Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Shall I call it the ‘QAnon Party’?”: Joy Behar’s grilling sends Megan McCain scrambling

Emotions ran high on Tuesday’s episodeof ABC’s “The View,” when co-host Meghan McCain unleashed a confusing fury on her fellow colleague after Joy Behar criticized the GOP for not disavowing embattled Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in the face of mounting evidence that Gaetz may have had sex with an underage girl. 

On Monday, Gaetz’s former friend Joel Greenberg, pleaded guilty to six criminal charges, including sex trafficking, alleging that both he and Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old girl. Republicans have, however, have stayed overwhelmingly quiet on the matter. When “View” co-host Whoopi Goldberg asked Behar why she thought the Republican Party was keeping its mouth shut, Behar replied: “Well, because the only sin that you commit in the Republican Party these days is if you say that Biden won the election. Everything else is fine.”

“This all adds up to bad news for Gaetz, but he’s out there, you know, having fun, enjoying himself, making jokes about it because he feels like he has cover in the Republican Party,” she continued. “Because as I said, they don’t care what you do there as long as you say that [Donald] Trump won the election. Look at what happened to Liz Cheney.”

McCain, a loud and proud Republican, was immediately brought into a state of ire.

“Well, first of all, I have family members and good friends who all work on Capitol Hill in Republican politics,” she ranted at Behar, “and trust me, the Republican Party and people on Capitol Hill are embarrassed by this. So, I think I have a lot better sourcing on that than you do, Joy. No offense.”

McCain added that her sister-in-law, Emily Domenech, who works for Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is privy to “a lot about what’s going on in Capitol Hill.”

But Behar didn’t back down. “My question is, if it’s not the Republican Party, shall I call it the ‘QAnon Party’?” Behar responded. “What should I call your party now who defends people like Matt Gaetz and goes against Liz Cheney?”

McCain, now shouting, raged: “I think you can call it whatever you want because your influence in the Republican Party is almost zero, and again, as I’ve said on this show, it is for us to figure out amongst ourselves.”

Behar went on to question McCain about why the party hasn’t removed Gaetz from his committee positions, to which McCain rambled: “Because they have to convict him or whatever—I’m not a lawyer. What is it they have to do—police have to arrest him. I don’t know, um, police have to arrest him and charge him. That’s why he’s still in Congress.”

Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., was not criminally convicted or accused of anything before she was ousted from her role as the party’s conference chair for criticizing former President Trump. McCain, however, claimed in the segment that her ouster was “a different thing.”

“You saying the Republican Party is trash is—I don’t care!” McCain shouted. “It is irrelevant to me! Who cares?” Who cares? You say it every single day! Every single day! Oh my God!” 

Eventually, a frazzled Goldberg managed to jump in and stop the chaos in its tracks. “OK, we’re going to break. We’re going to break,” Goldberg said.

This is your brain on partisan politics: New scientific study reveals key cause behind polarization

More than 60 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower took a break from his busy schedule to answer a letter from a terminally ill World War II veteran. The ailing man, Robert Biggs, had respectfully criticized Eisenhower’s recent speeches for projecting a sense of uncertainty, explaining that “we wait for someone to speak for us and back him completely if the statement is made in truth.” The 34th president felt that people in democracies should be wary of needing to feel certain about important issues.

“I doubt that citizens like yourself could ever, under our democratic system, be provided with the universal degree of certainty, the confidence in their understanding of our problems, and the clear guidance from higher authority that you believe needed,” Eisenhower argued to Biggs. “Such unity is not only logical but indeed indispensable in a successful military organization, but in a democracy debate is the breath of life.”

While some debate whether bipartisanship is desirable, a recent study in the scientific journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America” (PNAS) reveals that Eisenhower may at least have been correct when he observed that people who feel a need for ideological certainty fuel political polarization. The scientists monitored and analyzed the brain activity of politically engaged people and found that, regardless of whether they were liberal or conservative, they shared at least one trait: If they had a strong aversion to feelings of uncertainty, they tended to become increasingly polarized in their ideology and perception of events.

The scientists recruited a few dozen participants, liberal and conservative alike, to watch video clips that included a nature documentary, a neutral news segment about a politically controversial subject and a segment from the 2016 vice presidential debate. Jeroen van Baar, PhD, a co-author of the study who is now a research associate at Trimbos, the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health & Addiction, explained to Salon that he and his colleagues noted that participants’ brain activity looked different as they viewed “a polarizing video clip” from the vice presidential debate between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence in 2016.

“When participants watched a nature video,” van Baar explained, “their brains looked the same.” 

What exactly does it mean when van Baar says brains “looked” the same or different? The scientists used a technique called “brain-to-brain synchrony.” 

“If you show two people a video while scanning their brain activity, this activity ramps up and down at different times, depending on how these people feel,” van Baar explained. “The brains of people who have similar subjective experiences tend to ‘tick together’, i.e. show synchronized activity.”

The opposite is also true — the brains of two people who have different subjective reactions to the same video will respond “quite differently,” according to van Baar. 

The scientists learned that people with similar political views had increased synchronization when watching politically charged — as opposed to neutral — content. (That’s what van Baar calls the “same-lens effect” at work.) And the team found this synchronization to be increased among people who are also intolerant of uncertainty.

Study co-author Oriel FeldmanHall, an assistant professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University, told Salon that being intolerant of uncertainty is a personality trait that can have an effect on everything from a person’s willingness to participate in risky behavior to their comfort when meeting new people — and it can exacerbate what FeldmanHall called “neural polarization.”

“Two individuals who were intolerant to uncertainty exhibited a greater neural synchrony . . . when watching the same political content, regardless of whether they identify as a Democrat or Republican,” FeldmanHall said. “To put it simply, intolerance to uncertainty led to more ideologically polarized brain responses.”

The good news here, FeldmanHall explained, is that targeting the fear of uncertainty could help cross divides. That could help make political debate — democracy’s “breath of life,” as Eisenhower put it — more effective. 

“There are lots of different things that one can do to reduce anxiety relating to uncertainty,” FeldmanHall said. “And if you can harness these practices, effectively making yourself more comfortable with uncertainty, you are more likely to ‘reach’ the other side.”

Van Baar elaborated on what this might look like.

“A solution would be for politicians—and anyone debating politics—to simplify, simplify, simplify,” Van Baar told Salon. “Try to say what you mean in the most concrete and unambiguous terms you can come up with. You may still find that your opponent disagrees with you, but they might for the first time understand what you are trying to say. And mutual understanding may eventually grow trust between political factions.”

This brings us back to Ike. The president probably did not intend to dismiss Biggs’ concerns when he wrote that letter in 1959, but it appears that he may have wanted to listen to him more closely. Perhaps there is a case to be made for finding a middle ground — in politics and in life — between being overly-certain and not being reassuring enough.

Democrats move to censure GOP House members who downplay the Capitol riot

House Democrats want accountability laid bare against Republican lawmakers who continue to indulge in election conspiracy theories and downplay the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection by introducing a measure to censure three far-right GOP members as Republican leadership knocks down a proposed bipartisan commission to investigate the attack.

The censure bill, proposed by Democratic Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., is focused on Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde, Paul Gosar, and Jody Hice, three key players alleged to have aided some organizing ahead of Jan. 6.

“These members cannot be allowed to rewrite history at their convenience by disrespecting the sacrifices made by Capitol police officers and downplaying the violent, destructive intent that rioters carried into this sacred building,” Cicilline stated in a letter to fellow lawmakers. “The January 6th insurrection was an attack on our democracy that we must continue to defend against today,” he added. As for the exact wording of the resolution slated to be introduced by Cicilline, that remains a work in process. 

According to NBC News, the move from Cicilline comes following a hearing last Wednesday from the House Oversight Committee on the Jan. 6th siege where Rep. Clyde argued that the attack was “not an insurrection” but rather a “normal tourist visit.”

“There was an undisciplined mob. There were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism,” Clyde said at the hearing. “But let me be clear, there was no insurrection, and to call it an insurrection, in my opinion, is a bold-faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol, and walk through Statuary Hall, showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures, you know.”

Late on Monday night, an image from the day of the attack surfaced on social media, showing Clyde attempting to barricade the door to prevent pro-Trump vigilantes from entering. The GOP lawmaker was also seen in another photo screaming.

Reps. Clyde, Gosar, and Hice have all since the blowback from the siege attempted to purge the memory of the event from the nation’s memory. “It was Trump supporters who lost their lives that day, not Trump supporters who were taking the lives of others,” Hice claimed not too long ago. Far-right Rep. Gosar, who enjoys hanging out with white nationalist Nicholas Fuentes, claimed that police officers were “harassing peaceful patriots” that day. 

Gosar’s office didn’t immediately respond to a Salon request for comment. 

Time for the cover-up: There’s only one reason why Republicans oppose a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission

Republicans sure do have a lot of excuses for why the January 6 commission needs to be stalled! And, of course, Politico is here to present those excuses as if they were a series of sincere concerns, as opposed to transparent bad faith from people clearly engaged in a cover-up. 

“Republicans not sold on bipartisan Jan. 6 commission,” Politico’s headline reads. In prose that doesn’t have a hint of irony, reporters Burgess Everett, Marianne Levine, and Melanie Zanona write that, “Several Senate Republicans on Monday evening expressed worries” about the commission, and that these “worries” are leading them to look to “filibuster power” to “demand changes or bottle up the legislation altogether.”

Cue laugh track.

Republicans are not worried, nor do they have concerns, nor do they wish to make modifications. What they want is to stop this commission from happening and the reason is singular and straightforward: They don’t want to enshrine into history a narrative that paints Donald Trump and the insurrections in a negative light. As there is no way to speak about the facts of January 6 without making Trump or his anti-democratic cause look bad, Republicans would rather just avoid the discussion altogether. 

But if you ask Republicans, they will never admit their real reasons, preferring instead to engage in a bunch of squirrelly excuses that don’t make any sense, logically, or in some cases, grammatically.


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


Take for instance Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who complained that Democrats have to “broaden the inquiry in order to get 60 votes” because “there’s more things wrong in this country than just [what] happened on January 6th,” as if a single commission needs to solve all the nation’s problems or it’s not worth conducting. Then there is Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri who rolled out the confusing gambit that he fears the commission “will slow us down from some of the things we need to do with the Capitol Police and police board,” trying to spin fact-finding and information-gathering as somehow too time-consuming to be bothered with. And who knows what Sen. John Cornyn of Texas is trying to say with this: “I mean, I’d be surprised if anything they find out about January 6th fully developed on that day. So I would not tie their hands.”

Of course, some Senate Republicans —Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, anyone? — are making a big show out of how they might support a commission and how they supposedly want the truth about the insurrection to come out. But that’s an easy stance to take when they can hide behind a filibuster that prevents them from taking a hard vote on a bill creating the commission. Republicans in the Senate are just offering words to fill the air so that they can sound like they are saying something while assiduously avoiding saying anything at all. 

For House Republicans, who don’t have the filibuster to prevent them from having to take a vote, pretending to be open-minded isn’t an option. That’s why the top Republican in the House is barely putting any effort into his bad faith excuses:

As I argued in Tuesday’s Standing Room Only newsletter, Republicans are caught in a conundrum. On one hand, they quite clearly support Trump and, more importantly, the general anti-democratic goals of the insurrectionists. On the other hand, they don’t like admitting as much to reporters and prefer instead to pretend that they find the politics of fascist insurrection distasteful.


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


It’s unclear why Republicans care what reporters think when they’re on apparently an unstoppable path to permanent minority rule. After all, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Krysten Sinema of Arizona have made sure Democrats aren’t doing anything to stop the GOP war on democracy. But, of course, it really isn’t much of a cover-up if you admit you’re engaged in a cover-up. And a cover-up is exactly what Republicans are engaged in, as they fight to make sure there’s never any commission that looks into the insurrection that Trump incited on January 6. Instead, Republicans making incoherent excuses to Politico reporters, and Politico reporters writing down those incoherent excuses as if they were words that make sense. 

