John Barron” and “John Miller” sounded exactly like Donald?).

Trump was eventually puffed up into a reality-show star by decades of falsehoods about his prowess as a businessman and one biographer, Tony Schwartz, the true author of “The Art of the Deal,” who very much regrets the work he did. Trump was a phony president for the same reasons he was a phony businessman: He couldn’t be bothered by work and details; he just bullied and pushed and threatened to get his way. The late Wayne Barrett, the longtime Village Voice reporter who had Trump’s number from the beginning, put it best, while introducing his two-part series of articles on Trump published in January 1979: 

Each history — the Brooklyn empire, the Manhattan purchases, and the government contracts — is a tale of overreaching and abuse of power. Like his father, Donald Trump has pushed each deal to the limit, taking from it whatever he can get, turning political connections into private profits at public expense.

At best, then, in this extended metaphor he was an odd star, a white dwarf or a neutron. But then his size was bloated immensely by the false premises of “The Apprentice” and his notoriety then began to reach — let’s say, for the purposes of the metaphor — the “Chandrasekhar limit,” the point at which a cold star can no longer support itself. What took him over the top was the endless coverage he was gifted by cable news during the 2016 campaign. (I nearly wrote “inexplicably gifted” but of course it’s all too easy to understand. Even real news programs are corporate owned and profit-minded, and on the air far too long every day. They have to fill that time with something, and showman Trump knew very well how to take advantage of the hungry maw of 24/7 news coverage.) 

Some 70 percent of Republicans still believe in Trump’s falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen. If you don’t fight against the lies, as Liz Cheney — who knows a thing or two herself about offering up the Big Lie — recently noted, you only make them stronger: “Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar.” It’s like a law of physics.

Speaking of lies, the longer version of Jonathan Swift’s concept is illuminating, in this context:

Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect … 

No astrophysicist has seen a black hole form, but we have. As with the celestial phenomenon, it has taken a long time; the Republican Party has been gaining unhealthy mass (e.g., Newt Gingrich) at least since the days of Ronald Reagan and his Big Lies about welfare queens and trickle-down economics and small government. Think back, if you can stomach it, to the months leading up to the 2016 election, when all the major media outlets, including CNN and MSNBC, breathlessly ticked down the time to every single Trump campaign lie-fest, where they also rocked out to music that made no sense at all (“Funeral for a Friend,” “YMCA”?) that the artists asked them not to use.

Do you remember? As my friend Joel is wont to say, “Sure you do.” The GOP black hole was forming right there on television; like a pack of amateur astronomers, we could all observe it happening — Trump’s bullied opponents capitulating, journalists and their corporate leaders allowing themselves to be pushed around, party members refusing to comment about the endless stream of disinformation — with the naked eye, in broad daylight.