No doubt then that the quickly calcifying Beltway wisdom, as evidenced by this credulous Politico article, is that it’s some kind of #resistance hysterics to believe that the majority of congressional Republicans support Trump in his anti-democratic and insurrectionist goals. After all, many of them were quite clearly rattled by being attacked by a violent mob that was threatening to murder members of Congress, as well as then-Vice President Mike Pence. And, of course, few of them will say anything laudatory about the insurrection to reporters, instead pulling faces and acting as if they deplore such violence. 

But when we look away from words to actions, the pro-insurrection pattern of the GOP becomes clear.

Even while the blood and broken glass from the Capitol riot was still on the floor, 147 congressional Republicans voted to back Trump’s demands that the 2020 election results be thrown out. A few days later, the insurrectionist cause gained even more power over the GOP caucus, as all but 10 Republicans voted ‘no’ on impeaching Trump for his obvious incitement of the riot. A month later, 86% of Senate Republicans sided with the insurrectionists by voting to acquit Trump. The pro-insurrectionists have only solidified their support in the GOP caucus since then, which is why Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming was ousted from her leadership position by the majority of House Republicans, to punish her for continuing to insist that Trump’s insurrection was a bad thing. In the months since the insurrection, multiple Republican leaders — including McCarthy — have made the pilgrimage to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the ring of the man who attempted to overthrow an election. 

And that’s just the GOP reaction to the riot itself. When it comes to the bigger picture — namely, Trump’s lies about Joe Biden “stealing” the election and his two-and-a-half-month effort to pressure courts and election officials to steal the election for him — Republicans are even more enthusiastic, purging officials who stood in Trump’s way, rewriting laws to make the next coup easier to pull off, and openly campaigning off of Trump’s Big Lie for the 2022 election.

The myth of the reasonable, well-meaning Republican still has a powerful hold on the Beltway media. Because of this, Republicans continue to get away with pretending they’re outraged by the January 6 riot, while actually shielding the instigator from any accountability and doing their damnedest to fill the goals of the insurrectionists. But there really should be no mystery about why Republicans keep findiing excuses to cover for Trump and the insurrectionists: It’s because they’re complicit. 

Hugs are back! But do you even want one?

Kelly Shoul, an elopement photographer living in Denver, is fully vaccinated. While she is looking forward to returning to many aspects of her pre-pandemic life thanks to her vaccinated status, there is one pre-pandemic custom she’s not looking forward to — being greeted by strangers and acquaintances with a hug. 

“I will always hug my closest friends, and family, that’s just how I am. I love them and hugging them is something that always comes naturally when I see them,” Shoul told Salon via email. However, Shoul said, over the years it’s seemed as if everyone wanted a hug. “People I haven’t seen in years, acquaintances, the mail man, and to be honest, it was getting to be a little much.”

Shoul said a “simple wave,” standing across from a person and not touching, has been a welcomed respite from a culture that had been increasingly embracing the hug as a form of casual greeting, which sometimes led to awkward and unwanted interactions.

“I am fully vaccinated, but I still don’t want the virus, and this will keep me from hugging individuals who I know aren’t vaccinated,” Shoul said. “Which is nice [because] I probably didn’t want to hug them in the first place.”

When the pandemic hit the U.S. in 2020, one of the first noticeable differences in everyday lives was how people greeted each other. In April 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said he believed that people should never “shake hands ever again,” deeming some to believe the handshake was dead. Hugging, by that point, was also off the table due to coronavirus mitigation strategy recommendations like staying six feet apart from others. Many health experts speculated that both hugs and handshakes would be off limits for a very long time.

Yet now, nearly a year and a half later, 37 percent of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated and hugs and handshakes are no longer a serious health threat. Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center, told Salon hugs are safe between fully vaccinated individuals, and even a low-risk activity for unvaccinated people, as long as the hug is short.


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


“People who are fully vaccinated, there’s no COVID-19 related reasons not to hug people,” Adalja said. “Even if they were not vaccinated, COVID doesn’t transmit instantaneously like that, so if two unvaccinated people are hugging it’s not likely to be a transmission event if it’s transient.”

Adalja said it depends on the unvaccinated person’s “risk tolerance,” but that a fully vaccinated person shouldn’t fear hugging a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person.

Jennifer Grizzle, a public relations consultant in Atlanta, told Salon via email she is already hugging people she knows now that she’s vaccinated. But like Shoul, she isn’t hugging strangers.

“But friends and family are getting hugs from me,” Grizzle said. “I’ve always been a hugger.”

Sociologist Amy Best emphasized to Salon there’s a “cultural variance” when it comes to hugging in America, given the country’s diverse population. In some cultures, touching another person — especially someone who isn’t family or a close friend —is off limits for a variety of reasons. Sociologists and anthropologists consider hugging as a casual greeting a relatively new phenomenon in modern American culture.

“We can identify hugging at other historical moments among subsets of the American population, but for sure hugging as an activity emerged in the post war period,” Best said. “And there are two things that really offered hugging as a more widespread practice, and one is just a kind of more egalitarian ethos that’s defined the last part of the 21st century and late part of the 20th century.”

Hugging, Best said, can be thought of as emerging after a time where there were many rules and rituals between groups of people who were perceived as unequal by societal standards. Hugging, in other words, can be seen as an act of defiance.

“Hugging and more physical contact generally is really tied up with status distinctions and status hierarchies, and many of those status distinctions have flattened over time,” Best said. ” And so hugging is more prevalent as a result of that.”

Best added that hugging also likely emerged of American culture becoming less formal.

“We could look to like the rise of casual Fridays, for example, or the move to dispense with titles as modes of address,” Best said. “We can see a broader pattern of informality that is expressed in how we greet each other, it’s expressed in the way we dress, it’s expressed in the way in which we engage in written correspondence.”

There’s also a case to be made about how “adolescent society” has infiltrated “adult society.”

“Because we spend longer periods of time with adolescence than we used to — and I’m talking about before the 1920s,” Best said. “That those kinds of cultural values are more firmly etched in our thinking.”

Still, not everyone was on board with hugging before — many people felt uncomfortable feeling like they had to choose between accepting or rejecting a hug from someone they didn’t want to embrace. When asked about what the future holds for hugging, Best said she believes it depends on if the pandemic can fully end or not, and if there will be future pandemics. Best said hugs are likely to stay for family members and close friends. Many people have turned to social media to post their first hug with a grandparent or family member since the beginning of the pandemic. Emotional videos of families reuniting are sure to cause tears. But whether or not hugging will be a normal way to greet  strangers and coworkers remains unclear.

“During COVID one of the things that was clear is that suddenly there was not a mandate to hug. In fact, you couldn’t hug, and so it was really clear in terms of greeting strangers who maybe you actually didn’t want to hug but felt compelled to. And gender politics are probably a part of that story,” Best said.  “A lot is going to depend on whether or not we are able to tamper down on pandemics. COVID-19 is one pandemic, but there’ll be more.”

Still, there are many people on Team Hug. If anything, the lack of physical contact during the pandemic has made them realize what they’ve been missing. Robert Galinsky, a writer and producer in New York, told Salon via email that he’s “totally comfortable hugging people and will do so in order to rebuild our human bonds that were stripped away by the pandemic.”

Why the Republicans’ Big Lie works so well: A sociopathic party, and a damaged country

The Republican Party and the right-wing movement are expert and prodigious liars. This causes great frustration and anger for Democrats, progressives and others who believe in real “we the people” American democracy. The American people have become massively confused and disoriented by the Republicans’ torrent of lies.

Why are the Republicans able to lie so much and so easily? There are two primary reasons.

The foundational explanation is that the modern Republican Party and right-wing movement are sociopathic. The Republican Party meets those criteria, as I explained in an earlier essay at Salon:

As detailed by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, exhibiting three or more of the following traits is sufficient for the diagnosis of sociopathy:

  • Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
  • Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms and obligations
  • Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them
  • Very low tolerance to frustration, a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence
  • Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment
  • Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalization for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders adds these two qualifiers:

  • Deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
  • Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead

The day-to-day practical explanation for the Republican Party’s habitual lying (and that of the right more generally) is that it is a highly effective political strategy for helping them win and keep power.

To that point, the Republican Party’s policies are unpopular with the American people. If Republicans told the truth about those policies, they would rarely or never be able to win free and fair elections.

Moreover, today’s Republican Party is almost fully a neofascist political organization and personality cult centered around Donald Trump. Its goal is to overthrow America’s multiracial secular democracy and replace it with an apartheid-style plutocracy (flavored with theocracy). Assaulting empirical reality, undermining any sense of shared truth and values and replacing it all with an approved narrative that serves their goals is a primary method that fascists and authoritarians gain control over a society.

In his own way, Republican strategist and mastermind Karl Rove predicted such a future in 2004 with his observation about the Iraq war: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” 

Donald Trump publicly lied at least 30,000 times while president and faced few if any negative consequences for that behavior. Moreover, he came within several thousand votes of “winning” the 2020 presidential election because of his strategic use of lying, deception and trickery, including voter suppression and voter intimidation.

After their defeat at the ballot box, Trump and his allies and followers then weaponized the Goebbels-inspired “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was somehow “stolen” from him by Joe Biden and the Democrats. The Big Lie was integral to Trump’s coup attempt and his followers’ attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Big Lie is also being used as fuel for the Republican Party’s Jim Crow-style efforts to prevent Black and brown Americans from voting.

In all, Donald Trump was not a cautionary tale for today’s Republicans. He was a role model for present and future behavior.

New research from the political advocacy and research group Democracy Corps shows that the Big Lie strategy is working.

Contrary to what the hope-peddlers and happy-pill sellers of the mainstream news media would like to believe, the Republican Party is not in disarray, in the midst of a “civil war” or “trying to find its soul.” The party is largely united behind Trump and the Big Lie.

Democracy Corps summarizes the findings of its new research on Trump support in battleground states:

We conducted a large, mostly cell phone survey with an oversample of Republicans in the 2022 battleground for the U.S. Senate, governorships, and House, and it is painfully clear Donald Trump, Lindsey Graham, and Kevin McCarthy know their party. The Trump loyalists who strongly approve of him are two thirds of those who identify as, “Republican.” And they are joined by the Trump aligned to form a breathtaking, three quarters of the party in the electoral battleground states and districts that will decide who leads the country. 

Their report also finds that “Donald Trump’s loyalist party is totally consolidated at this early point in its 2022 voting,” and that Republican voters are more engaged with the 2022 midterms than are Democrats. “And with such high early engagement of Republicans and white working class voters in this survey,” the report concludes, “the era of Donald Trump shaping the electorate is not over either.”

These findings are especially ominous for what they suggest about the efficacy of the Republican Party and right-wing’s “cancel culture” and “culture war” narratives, despite the way members of the liberal chattering class may mock such strategies.

Democracy Corps further argues that “Trump’s current focus on the stolen election” must not be dismissed as “an amusing side-show”: 

It is about Blacks and Democratic politicians in the cities using illegal voting procedures and stuffing ballot boxes to steal away Trump’s great victory his battle to save America. This survey shows what are the true drivers of GOP identity — the deep hostility to Black Lives Matter, undocumented immigrants, and Antifa. And imagine their reaction to the flood of unaccompanied children at the border, the guilty verdict in Minneapolis, and Black Lives Matter protests after each police shooting of unarmed Blacks.

There is no escaping the reality that Trump’s Republican Party is a self-consciously and self-confidently anti-democratic, anti-immigrant party that will battle for the future of white people in a multicultural America.

The Trump loyalists — again, two-thirds of the party — respond with deep emotion to the term, “MAGA,” that captures their whole embrace of Trump’s battle to make America great again. And it is an unfinished battle and campaign.

If Democracy Corps’ polling data and other analyses are correct, then the future of American democracy is even more imperiled than many political observers have so far accepted or understood. The Republican Big Lie strategy (and all the little lies that sustain it) would not be effective if their voters and other supporters had not been trained, for years or decades, to respond positively to it.

This socialization process begins with foundational lies, dogma and myths about the Republican Party, such as the ludicrous contention that it believes in “small government” and “fiscal responsibility.” During the last few decades, Republican administrations have invariably increased the size of the budget deficit. Serious economists have also shown that “supply-side” or “trickle-down economics” are a massive intellectual fraud.

Republicans have repeatedly cut taxes on the richest Americans and corporations, leaving the economy and the federal budget in far worse shape, compared to Democratic administrations. “Small government” has been shown to be a racist term of art, used to justify destroying the social safety net and undermining the common good in ways that disproportionately impact Black and brown Americans.

For decades, the Republican Party and movement conservatives have branded themselves as defenders of “freedom.” But in practice they have supported Christian theocrats and others who want to take away women’s reproductive rights, end secular democracy and limit the civil and human rights of other groups they deem to be “less than” or not “real Americans,” such as nonwhite people, the LGBTQ community Muslims, immigrants and other marginalized groups.

Through Fox News, right-wing talk radio, the internet and social media, the spread of conspiracy theories and other forms of disinformation, the Republican Party and conservative movement have created a fact-free alternate reality for their followers. In that echo chamber, lies and misrepresentations about empirical reality and the truth are laundered and transformed into narratives that serve the groupthink and collective cult mentality of the American and global right.

Fake right-wing “populism” rejects science, critical thinking and other forms of expert knowledge as tools of “political correctness,” used by “elites” to manipulate and oppress the “freedom” and “liberty” of the “average person.” In that sense, “populism” is a breeding ground for lies.

Social scientists and other researchers have shown that Trump’s followers ignore his lies (in effect endorsing them) because they view him as not “politically correct” and a type of “outsider” who is “taking on the system” on their behalf.

Researchers have also shown that enthusiasm for Trump’s campaign and presidency were and are directly related to support for his lies.

In addition, Republican politicians are significantly more likely to lie than are Democrats. Republican voters have been trained to understand that political lying is normal — if not perhaps even virtuous.

Today’s Republican Party and broader right-wing movement are tied together by white identity politics, white supremacy and a commitment to defend “traditional values” and “white America.”

Because politics is now a core aspect of how Republicans and Trumpists define their personhood, lying is easily normalized. False claims have become integrated into their thinking about the world and reality.

Right-wing Christians are among Trump and the Republican Party’s most loyal followers. While telling lies is supposedly contrary to their faith, white evangelicals and Christian nationalists support the lies told by Trump and other “saviors” if they are perceived as serving the purpose of helping to create “God’s kingdom” in America and around the world.

What can be done to counter the Republican Party and Trump movement’s powerful weaponization of lies against American democracy and a healthy society? This new post-Trump world, in which neofascism is not a hypothetical possibility but is ascendant and growing in power, requires pro-democracy forces to adopt new ways of thinking.

Democrats, the news media and the American people need to accept that when Republicans, Trumpists and their allies and followers lie it is not a miscommunication, an error, a misunderstanding, a moment of confusion or honest disagreement about questions of public policy and politics. When Republicans and other members of the right lie, it is a weapon — and part of a determined strategy to undermine democracy and reality itself.

Democrats and the media also need to accept and understand that today’s Republican Party and right-wing movement are not engaged in “normal politics,” where the rules and norms of a healthy, functioning democracy are respected by all sides, where there is give-and-take, honest negotiation and then final compromise in the service of the public interest.

Ultimately, the struggle for American democracy in the Age of Trump and beyond is existential. It will be decided around basic questions of what is true and what is not — and the public’s willingness to know the difference and then act accordingly. Based on the historic power of the Big Lie, the forces of democracy are fighting at a great disadvantage.

Noam Chomsky links Republicans lies to Nazi propaganda: “They’ve turned into raging monsters”

The U.S. has had 17 different presidents during Noam Chomsky’s lifetime, from Calvin Coolidge to Joe Biden — and the left-wing author, now 92, has lived through major historical events including the Great Depression, Watergate, 9/11, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Chomsky discussed the challenges of the Biden era during a recent interview with author/journalist David Masciotra for the Los Angeles Review of Books.

Chomsky discussed his most recent book, “Consequences of Capitalism: Manufacturing Discontent and Resistance,” in the interview with Masciotra, warning that people who are hurting economically can be manipulated by far-right extremists. Chomsky has been a blistering critic of neoliberal economics, which he said continues to fail millions of people in the U.S.

“I’ve seen it over and over,” Chomsky told Masciotra. “During the Kennedy and Johnson years, the technocratic and meritocratic elite, my colleagues from Harvard and MIT, were flocking down to Washington to show how the world should be run. Well, in Vietnam, we saw what came of that. It was not unpredictable. Those of us in the streets were warning of it all along. Now, it is the same. Neoliberalism, whatever is in the minds of people who advocate for it — maybe they don’t even think about it — is an explicit effort . . . to hand power to private institutions, which are dedicated to self-enrichment.”

Neoliberalism, Chomsky added, only worsens the divide between the haves and the have-nots in the U.S.

“The majority of the population gets by paycheck to paycheck,” Chomsky told Masciotra. “Real wages have stagnated for 40 years. The gains of productivity growth concentrate in very few pockets. This leads to . . . unfocused anger. Is it surprising? People aren’t told what is really robbing them. Instead, they are told that it is immigrants, Blacks, some pedophiles from outer space, if you believe QAnon — anything but what is actually happening.”

When economic conditions are unfavorable to the working class, Chomsky noted, Republicans try to distract their voters with “cultural issues.”

“The Republicans, who are the party of the superrich, understood in the 1970s that you can’t get votes by coming to people and saying, ‘I want to rob you, and hand everything you have over to the rich and corporate sector,'” Chomsky explained. “Somehow, that doesn’t work. You have to turn to what are called ‘cultural issues,’ meaning everything but what matters for your life. So, Paul Weyrich, one of the main Republican strategists, by the mid-1970s got a flash of insight and realized that if the Republicans pretend — stress ‘pretend’— to be opposed to abortion, they’ll pick up the evangelical vote and the northern Catholic vote.”

Noting that the Republican Party is becoming “increasingly dangerous and brazenly antidemocratic,” Masciotra asked Chomsky to discuss the political climate of 2021. And Chomsky agreed with his description of the modern GOP.

Chomsky said of the Republican Party, “They can mobilize the people they’ve turned into raging monsters, and get them to attack these communist rats who want the country flooded with rapists and murderers so that the white race suffers genocide. You know the whole story. That’s the Republican Party. It’s not a political party anymore. It’s very dangerous.”

The 92-year-old author added that scapegoating is an effective tool of the far-right in 2021 just as it was when he was a kid during the 1930s and Jews were targeted by Nazis. He explained:

There are other parts of it that are just as dangerous. For example, just recently, Pew Research Center came out with one of its regular polls on major issues facing the country. They had a choice of 15 major issues, and people were asked to rank them. It was divided between Republicans and Democrats. Take a look at Republicans. At the very bottom — 13% — the most important question that has ever arisen in human history: global warming. They don’t call it that. They call it “climate change,” which is more neutral. But only 13% think that is a major problem. It is only the most important problem that’s ever arisen — the question of survival. Then you go to the problems they are most concerned about — illegal immigration, the deficit. This is the result of very effective propaganda. Imposing common sense, manufacturing consent, year after year — turning people into the kind of people that supported the Nazis. Going back to my childhood, I remember them right here in the United States. These were the people who wanted to get rid of the Jews, because “the Jews are destroying civilization.”

“If people are isolated, atomized, with no support groups, no involvement in constructive activities, they are prey to this attack on their moral and intellectual integrity,” Chomsky continued. “Go back to what I said, the Republican leadership is overjoyed at the moves toward some humane behavior on the part of Democrats. They know, especially with (former President Donald) Trump — who is a genius at this —that they can organize and mobilize crazed groups who really believe they need their guns to save the white race from genocide. You can drive people to that.”

Trump tests the limits of GOP loyalty with Arizona “audit”

The Republican Party is finding itself increasingly fractured as more members of the GOP disavow Donald Trump despite concerns within the party that it cannot survive without him.

On Sunday, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a fierce critic of the former President and one of ten House Republicans who voted to impeach him, declared in an NBC interview that policy takes less of a priority in the GOP than one’s fealty to Trump. “I think what I’m used to saying to any Republican that’s maybe kind of confused by the moment we’re in is policy doesn’t matter anymore,” he argued. “It literally is all your loyalty to Donald Trump. As I’ve said before, this is something that, like, echoes a little bit out of North Korea, where no matter what policy comes out, you’re loyal to the guy.”

The Illinois Republican went on to spell out the hypocrisy between the party’s treatment of Trump and Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., who last week was ousted from her leadership role as the party’s conference chair over her staunch criticism of the former president. Kinzinger explained that when it comes to Trump, people claim: “I don’t like what Donald Trump tweets, but I like his policies, so I’m going to support him.” But in the case of Cheney, people say: “Look, I like her policies, I don’t like what she tweets, so she needs to leave.”

“What that shows to me is an inconsistency that is built solely around allegiance to one man: Donald Trump,” the lawmaker added. “And we have to recognize that as a party. And we have to recognize that four months ago we allowed, basically, the narrative to lead to an insurgency on January 6. And until we take ownership of that, we can’t heal.”

Maryland GOP Gov. Larry Hogan echoed Kinzinger on Sunday when he said during a CNN “State of the Union” interview that Cheney’s ouster was “kind of doubling down on failure.”

“Liz Cheney is a solid conservative Republican who voted with the president 93 percent of the time,” Hogan said. “I thought she just stood up and told the truth and said exactly what she thought. We’ve lost the White House, the House, the Senate over the past four years, and to continue to do the exact same thing and expect a different result is the definition of insanity.”

Trump has also seen some defection from his inner circle. On Sunday, Trump’s former White House adviser, Alyssa Farah, indicated that she would not support him in his potential 2024 presidential bid, signaling an allegiance with Cheney. 

“The GOP is careening down a strategically unwise path and morally reprehensible one, to be completely candid with you,” she said in an interview with MSNBC’s Mehdi Hasan. “Liz Cheney did the right thing. We shouldn’t condemn people for simply telling the facts. Like, facts matter, she did the right thing. But that shouldn’t be brave or heroic but just what our leaders do.”

Farah added: “But there’s a perception we care more about loyalty to the former president and wanting to gloss over the election and Jan 6. My unsolicited advice to my fellow Republicans would be: the truth tends to come to the top. It’s better to address it now, come to grips with what went wrong, and accept it. Because we’re going to be dealing with it in the midterms and 2024.”

Farah reportedly left the Trump administration back in December of last year, prior to the Capitol riot on January 6. In February, just ahead of Trump’s impeachment trial, Farah questioned the constitutionality of proceeding, instead suggesting that the former president should be censured. 

Trump has also seen some pushback from his own party in Arizona, where an extremely questionable GOP-led recount in Maricopa County is being held to determine the validity of President Biden’s presidential win. On Saturday, Trump baselessly alleged that Arizona Senate’s election auditors found an “unbelievable Election crime.” 

“The entire Database of Maricopa County in Arizona has been DELETED!” the former President exclaimed in a statement.

Maricopa county recorder Stephen Richer immediately demurred Trump’s claim as “unhinged.” 

“I’m literally looking at our voter registration database on my other screen,” he tweeted. “Right now. We can’t indulge these insane lies any longer. As a party. As a state. As a country. This is as readily falsifiable as 2+2=5.”

The Maricopa County board of supervisors has been vehemently pushing back against Trump’s claims of foul play. 

How U.S. foreign policy helps kill Palestinians — as it’s doing right now

The U.S. corporate media usually report on Israeli military assaults in occupied Palestine as if the United States were an innocent, neutral party standing outside the conflict. In fact, large majorities of Americans have told pollsters for decades that they want the U.S. to be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

But U.S. media and politicians betray their own lack of neutrality by blaming Palestinians for nearly all the violence and framing flagrantly disproportionate, indiscriminate and therefore illegal Israeli attacks as a justifiable response to Palestinian actions. The classic formulation from U.S. officials and commentators is that “Israel has the right to defend itself,” never that “Palestinians have the right to defend themselves,” even as the Israelis massacre hundreds of Palestinian civilians, destroy thousands of Palestinian homes and seize ever more Palestinian land.

The disparity in casualties in Israeli assaults on Gaza speaks for itself. 

  • At the time of writing, the current Israeli assault on Gaza has killed at least 200 people, including 59 children and 35 women, while rockets fired from Gaza have killed 10 people in Israel, including two children. 
  • In the 2008-2009 assault on Gaza, Israel killed 1,417 Palestinians, while the latter’s meager efforts to defend themselves killed nine Israelis. 
  • In 2014, 2,251 Palestinians and 72 Israelis (mostly soldiers invading Gaza) were killed, as U.S.-built F-16s dropped at least 5,000 bombs and missiles on Gaza and Israeli tanks and artillery fired 49,500 shells, mostly massive 6-inch shells from U.S.-built M-109 howitzers
  • In response to largely peaceful “March of Return” protests at the Israel-Gaza border in 2018, Israeli snipers killed 183 Palestinians and wounded more than 6,100, including 122 who required amputations, 21 paralyzed by spinal cord injuries and nine permanently blinded.

As with the Saudi-led war on Yemen and other serious foreign policy problems, biased and distorted news coverage by U.S. media leaves many Americans not knowing what to think. Many simply give up trying to sort out the rights and wrongs of what is happening and instead blame both sides, and then focus their attention closer to home, where the problems of society impact them more directly and are easier to understand and do something about.

So how should Americans respond to horrific images of bleeding, dying children and homes reduced to rubble in Gaza? The tragic relevance of this crisis for Americans is that, behind the fog of war, propaganda and commercialized, biased media coverage, the United States bears an overwhelming share of responsibility for the carnage taking place in Palestine.

U.S. policy has perpetuated the crisis and atrocities of the Israeli occupation by unconditionally supporting Israel in three distinct ways: militarily, diplomatically and politically. 

On the military front, since the creation of the Israeli state, the United States has provided $146 billion in foreign aid, nearly all of it military-related. It currently provides $3.8 billion per year in military aid to Israel. 

The U.S. is also the largest seller of weapons to Israel, whose military arsenal now includes 362 U.S.-built F-16 warplanes and 100 other U.S. military aircraft, including a growing fleet of the new F-35s; at least 45 Apache attack helicopters; 600 M-109 howitzers and 64 M270 rocket-launchers. At this very moment, Israel is using many of these U.S.-supplied weapons in its devastating bombardment of Gaza.

The U.S. military alliance with Israel also involves joint military exercises and joint production of Arrow missiles and other weapons systems. The U.S. and Israeli militaries have collaborated on drone technologies tested by the Israelis in Gaza. In 2004, the U.S. called on Israeli forces with experience in the Occupied Territories to give tactical training to U.S. Special Operations Forces as they confronted popular resistance to the hostile military occupation of Iraq. 

The U.S. military also maintains a $1.8 billion stockpile of weapons at six locations in Israel, pre-positioned for use in future U.S. wars in the Middle East. During the Israeli assault on Gaza in 2014, even as the U.S. Congress suspended some weapons deliveries to Israel, it approved handing over stocks of 120mm mortar shells and 40mm grenade launcher ammunition from the U.S. stockpile for Israel to use against Palestinians in Gaza.

Diplomatically, the United States has exercised its veto in the UN Security Council 82 times, and 44 of those vetoes have been to shield Israel from accountability for war crimes or human rights violations. In every single case, the United States has been the lone vote against the resolution, although a few other countries have occasionally abstained. 

It is only the United States’ privileged position as a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, and its willingness to abuse that privilege to shield its ally Israel, that gives it this unique power to stymie international efforts to hold the Israeli government accountable for its actions under international law. 

The result of this unconditional U.S. diplomatic shielding of Israel has been to encourage increasingly barbaric Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. With the United States blocking any accountability in the Security Council, Israel has seized ever more Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, uprooted more and more Palestinians from their homes and responded to the resistance of largely unarmed people with ever-increasing violence, detentions and restrictions on day-to-day life. 

Thirdly, on the political front, despite the fact that most Americans support neutrality in the conflict, AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbying groups have exercised an extraordinary role in bribing and intimidating U.S. politicians to provide unconditional support for Israel. 

The roles of campaign contributors and lobbyists in the corrupt U.S. political system make the United States uniquely vulnerable to this kind of influence peddling and intimidation, whether it is by monopolistic corporations and industry groups like the military-industrial complex and Big Pharma, or well-funded interest groups like the NRA, AIPAC and, in recent years, lobbyists for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

On April 22, just weeks before this latest assault on Gaza, the overwhelming majority of congresspeople, 330 out of 435, signed a letter to the chair and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee opposing any reduction or conditioning of U.S. monies to Israel. The letter represented a show of force from AIPAC and a repudiation of calls from some progressives in the Democratic Party to condition or otherwise restrict aid to Israel. 

President Joe Biden, who has a long history of supporting Israeli crimes, responded to the latest massacre by insisting on Israel’s “right to defend itself” and inanely hoping that “this will be closing down sooner than later.” His UN ambassador also shamefully blocked a call for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council. 

The silence and worse from President Biden and most of our representatives in Congress at the massacre of civilians and mass destruction of Gaza is unconscionable. The independent voices speaking out forcefully for Palestinians, including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Reps. Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, show us what real democracy looks like, as do the massive protests that have filled U.S. streets all over the country.

U.S. policy must be reversed to reflect international law and the shifting U.S. opinion in favor of Palestinian rights. Every member of Congress must be pushed to sign the bill introduced by Rep. Betty McCollum insisting that U.S. funds to Israel are not used “to support the military detention of Palestinian children, the unlawful seizure, appropriation, and destruction of Palestinian property and forcible transfer of civilians in the West Bank, or further annexation of Palestinian land in violation of international law.”

Congress must also be pressured to quickly enforce the Arms Export Control Act and the Leahy Laws to stop supplying any more U.S. weapons to Israel until it stops using them to attack and kill civilians.

The United States has played a vital and instrumental role in the decades-long catastrophe that has engulfed the people of Palestine. U.S. leaders and politicians must now confront their country’s and, in many cases, their own personal complicity in this catastrophe, and act urgently and decisively to reverse U.S. policy to support full human rights for all Palestinians.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham: Vaccinating kids against COVID-19 is “disgusting”

Yet again Fox News questioned coronavirus vaccines during primetime broadcasts.

On Monday, Fox personality Laura Ingraham ranted about mask wearing, while suggesting oppositions to vaccines will be a campaign issue.

“Mandating the masking of children, though? That is going to go down as a very dark chapter for the Democrats and the public health experts who advocated it,” Ingraham argued.

She suggested a conspiracy to encourage vaccinations, while suggesting it will be a campaign issue for Republicans.

“Democrats and their union buddies are hoping, though, that mask rules for kids will force parents to relent and get their kids vaccinated even if they’re uncomfortable with that,” she said. “But here’s some advice for the left: Injecting children with an experimental vaccine for a disease they rarely get sick from and don’t efficiently spread is a nonstarter for most parents. It’s going to cost you votes, and possibly help you lose you control of Congress and the presidency. Frankly, it’s disgusting.”

You can watch the video below via MMFA:

Stephen Miller and more than 15 other Trump aides still getting paid by taxpayers: report

Taxpayers are still footing the bill for Donald Trump to pay aides, Business Insider reported Monday.

“President Donald Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller lost his White House access on Jan. 20, but he continues to pocket a government paycheck — and is slated to do so until late July, according to government records,” Business Insider reported. “Miller is one of at least 17 people who continued to receive taxpayer-funded salaries while working for Trump’s post-presidential transition office, according to government documents released to Insider under the Freedom of Information Act. Trump’s post-presidential staff is expected to receive about $1.3 million in federal salary and benefits between January 20 and July 21, when the formal presidential transition period ends, according to an estimate prepared by the General Services Administration.”

That allows Trump to spend more than $200,000 a month on salary and benefits.

“For Trump, accepting public money has meant employing 10 transition aides in Palm Beach, Fla. — where Trump has been living since he left the White House — and another seven aides in an office building in Arlington, Va. The GSA redacted five of the staffers’ names in the documents provided to Insider. Miller, a former White House advisor who crafted Trump’s immigration policies, has remained on Trump’s post-presidential transition staff, earning an annualized salary of $160,000, the documents show,” Business Insider revealed. “Scavino is the highest paid staffer on the team, with an annual salary of $172,500, the maximum allowed, according to a GSA document. Scavino was expected to remain on staff through July.”

SuperTrumper Lin Wood runs for South Carolina GOP chair, loses, praises Trump more

Ardently pro-Trump lawyer L. Lin Wood, known for his far-right QAnon beliefs and “firing squad” remarks, has seen his stock fall precipitously in MAGAworld of late, culminating in losing his race to become the next chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. 

On Saturday, Wood’s opponent Drew McKissick, who garnered the all-important support of former President Donald Trump, won the election decisively. South Carolina GOP spokesperson Claire Robinson relayed to Forbes that “more than 67% of the South Carolina GOP’s 861 delegates voted for McKissick at their convention Saturday, handily defeating Wood, who drew 28% of the vote, and two smaller challengers.” 

Adding insult to injury, throughout the South Carolina contest Wood got the cold shoulder from the leader on whose behalf he spread outrageous fictions. Trump endorsed McKissick in a statement on March 30, writing, “Drew fought all the way to the Supreme Court to defend our voting laws — and WON. He will continue to grow the party and help Conservatives get elected in the Great State of South Carolina.”

Following the loss, Wood took to Telegram on Sunday and prostrated himself further, seeking to explain the ex-president’s decision to spurn him as an instance of Trump playing high-level chess. “President Trump is a genius,” Wood wrote. “He plays chess at a level we will never fully understand. I was honored by his description of me as a ‘strong and talented’ opponent. Upon further reflection, I understand his endorsement of my opponent, Drew McKissick.”

On the other hand, before the votes were cast, Wood frequently attacked McKissick over not taking questions and complained about what he perceived as an uneven playing field favoring the “incumbent RINO establishment.” What questions he wanted McKissick to answer was unclear.

Speaking with Salon on Monday afternoon about his defeat, Wood claimed that all was well and no feelings were hurt. “I had a great time running for chair of the SCGOP, making new friends and building support from We The People. It was a win for me from my perspective,” Wood told Salon. “I definitely do NOT feel betrayed at all by President Trump,” he added. 

Ahead of the Saturday vote, Wood received one notable endorsement, from fellow 2020 voter-fraud conspiracy theorist and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. “A great event in South Carolina! I endorse Lin Wood for the GOP Chairman of South Carolina!” Lindell wrote on the right-wing social media platform, Gab — since his own supposed social media site, Frank, remains inoperable

Lindell did not return Salon’s Monday request for comment. On Sunday afternoon, Lindell told Salon he would no longer speak to the publication, claiming that this reporter is “compromised” and “evil.” “I will not be wasting my time with you ever again,” he added.

In mid-April, Wood went on a high-octane tirade even by his standards, praising the QAnon conspiracy theory to a delighted audience at the “Health and Freedom Conference” in Oklahoma, an event dominated by the right-wing fringe. 

“Q. ‘Cause Q is the truth,” Wood declared.

Palm Beach prosecutor: No, Ron DeSantis can’t block Trump’s extradition to New York

Palm Beach County’s top prosecutor said Sunday that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis could delay — but not prevent — former President Donald Trump’s extradition if he is indicted in New York.

Officials in Palm Beach, where Trump currently lives in his Mar-a-Lago resort, have “actively prepared” for the possibility that he will be indicted in Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance’s years-long criminal investigation, Politico reported last week, but they’ve raised concerns that an “obscure clause” in state law could allow DeSantis to block any possible extradition.

Dave Aronberg, the state attorney for Palm Beach County, said that his office has not been involved in those conversations.

“I can clear that up because I’m the state attorney here in Palm Beach County, and we have not had conversations with prosecutors in New York about this,” he told CNN on Sunday. “The story that you saw was informal conversations with the clerk of courts and other local officials in case an indictment happens.”

Joe Abruzzo, the Palm Beach County Circuit Court clerk, told Politico that Florida law “leaves room for interpretation that the governor has the power to order a review and potentially not comply with the extradition notice.” The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer also reported in March that Trump’s social circle in Palm Beach has speculated that DeSantis “might not honor an extradition request from New York if a bench warrant were issued for Trump’s arrest.”

But Aronberg pushed back on that argument.

“So that’s a conversation we’re having: What is the governor’s power? And the governor’s power to stop an extradition is really nonexistent,” he told CNN. “He can try to delay it, he can send it to a committee and do research about it, but his role is really ministerial, and ultimately the state of New York can go to court and get an order to extradite the former president. But DeSantis could delay matters.”

CNN’s Jim Acosta asked if Aronberg would fight such a delay by the governor.

“We would be part of it. But it’s really ministerial,” Aronberg replied, adding, “But, then again, I thought that when Congress counted the votes on Jan. 6, that would be ministerial too — and look what happened then. So you have to be prepared for anything.”

It may not come to that if a warrant is issued while Trump is out of state. Trump is expected to spend the summer at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Although New Jersey has an extradition law similar to Florida’s, Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy is not likely to intervene on Trump’s behalf after accusing him of “inciting insurrection” at the Capitol earlier this year.

Trump’s attorneys could also negotiate a voluntary surrender agreement with prosecutors, if it comes to that.

It’s unclear how far along Vance’s investigation into Trump and his businesses has gotten, but Mayer of the New Yorker reported in March that it is expected to wrap up before Vance’s term concludes at the end of this year. Vance finally obtained years of Trump’s tax returns earlier this year after a lengthy Supreme Court battle. He has since hired prominent outside attorney Mark Pomerantz to help with the investigation and has brought on an outside forensic accounting firm.

Investigators are reportedly looking into whether Trump or his businesses have committed loan, bank or insurance fraud, have interviewed former Trump fixer and Trump Organization vice president Michael Cohen more than a half-dozen times.

Prosecutors in recent weeks have turned their focus to gaining the cooperation of Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s longtime financial chief. Prosecutors last month obtained a trove of documents from his former daughter-in-law, Jennifer Weisselberg, related to Allen Weisselberg’s finances and those of his son Barry, also a Trump Organization employee. The Washington Post reported that the documents “show an array of payments and perks” from the company, raising questions about whether “proper taxes were paid” on that income. Barry Weisselberg previously said during his 2018 divorce deposition that he was not sure whether he paid taxes on the Trump-owned apartment where he lived rent-free and could not answer questions about income discrepancies reported to the IRS.

Shortly after that report, Vance’s office subpoenaed the private school where Allen Weisselberg and Trump himself had paid more than $500,000 for Weisselberg’s grandchildren’s tuition, according to The Wall Street Journal. Jennifer Weisselberg told the outlet that she understood the tuition payments to be part of her then-husband’s compensation package from the Trump Organization.

Prosecutors have also asked the Trump Organization to turn over any documents related to any benefits Trump or the company provided to any other employees, according to The New York Times.

“Prosecutors often seek the cooperation of someone possibly involved in a crime to obtain confidential information and provide a potential road map to records or documents,” The Wall Street Journal reported. “Typically, prosecutors offer a potential defendant leniency in exchange for their help. Putting pressure on a possible defendant’s family is one way to encourage cooperation.”

Sources close to Weisselberg told the outlet that he is “faithful to the Trump Organization” and is close to Trump. But Weisselberg previously cooperated with the 2017 New York attorney general’s investigation that forced the Trump Foundation to shut down and the 2018 federal investigation into the hush money payments Cohen paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 campaign.

“Trump doesn’t care about Allen,” Jennifer Weisselberg told Air Mail last month, “but Allen knows every bad thing he ever did.”

Who lives and who dies? What TV has taught us about who’s lucky enough to survive

Emerging from your home after a pandemic can feel like we actually have been sleeping under a rock for the past year. The few of us who had the jobs, family lives and wherewithal to spend most of our time inside are now climbing out from a dark cocoon, looking around to see who else on this germ-fueled asteroid might have missed and – quite possibly – wondering, “What made us so special to survive?

And, if you’re part of any marginalized groups, that isn’t a question that’s just limited to, or will end with, COVID-19. 

So much of these feelings of luck and survivor’s remorse occur because, while America may be founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system, there is one deity nearly all of us relate to: television.

That medium has been a ubiquitous lifeline in our homes, made more essential than even Zoom meetings to feel connected . . . or escape. Streaming giant Netflix hit 200 million subscribers during the pandemic. New services like HBO Max and Peacock launched while CBS All Access rebranded as Paramount+. Cable news ratings were up in 2020 also, for a myriad of obvious reasons

All of our favorite scritped shows were pumping a familiar story: Stick together to survive, and good should conquer evil. And the good people who do perish? They are there to serve a greater purpose, be it awareness to a cause or to stop the evil Night King and his army of White Walkers. 

“Often when we write narratives in film and television, we are pretty frivolous about death, like we think about it as a means to serve a plot,” says Malcolm Spellman, the creator of Marvel’s “The Falcon and the Winter Soldier,” the Disney+ program with storylines that heavily intersected with real-world topics like institutionalized racism, xenophobia and even the concept of what is considered terrorism.  

He adds that “the truth is, death and trauma usually have massive ripples. And often, when you follow those ripples, it starts to birth moments that really create connectivity. Everybody deals in trauma; everybody deals with death.”

For these reasons, Spellman says, “We tried to make sure no one was actually a villain,” on his series, which had a young anarchist angry that the government isn’t trying harder to get relief aid to refugees, several soldiers who were abused by the U.S. military and a Black family struggling to make it in a world where a bank won’t give them a loan to save their business.

“Every one of them believes they are a hero. And, more importantly, we wanted to give them edicts and operating ideals that were relatable to people,” says Spellman of his characters.

Similarly Kay Oyegun, a co-executive producer and writer on NBC’s family drama, “This Is Us”  – the 42-minute emotional gauntlet that has included death of parents and children, adoption and abandonment issues, racial injustices and alcoholism – says, “We are cultured to root for the good guy. And we are cultured to despise the bad guy. And, if the bad guy ends up having a front and center story, we are now cultured to, sort of, root for the bad guy because we kind of understand them and what they’re doing.”

Oyegun says she, personally, doesn’t “traffic in” the concept of survivor’s remorse because “whether someone is a butcher, or a frontline worker, or a writer on a TV show, there’s an amount of grace that sort of exists, you know, because God is wildly faithful, and he gives us grace out of plenty.” But as a writer, she does think both “relatively cerebrally” and “as a function of the medium” about how much a character – like say Griffin Dunne’s PTSD-suffering, formerly familial ostracized, Vietnam veteran Nicky – could take while also saying, “It’s important to look at ‘what’s the truth of this experience?'”

“Does it become, sort of, tragedy porn? Does it become gluttonous in a way?,” she says. “And if that’s the case, then you’re probably not servicing the character or the story.”

Playing God behind the scenes


Jeffrey Dean Morgan in “The Walking Dead” (AMC)

The television writers room is God in this scenario. The people who throw Nerf balls around a conference table as they eat takeout lunch and block scenes on index cards also decide who is lucky enough to live

And, on say, for example a medical show, that is something that could be a weekly occurrence. 

“I feel, as a writer, one is always tempted to boil luck and karma down to simple-to-understand, kind of, human binaries,” says Krista Vernoff, the showrunner of ABC’s hit medical drama “Grey’s Anatomy,” which has killed plenty of favorite characters, both patients and doctors. Sometimes, these deaths come out of left field. Others come after weeks of suffering, leading to a climactic goodbye.

Vernoff says, “I am at an age now where I no longer believe that those concepts, and how they apply, are something that can easily be understood by human consciousness. I have seen too many really good people suffer a really awful fates. And, I’ve seen some really crappy people have success after success.”

As to how that translates to storytelling, Vernoff says, “I think the only way you get it wrong is when you don’t allow a death to have impact on the characters that remain, and on the audience.

“One of the things that drives me crazy when I turn on TV is if a show is using a death, or just like a dead body, like a prop,” she adds. “I can’t watch shows where cops wander through and some woman’s dead corpse is just lying there as a prop and we never get to know that woman and we never get to know her point of view or her story or what she lost.”

The concepts of luck and survivor’s remorse have been at the forefront of AMC’s “The Walking Dead” since its inception. The very fact that then-lead Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln) wasn’t cannibalized while he lay comatose in a hospital bed – or wasn’t turned into a zombie himself – is an amazing stroke of luck. On a show like that, it almost doesn’t matter how rich, fast or cunning you are if a mysterious, rapidly moving virus out there is taking down humanity. 

“I think about luck a lot actually,” says “Walking Dead” showrunner Angela Kang. She elaborates that, as a Korean American, “I feel like, culturally, for a lot of folks from Asian cultures luck – whether or not you really believe it hardcore – is just kind of part of a wash of cultural conversation that just surrounds you at all times.”

Kang, the child of working-class Korean immigrants, says she was constantly told that she was lucky and that “just feeling like you are lucky, it can sometimes affect your mentality in some ways.”

However, she adds, “In our show, there’s definitely a lot of PTSD and survivor’s remorse and just feelings of like, ‘Why did I get to live and this other person died?’ And those are themes that we explore a lot in various ways throughout the [upcoming 11th] season.”

“I think people want there to be some sort of order to the ways in which people live or die,” says Kang. 

In writing fictional narratives, she’s found that “deaths that feel really random to the audience – which that absolutely would happen in an apocalypse – those are harder, sort of emotionally to take than ones” that seen inevitable or ones that Kang calls “karma kills” because they happen to nefarious or loathsome characters. 

Kang does say that things are given considerable more weight when there’s talk of killing a child, something that has happened several times on “The Walking Dead” and Robert Kirkman’s comic book series of the same name, which serve as its source material. (And, unfortunately, to actual children during our current real-life pandemic). 

“When you have a kid, like all of a sudden, those things that are awful about what happened really just pop out at you in a different way,” says Kang, who has a son. 

When the writers do kill off child characters, she says, “We try to be careful about it and . . . the conversations are a little bit different. And we definitely try to go a little bit away from the level of gruesomeness than we might for a karma kill of an adult villain.”

Watching TV responsibly


“Grey’s Anatomy” (ABC)

It’s also important to remember that simply looking to television for morality lessons does not absolve us of our own responsibilities. 

“I think people go off to the idea of luck is a trope because you don’t really want to understand and look at some of the deeper systemic issues that cause people to have more chances of survival than other groups of people,” says Sonia Ross. 

A licensed clinical social worker based near Washington, D.C., Ross focuses on Black women’s mental health and dispatches free advice and insight through her Instagram account, @fullcircletherapyservices. She says in a phone interview, “I think people sometimes use certain concepts to . . . not deal with the realities of life.” 

She says people may think it’s fate that put them in a position where they’re not refugees in an ICE jail cell, but “There’s also systems and things that are crafted in certain ways that lead people to make certain choices. Like the ICE jail cells? They don’t talk about how the United States just totally destabilized a lot of these countries, and [those people] felt like they had no choice but to cross the border.

“I think people would rather go on to the fantastical than face the reality of the situation,” Ross says. “Sometimes it’s very complex, and we’re trained here, in the United States, to look at things in a very black and white way.”

Nor are these viewpoints on luck ancient-held beliefs.

“Roughly, luck is about what could easily occur and [where] not much needs to change for it to occur,” says Duncan Pritchard, a professor of philosophy and University of California-Irvine and the author of several books and articles on the subject. 

He explains that Hollywood’s storytelling traditionally feeds off of an “individualistic idea . . .  where we’re all kind of like islands and we’re all to be judged as individuals, and judged very harshly on cases if we make a misstep.” And that this isn’t “something that people believed until its last couple 100 years in the West.”

“There’s nothing like that in ancient thought; they did not have the same individualistic ideas of freedom and responsibility that we have,” Pritchard says. “Those Hollywood stories? They’re meant to make us think like that. And because it makes us feel bad.”

Television can be an excellent tool for communicating ideas and introducing audiences to new experiences and people. It should not allow us to wallow in our own guilt, teach us that we are more fortunate than others, or stop us from doing more.

Proud Boys leader took PPP loans after far-right group formed special unit for Jan. 6

A leader of the Proud Boys, a far-right gang that played an outsized role in orchestrating the Capitol riot, reportedly obtained north of $15,000 in paycheck protection program loans just this year. 

The Guardian first reported that Enrique Tarrio, a chairman of the group, was allotted two $7,750 loans respectively on March 30 and April 16. According to records obtained by ProPublica, Tarrio is classified as an independent contractor working in “Security Systems Services.” Tarrio is shown as the officer of several defunct LLCs including “SPIE Security LLC,” “Fund The West LLC,” and “Proud Boys LLC”. 

During his 2020 congressional bid in Florida’s 27th congressional district, Tarrio claimed to be the proprietor of “several companies that were involved in the surveillance and security industry.” However, Florida records did not indicate that Tarrio is a licensed security officer.

Tarrio is also classified as the registered agent of “Warboys LLC,” a company founded in July of last year but dissolved this year on April 7. Also listed as officers of Warboys LLC are Joe Biggs and Ethan Nordean, both of whom are facing conspiracy charges in connection to the Capitol riot.

According to Penn Live, Warboys LLC reportedly shared the same address as another company known as “Proudboys LLC,” for which Tarrio was listed as both the agent and manager. 

Back in January, Salon detailed Tarrio’s string of failures in business and politics. It appears that the vast majority of businesses Tarrio has founded are no longer active. In February, Tarrio ran to represent Florida’s 27th congressional district, but failed to make the ballot. Florida records appear to indicate that Tarrio, now 39, legally resides with his mother in Miami, where he operates a business known as “1776 Merchandise,” which runs the 1776 Shop, an ecommerce store that sells far-right merchandise. 

Back in 2014, Tarrio was arrested and convicted of stealing and reselling diabetes strip tests from Abbott Labs – a crime which earned him sixteen months in federal prison. Tarrio still has yet to pay the company $1.2 million in restitution. 

In late December, prosecutors allege, Tarrio announced the creation of the Ministry of Self Defense, a special chapter within the organization. calling it the Ministry of Self Defense. At least four men from the group have been charged with conspiracy in the Capitol siege, NBC News reported. On January 4, just before the Capitol riot, Tarrio was arrested for vandalizing a Black church and possessing a high capacity feeding device. Tarrio was later barred from entering Washington, D.C., which prevented him from participating in the storming of the Capitol. 

The PPP loan program was first implemented under the Trump administration last year as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to help businesses and stay afloat during the pandemic. In January, Biden expanded the program for a second round, allowing business to apply for more funding until May 31. However, according to CNBC, millions of borrowers have missed out on the opportunity to apply for a second loan because the program ran out of funding during the first week of May. 

While the PPP program has been a lifeline for several needy businesses during the COVID crisis, it has also been subject of widespread criticism amid revelations that big businesses – as well as high-net worth politicians – took in loans while many smaller businesses couldn’t qualify.

How vaccine incentives and other behavioral tools can help the U.S. reach herd immunity

A growing number of states, cities and companies are offering incentives to encourage people to get vaccinated. And the sweeteners keep getting bigger and better.

New Jersey, for example, is picking up the tab for a free beer for anyone who can prove they got a shot. Maryland is offering state employees US$100, while Lancaster, California, is trying to encourage teens to get inoculated by entering their names in a raffle for college scholarships worth up to $10,000. Not to be outdone, Ohio announced on May 12, 2021, that it was creating a lottery with prizes of up to a full four-year scholarship for newly vaccinated teens and $1 million for adults.

Meanwhile, companies are offering everything from paid time off and gift cards to doughnuts and a burger and french fries.

Of course the big question is, will any of this work?

The stakes couldn’t be higher. Health officials say herd immunity is critical to ending the pandemic, and that means having anywhere from 60% to 90% of a given population vaccinated, including children. But recent surveys suggest more than one-third of adults are at least reluctant to get the vaccine.

While behavioral economists generally study people’s decisions and the effect of incentives on behavior, my research at the Los Angeles Behavioral Economics Laboratory focuses more closely on why they make those decisions. I believe incentives can work, but there are two other important tools in policymakers’ behavioral toolkits as well.

How we make decisions

Decision-making is guided by whether people perceive an option as rewarding or displeasing.

We evaluate decisions based on how we encode and recollect our own personal experiences, how costly we feel it is to choose one path or another and how we process the information around us. In addition, the different communities we live in may reinforce certain messages over others.

The intention to get vaccinated may be influenced by factors including education level, religious beliefs or political affiliation.

Some of the reasons people give for not wanting to get vaccinated can probably be addressed, while others may be insurmountable. But to induce people to make decisions that they are not willing to make, one needs to shift their motivations.

Giving people an incentive

Economic incentives are one way to do that.

Economic incentives can make a decision more pleasant by offering rewards or lowering costs. Recent examples of efforts to make getting vaccinated more rewarding include offering savings bonds, coupons, tickets for baseball games and free items in shops.

These incentives target people who think that they do not need a COVID-19 vaccine, who usually do not get vaccinated for non-ideological reasons or those who find it inconvenient.

Recent surveys suggest such tactics could be successful. One recent poll found that 47% of people who want to “wait and see” about the vaccines said getting paid time off from work to get a shot would make them more likely to do so. And 39% said a financial incentive of $200 would do the trick.

A problem with states offering cash payments or lottery winnings is that people may interpret them as a signal that the vaccine is dangerous, perhaps reinforcing their own beliefs. Research also suggests that perks may be more effective than cash and may be a good alternative for both states and companies.

News you can use

But incentives aren’t the only way governments can get people to change their minds.

Information campaigns are an attractive alternative. They aim to shift beliefs and opinions by providing knowledge and awareness about some elements of the decision a person may have missed. This includes disclosing the results of clinical trials or explaining how mRNA vaccines work on the 12- to 15-year-olds who are now eligible.

People who fear that clinical trials have been rushed and are still hesitant might respond favorably to information campaigns demonstrating the effects of the vaccines on the U.S. population and elsewhere. These campaigns could also be combined with incentives, such as inviting people to watch informational videos and then reward them with credits that they can use at local stores.

This type of motivational push is least likely to work with those who do not trust sources of information that contradict their opinions or whose opposition to the vaccine is ideological.

A little nudge

If incentives and offering information don’t work, another option is the nudge, a term popularized by behavioral economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein.

Nudges use positive reinforcement or indirect suggestions to influence behavior, such as by taking advantage of peer pressure or by making a certain choice easier for people to adopt. Research shows they can be very effective. For example, requiring people to opt out of a company 401(k) plan rather than opt in led to a substantial increase in the number of people saving for retirement.

Many people are already nudging friends and colleagues in their social networks to get vaccinated by posting pictures of themselves on Twitter and Facebook getting a shot, celebrating or holding their vaccination cards. Policymakers could similarly promote vaccination by demonstrating that others in the same community already got a shot.

Governments could also make it easier to get a shot by doing things like adding vaccine sites at subway stations.

Nudges are appealing because they do not cost as much as economic incentives. They also can help change habits and they sometimes have persistent effects. However, nudges work best if people agree with the end outcome.

Persuading the persuadable

There is little chance of incentivizing people who have set their minds against the vaccine or whose objections are based on conspiracy theories. Because it is in their interest to promote these views, or because they are convinced that they are right, they will resist economic incentives, disregard information campaigns and refuse to be nudged in a direction opposite to their beliefs.

However, there seems to be hope to persuade many of the hesitant or reluctant. A recent survey of people in these categories revealed that about 20% of respondents would get vaccinated after people they know did.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently offered another type of motivation when it said that vaccinated people could go mask-free in most settings, including indoors. Another recent poll suggested this may be effective on Republicans, who were significantly more likely to be willing to get a shot if it meant they no longer had to wear a mask.

I believe a combination of incentives and other motivations stand a good chance of helping the U.S. reach herd immunity and ultimately end the pandemic.

Isabelle Brocas, Professor of Economics, University of Southern California

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

In the latest wave of science fiction, authors of color take space to imagine multiple new societies

The year 1968 was one of racial progress and retreat: the year athletes raised their fists in a Black power salute at the Olympics, the year Martin Luther King Jr. was slain. In the world of science fiction – far ahead in an invented future – the period brought more progress. “Star Trek” aired the first kiss between two characters of different races on television. And in literature, Ursula Le Guin launched the Earthsea Cycle, a series whose protagonist had “red-brown skin,” Le Guin’s attempt to correct a canon populated by pale heroes.

“I didn’t see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill,” wrote Le Guin in Slate many years later. “I didn’t see why everybody in heroic fantasy had to be white (and why all the leading women had ‘violet eyes’).”

At that point, the battle (as fought by a white woman) was about representation. In the years since, writers of color like Octavia Butler and N. K. Jemisin have expanded the role of science fiction to more explicitly dramatize and question racial hierarchy and oppression, furthering the socially transformative role of the genre.

Today writers are employing speculative fiction to pick apart the system built on racism – contemporary extractive capitalism – as well as the large-scale displacements resulting from imbalances in the safety and wealth of nations, or what we refer to as immigration. In lieu of epic series, many of these new releases come in the form of short story collections, which allow the imagination of a multiplicity of futures in order to reflect a multiplicity of readers. Three recent collections from writers with roots in Nigeria, Japan, and the Dominican Republic direct their slant lenses toward capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.

Brenda Peynado’s “The Rock Eaters” (Penguin, May 11) opens with “Thoughts and Prayers,” the phrase often repeated following the school shootings the U.S. now takes for granted. In a mainly Latinx suburb in Florida, neighbors greet each morning by prostrating themselves before mute, bird-bodied angels that sit and s**t on their roofs. The protagonist, a teenage girl, knows her family owes its good fortune to their angel:

Out of all the angels, ours was considered the most blessed of the neighbourhood. When my parents came to this country after college, this house was the first one they looked at, and their immigration papers arrived miraculously within the week. While others searched for homes and jobs for months, my parents sailed into their new life, prayed gratefully to their new rooftop patron. 

The angel represents the dumb luck that immigrants, in reality, require to survive: that their boat doesn’t capsize, that the officer lets them through, that no one back home is relying on their Western Union payments. Of course, not everyone is so lucky, and the protagonist’s Indian neighbors host the block’s worst angel, one who allows mold to spread on the walls, the father to get laid off, and a tree to fall on both house and car.

Blaming the angel – rather than a capitalist system that requires winners and losers – is how Peynado points to the collective American delusion that immigrants join. That the neighbors are minorities within an already minority community becomes more painfully obvious when a school shooting targets the Indian family and sparks the arrival of a white anti-shooting activist group that champions arms and travels cross-country on money gleaned from corporate sponsors.

Meanwhile, E.C. Osondu’s “Alien Stories” (BOA Editions, May 11) paints the dynamic between whites and non-whites in painfully funny scenarios predicated on the pun of the title: the stories are alien because the characters are immigrants. In “Alien Enactors,” white visitors pay for people of color to create culturally authentic experiences, or at least the experiences they are led to believe are authentic by the clever narrator:

My duty was to enact Africa for guests, and oh boy, how they loved my act. I pulled no stops. I made each of the clients wear a colorful daishiki and I had them gather around in a circle and then encouraged them to empty their minds and get rid of their old personalities and visualize themselves sitting under an iroko tree in an African village square. I started my enactment with the obligatory proverb about how it took a village to raise a child – popularized by a female politician. Allow me to make a little confession here: in all my years growing up in Africa I had never heard anybody use that particular proverb.

The performance of ethnic identity is one that many minorities first learn as children at school show-and-tell sessions and later may even make a living from, as seen in places ranging from Bourbon Street to corporate diversity trainings. As the story advances, Osondu points to the ways that minorities, wanting to earn a living through white patronage, may abandon each other when they most need each other.

One release this year is in fact only new in English: Izumi Suzuki’s “Terminal Boredom” (Verso Fiction, April 20) a collection of stories written in the 1970s and 1980s. In “Women and Women” (trans. Daniel Joseph), Suzuki writes of men as genetic aberrations with a brief presence on Earth, the victims of their own strivings for war and technological progress. By polluting the environment to excess, they create the conditions for their own genes to disappear – a fact that holds true in the nonfictional world, where male sperm can swim faster but are also more likely to perish.

The few men in Suzuki’s post-apocalyptic world are whisked to a “Gender Exclusion Terminal Occupancy Zone,” a bunker where they are referred to only by number and visited by schoolchildren for grim lessons in male inferiority. Women are encouraged to pair off in same-sex relationships that merely replicate the gender norms of heterosexual ones, with one partner earning money while the other keeps house.

Suzuki’s story, while laced with the same dry humor of Peynado’s and Osondu’s work, dwells in a more morally ambiguous space, pointing both toward and away from traditional gender. After pointing to the faults of the patriarchy, the story depicts an equally terrifying universe controlled by women. A young narrator connects romantically with a boy in hiding but displays no emotion when her grandmother reports him to the authorities. Instead, her feelings arise on a fictional page: the narrator documents the boy in her diary knowing it could be the thing that sends her to jail, willing to risk it to write toward a freer future.

This year’s short story collections are a vital expansion of the English-language canon, expanding discussions of immigration, climate change, and gun control. “The future is constantly changing; however, this constant change is a function of our actions in the present,” writes Shyam Pradheep in an essay on the role of authors of color in science fiction. “The way we view the future will influence how we shape our future.” In the new speculative fiction, the futures we shape are many.

 

12 questions about schmaltz with Jake Cohen

Jake Cohen’s debut cookbook, Jew-ish, has the challah and latkes and matzo ball soup. But it also has biscuits with pastrami and milk gravy, kugel-ified mac and cheese, and pumpkin-spice babka. Which is to say, it’s Jewish but it’s also, well, Jew-ish — a refreshingly personal take on how traditional recipes fit into messy modern life.

“I get very heated about steering away from my family’s tradition when it comes to many Jewish foods (just wait until you read my thoughts on brisket!),” Jake writes in the introduction. “But at the end of the day, we must celebrate any form of Jewish culture, old or new.”

Below, I emailed Jake 12 questions about schmaltz, leading to the schmaltziest conversation in my inbox to date. And honestly? My inbox has never felt better.

Emma Laperruque: First things first — what is schmaltz, anyway?

Jake Cohen: Simply put, it’s rendered chicken fat. But really, it’s so much more. Back in the shtetl (old country) it was often goose fat, but the key thing to remember is that it’s flavored with fried onions, making it one of the most flavorful fats to use.

EL: If you had to describe schmaltz in one word, what would it be?

JC: Magical.

EL: Do you have a strong preference between making your own schmaltz and buying it?

JC: Nah. If you can get it at the store or butcher, great. If you roast a lot of chicken, you can make it easily from scratch, too.

EL: On that note, how do you make it?

JC: Basically, you start by saving in the freezer all the fat you typically trim when you roast a whole chicken. When you have a substantial amount (with lil’ bits of skin attached, too), you throw it in a pot with water to render out completely. Once all the water has evaporated, you have rendered chicken fat. From there you throw in a sliced onion to fry, then strain. The strained onion and crispy chicken bits is called gribenes and is heaven.

EL: And where should readers go to buy it?

JC: Any kosher butcher or even many butcher counters at grocery stores.

EL: If someone can’t find schmaltz and doesn’t want to make it, would butter or oil or something else work instead?

JC: Duck fat! So easy to find these days, and it’s the closest thing.

EL: You have a recipe for “vegan schmaltz” in Jew-ish. How is this even possible?

JC: It’s mainly a play on the importance of fried onions in the flavor of schmaltz. I confit onions in olive oil, then strain out the fat, which is as close to schmaltz as you’ll get without any poultry.

EL: What are a few ways not-vegan schmaltz comes up in classic Jewish cooking?

JC: Matzo balls! The best balls have schmaltz. Period. But also it’s the base fat for so many recipes that need richness. Because of kosher law, butter wouldn’t be used for savory meat dishes, so schmaltz is a staple.

EL: And how about your own kitchen — what are some of your favorite no-recipe ways to use this ingredient?

JC: I use it as a compound fat, like butter. Stir in a bunch of herbs or spices and toss with potatoes, or rub on chicken before roasting, or even on bread for toast with extraaaaa oomph.

EL: We’re sharing your Schmaltzy Chex Mix with our readers. How the heck did you come up with this?

JC: I love Chex mix. I think it’s the best snack hands down. It’s so intensely savory, and typically just packed with oil. I wanted to add that chickeny richness for a punch of flavor.

EL: If you were stranded on a desert island with schmaltz and four other ingredients, what would they be?

JC: Mayonnaise, onions, challah, and cheddar cheese. Everything I need for a next-level grilled cheese.

EL: Is there anything schmaltz can’t do?

JC: Lol. It’s not the best in baking because of the onions. But in savory baking, let’s go! Schmaltzy focaccia sounds dank.

EL: Schmaltzy focaccia! I need it.

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

Supreme Court agrees to hear major abortion challenge amid red state push to restrict access

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case that calls for a substantial rollback in abortion rights, making it poised to determine the constitutional right of states to ban abortions before a fetus is deemed medically viable. 

The case in question, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, specifically addresses a Mississippi law passed in 2018 by the GOP-majority state legislature which prohibits the practice of abortion beyond fifteen weeks of gestation. The law makes exceptions for carriers facing medical emergencies, as well as cases of “fetal abnormality.”

With the newly-appointed conservative majority in the Supreme Court, the case could spell a severe curtailment of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case which granted Americans the constitutional right to an abortion. Lower courts initially blocked Mississippi’s abortion ban on the grounds that the law violated the Constitution. Both a federal judge in Mississippi and the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held that legal restrictions could not be placed on abortion until 24 weeks into gestation – when a fetus can be determined medically viable (i.e. able to live outside the carrier’s womb). Judge Carlton W. Reeves of Federal District Court in Jackson, Mississippi, who shot down the state’s law in 2018, suggested that the Mississippi restriction was a patently political move that lacked constitutional merit. 

“The state chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” Judge Reeves argued. “This court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.”

The case, which has been rescheduled over a dozen times for the Supreme Court’s consideration, has sounded alarms amongst abortion rights advocates, many of whom have warned of its potential could dismantle the decades-long legal precedent they’ve fought for. 

“This will be, by far, the most important abortion case the Court will have heard since the Casey decision in 1992,” said CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck. “If states are allowed to effectively ban abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, as the Mississippi law in this case does, then pregnant women would have a far shorter window in which they could lawfully obtain an abortion than what Roe and Casey currently require.”

NARAL echoed the concern in a press release. “The Supreme Court’s decision to review this unconstitutional ban is an ominous sign and an alarming reminder that the threat to the legal right to abortion is imminent and real. If Roe v. Wade were to fall as a result of this case, states across the country are poised to ban abortion. The impact would be devastating, especially on those who already face the greatest barriers to care, including people of color, trans and non-binary people, those with lower incomes, and those in rural areas.”

“As is often the case, Mississippi is the testing ground for some of the most regressive, abortion legislation in the country,” added Staci Fox, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates, in a statement. “We knew the day would come when that dangerous legislation would not only threaten the health, lives, and freedoms of Mississippians, but the entire country. That day is finally here. This is why elections matter. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court, reproductive freedom is now at stake on a national level.”

The case will be heard next term amid a flurry of Republican-led restrictions on abortion in states like Idaho, Oklahoma, and Texas, which have barred the procedure in the presence of a fetal heartbeat. 

Just say no: Reagan Foundation demands “Trump Train” bus remove image of Gipper in MAGA hat

The “Trump Train” is not a train. In fact, it’s a bus — a Trump-themed, campaign-style bus that travels the country drumming up support for the defeated ex-president, his family members, and their allies. The Trump Train has once again come under attack, this time not from the Queen of England or Buckingham Palace but from the nonpartisan organization that handles the legacy of former President Ronald Reagan, which wants the bus owner to remove an edited image of Reagan wearing a red “TRUMP” hat. 

In a letter obtained by Salon on Monday, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute demanded that Trump Train owner William “Buddy” Hall remove the image forthwith. “Remove Ronald Reagan’s image from ‘The Trump Train’ by no later than Friday, May 21, 2021, and permanently cease all other use of Ronald Reagan’s name and likeness for your tour bus services,” the letter stated, which was dated May 13.  

Interestingly, the letter sent to Hall by attorney Linda Merritt also CC’d the Trump Organization, which is presumably not involved with his unofficial bus tour. “If you agree to and comply with these requests, the Reagan Foundation will consider this matter resolved,” the letter added. 

Speaking to Salon on Monday, Hall seemed disconsolate. “I got the images off of Google two years ago,” he said, “so I felt since they were there on [the] public domain, it was fine to use.” Hall expressed concern that removing Reagan’s mug from the bus will harm the efforts of the greater Trump movement, since the bus may no longer make people smile “by the millions.” “We never want to upset anyone, we want it to be a fun bus to make people smile as it does by the millions,” he added. 

Hall said the Trump non-train is currently in Palm Beach, Florida, being rewrapped with new images of MAGA-friendly personalities that he hopes will provoke no further legal demands. He told Salon last week that the new exterior of the bus will feature a “Wall of Appreciation,” bearing the likenesses of Fox News host Sean Hannity, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and Sen. Ted Cruz, among others. 

Hall claimed on Monday that the edited image of Reagan on the bus has been removed but said he could not provide proof because he was not currently in Florida. 

Attorney Linda M. Merritt, a partner at the legal firm Norton Rose Fulbright, and the Reagan Foundation didn’t return multiple Salon requests for comment on Monday morning regarding their demand. 

“The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the promotion of the legacy of Ronald Reagan,” reports the foundation’s website, which also offers educational opportunities and Reagan-themed merchandise.

“Reagan loved and admired Trump,” Hill told Salon — a claim repeatedly made by the ex-president and his allies, without much-supporting evidence.  

Bill Gates admits affair with Microsoft staffer, denies seeking marriage advice from Jeffrey Epstein

A spokesperson for Bill Gates confirmed that the Microsoft co-founder had an extramarital affair with a Microsoft employee following a New York Times exposé published over the weekend. The “intimate relationship” was investigated by the company’s board about six months before Gates stepped down in March 2020. 

“There was an affair almost 20 years ago which ended amicably,” Bridgett Arnold, Gates’ spokesperson, told the Washington Post in an emailed statement. Microsoft spokesman Frankie Shaw corroborated the allegation in an emailed statement of his own. According to Shaw, Microsoft’s board “received a concern in the latter half of 2019” that Gates sought to initiate an intimate relationship with a Microsoft engineer in 2000. 

“A committee of the Board reviewed the concern, aided by an outside law firm to conduct a thorough investigation,” Shaw wrote. “Throughout the investigation, Microsoft provided extensive support to the employee who raised the concern.”

Shaw declined to say what the investigation revealed, but also said that Gates’ decision to transition off the board was not related to the investigation as he had previously “expressed an interest in spending more time on his philanthropy.” 

And while it’s unclear whether the revelation about or investigation of the affair in question was a contributing factor to Gates’ recently-announced divorce from his wife of 27 years, philanthropist Melinda French Gates, it is an example of a longstanding pattern of questionable behavior by Gates. According to the New York Times report published on Sunday, Gates pursued multiple women who worked for him at Microsoft and at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In 2006, he attended a presentation by a female Microsoft employee. As soon as she wrapped, he reportedly emailed her and asked her to dinner. “If this makes you uncomfortable, pretend it never happened,” Gates wrote in the email, which was shared with the Times. The employee said she did feel uncomfortable and ignored the request.

Several years later, Gates flirtatiously asked a Gates Foundation employee out to dinner, which made her feel uncomfortable — especially as French Gates was speaking more publicly about the necessity of female empowerment in the workplace. 

“Even though most women now work full-time (or more), we still shoulder the majority of caregiving responsibilities; we face pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination; we are surrounded by biased and stereotypical representations that perpetuate harmful gender norms,” French Gates wrote in a column for TIME magazine at the time.

Bill Gates’ indiscretions and unwanted workplace advances were just one indicator of his problematic views on sexual appropriateness.

According to the Times, in 2017, a close associate of Gates, Michael Larson, was accused of sexual harassment by the manager of a bike shop in which Rally Capital — a venture capital firm through which Larson had invested money for Gates —had stake. The manager wrote a letter to Gates and French Gates, saying that she had tried to settle the situation on her own, but it had become untenable and she was considering legal action. The woman reached a settlement in 2018 in which she signed a nondisclosure agreement in exchange for a payment, three people familiar with the claim said. However, French Gates was allegedly unsatisfied with her husband’s handling of the situation — specifically his readiness to dismiss concerns over a potentially toxic work culture at Cascade Investment, the firm managed by Larson through which he invested the Gates’ and Gates Foundation’s funds. 

Her concerns over Gates’ priorities were only compounded when the New York Times published the 2019 article “Bill Gates Met With Jeffrey Epstein Many Times, Despite His Past,” which detailed the men’s meetings together. While Epstein was connected with many wealthy and powerful people, “unlike many others, Mr. Gates started the relationship after Mr. Epstein was convicted of sex crimes,” the Times said. At the time, Bill told the publication, “I met him. I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him.” But The Daily Beast reported on Sunday that “the billionaire met Epstein dozens of times starting in 2011 and continuing through to 2014 mostly at the financier’s Manhattan home” to discuss Gates’ “toxic” marriage. 

A Gates representative denied the allegation: “Bill never received or solicited personal advice of any kind from Epstein— on marriage or anything else. Bill never complained about Melinda or his marriage to Epstein.”

For her part, Melinda Gates began expressing concerns about Gate’s relationship with Epstein as early as 2013 and then again as recently as 2019 when she met with a team of lawyers to discuss a possible divorce. Epstein died by suicide that same year while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

No, the media can’t “move on” from Trump’s Big Lie — not until Republicans end their war on voting

Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw was pretty angry with NBC’s Chuck Todd on Sunday’s episode of “Meet the Press.” Todd was uncharacteristically determined to hold the Republican’s feet to the fire, calling him out for his support of Donald Trump’s Big Lie.

“Why should anybody believe a word you say if the Republican Party itself doesn’t have credibility?” the host asked. When Crenshaw, clearly annoyed at being called out for his B.S., retreated by whining that “the press is largely liberal,” Todd was rightly contemptuous, retorting, “There’s nothing lazier than that excuse!”

At stake: Crenshaw’s support for Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the 2020 election, claims that Trump used to justify an attempted coup and to incite an insurrection on January 6. Crenshaw’s main role in all of that, as Todd pointed out, was joining a lawsuit filed by Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton which leveraged false accusations of “fraud” in a failed attempt to get the Supreme Court to throw out the results of the election. During the interview, Crenshaw hid behind a line that is increasingly popular among Republicans who are trying to wave off questions about their support for Trump’s attempted coup: “[I]t’s time to move on.”


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


Republicans are increasingly circling around this talking point. They insist that the coup is ancient history and that it’s churlish to keep rehashing who did and did not join in efforts to overturn democracy. It’s the favored justification for the ouster of Wyoming’s Rep. Liz Cheney from House GOP leadership, with Republicans claiming it’s not that she refuses to support Trump’s election lies so much as that she just keeps going on about it. And it was the line that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., trotted out last week, while trying to wave off media inquiries about the GOP’s increasingly fierce backing of Trump’s Big Lie: “I don’t think anyone is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election. I think that is all over with, we’re sitting here with the President today.”

The problem with this “water under the bridge” approach is twofold. First, it should be self-evident that seditious behavior should not be so easily forgotten or forgiven. Second, Republicans themselves have not moved on from the attempted insurrection or the lies that Trump used to justify it. On the contrary, Republican leaders have spent the past four months actively moving not just to turn Trump’s Big Lie into GOP canon but to use it to justify laying the groundwork for Trump or some other GOP nominee to successfully steal the 2024 election.

“[I]f the current Republican Party controls both Houses of Congress on Jan. 6, 2025, there’s no way if a Democrat is legitimately elected they will get certified as the president-elect,” Erica Newland of Protect Democracy recently told Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times. As Goldberg goes on to detail, since the insurrection, Republicans “have systematically attacked the safeguards that protected the last election” — and not just with voter suppression laws, either.

Republican officials or politicians who stood against Trump’s efforts to steal the election are being driven out of office and new laws are being passed to allow GOP-controlled state legislatures to invalidate the results of any election that a Democrat wins. Republicans are also passing harsh “electoral integrity” laws that are actually more about using threats of prosecution to intimidate election officials into looking the other way from GOP efforts to steal elections. And, as Goldberg writes, they are clearly lining up to justify it when a GOP-controlled House simply refuses to certify a Democratic winner of the 2024 election. 

As Matt Gertz at Media Matters documented last week, the propaganda apparatus for the GOP — especially Fox News — has “responded to Donald Trump’s 2020 defeat by institutionalizing his lie that the election was stolen and laying the groundwork to rig the next presidential election in favor of the GOP.” Gertz writes:

Fox’s propagandists are getting ready. They are cheering on the GOP’s purges of officials insufficiently committed to authoritarian rule in the U.S. They are validating and valorizing the Capitol insurrectionists as patriots simply “there to support the president of the United States and defend our republic” rather than a collection of extremists. They are falsely claiming that Democratic pro-democracy legislation before Congress would “destroy the credibility of all future elections,” while defending Republican efforts to restrict voting rights in the states. 


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


In a piece at The Bulwark last month, Jonathan Last laid out how the GOP has been busy “removing the Republican officials who were not willing to comply [with the coup] last time” and plotting out “how a Republican can win the presidency even while losing the popular vote and the Electoral College,” i.e. how to steal the next election. Mona Charen, part of the small and shrinking group of Republicans who still believe in democracy, warned in another piece at The Bulwark last week that “the 2024 mantra” of the GOP “is going to be ‘Steal It Back.'”

I got a taste this weekend when I tweeted out Goldberg’s piece. I got a vicious reaction, as one conservative tweeter after another retorted by with variations of the argument that they are entitled to steal the 2024 election as revenge for Biden stealing the 2020 election. Of course, this is a lie — Biden won fair and square — but it was a small indicator of how “steal it back” is, indeed, becoming the Republican mantra. 

This has all happening a mere four months into Biden’s presidency. Republicans still have three and a half more years to keep building the political will and infrastructure necessary to steal the election in 2024, and clearly have every intention of doing so.

Democrats, meanwhile, seem wholly unable to take measures to slow down the coup train, between letting the filibuster kill any hope of passing bills to prevent these Republican manuevers and Biden’s unwillingness to unleash the Justice Department to hold Trump accountable for his many crimes, which would take Trump out of the equation in 2024. The only real obstacle to the GOP successfully stealing the 2024 election is the mainstream media continuing to call out Trump’s Big Lie and those Republicans who continue to support it. The public’s refusal to be complacent is the main reason Trump failed to steal the 2020 election, and if there’s any hope of stopping Republicans from pulling it off in 2024, the public must stay alert and ready to fight for their democracy. That’s why Republicans are trying to bully journalists into shutting up about the insurrection already.

Sohla is over small salads (you should be, too)

Every month, in Off-Script With Sohla, pro chef and flavor whisperer Sohla El-Waylly will introduce you to a must-know cooking technique — and then teach you how to detour it toward new adventures.

* * *

I loved getting lost in a sea of choose-your-own adventure books as a kid. I reread them endlessly, discovering different routes along the way. I also cheated whenever an especially ominous choice was presented, going back and changing my answer if I didn’t like where I ended up.

Being in quarantine really quells my sense of adventure, so making a big salad is my way of inserting some excitement into the day. What is a big salad, you ask? It’s a bed of dressed greens topped with whatever your heart desires—roasted veggies, beans, cheese, torn bagels, fried mortadella — anything. And, thanks to this more-is-more attitude, it’s a meal in itself, not a side.

These salads are so customizable, I can choose a different mix of ingredients every time, or bookmark any salad-story I want to eat on repeat. Use this handy guide to go off-script and become your own big salad storyteller, choosing a new sal-adventure every time!

* * *

The Foundation

Crisp and Crunchy

I like to start with a crisp, crunchy lettuce base. You can’t go wrong with tender Little Gems, but bitter chicories, like endive or radicchio, create a dynamic foundation — perfect for topping with zingy citrus or sweet dried fruit. Proper salad etiquette dictates that the greens be cold, clean, and dry. I make sure to wash my greens ahead of time and store them in the crisper drawer wrapped in a kitchen towel or tucked into a produce bag, so they are ready to salad whenever I am. I never cut or tear them until right before dressing.

Get Dressed

There are so many flavorful components in a big salad that, when it comes to the dressing, I never use anything too creamy or rich, sticking to a simple vinaigrette instead. Keep it perky with equal parts oil and vinegar or lemon juice — or both! Combining different acidic ingredients in one dressing, like apple cider vinegar with lemon juice or red wine vinegar with sumac, makes a vibrant dressing that brightens up different parts of your palate. Mustard, honey, and maple syrup add both flavor and body, while fresh or dried herbs and ground spices bring the personality. Whisk it all together or shake it up in a lidded jar for easy emulsifying.

Now onto the fun part, the toppers.

* * *

The Toppers

Crunch

The fun of eating a good salad comes from digging into a wide range of textures. The opportunities are endless: You will catch me toasting seeds and nuts in ghee when I’m feeling indulgent or charring them in a cast-iron pan when I want a bitter edge. Any leftover bread can be transformed into a crouton: torn, toasted, and tossed in seasonings. Cheese can be grated and cooked in a nonstick skillet until it melts into a lacy frico (or sear up an entire slice of provolone until brown and crunchy like I do in my Italian Combo Salad). Potato chips and pork rinds from my snack cabinet can be crushed right on top. The crunch is where the party lies.

Sweet

Sweetness gives little pops of “oh wow this is fun” as you eat. Chewy dried fruits, like dates, raisins, or cranberries bring textural good times as well. Fresh apples and pears lend salads a crisp sweetness, while citrus bursts with quenching acidity. Explore your pantry. And if you aren’t sure if it will taste good, try some with a bite of dressed lettuce. Experimentation is key.

Protein

A big salad is an all-encompassing meal, so I like to make sure there’s a complete protein. Complete proteins contain all the amino acids that our bodies need to create new protein. The source can range from cold cuts like turkey or salami, to pressed and grilled tofu, or even crispy fried eggs. Don’t sleep on big hunks of your favorite cheese (or cheeses!) as a reliable source of protein. If I’m using beans, I make sure to complete them by throwing in croutons or nuts. With some thought and planning, there’s no reason to not have a complete protein in your salad, even if you are out of animal protein or don’t eat it.

Veggies

This is another highly customizable area that changes based on my mood. For lunch, I try to keep things lighter with raw veggies like diced tomatoes, shaved celery, or sliced fennel. Raw vegetables add a crisp brightness, perfect for a filling but comfy lunch. For dinner, I tend to roast my vegetables to give them a little more heft and a deeper flavor. Play around with not just the type of vegetables, but how you prepare them, too.

Pickles

Pickles give hits of joy as you navigate your salad. There’s a variety of vegetables that I always pickle seasonally, depending on what I find at the farmers market. Everything from pickled ramps in the spring to pickled cherry tomatoes in the summer will find a happy home in a big salad. Don’t worry if you don’t have fancy homemade pickles — anything out of a jar is delicious as well. Think: cornichons, capers, olives. If you are making a salad with a lot of roasted vegetables or heavy proteins, make sure to add enough pickle-y components to keep the salad refreshing.

Now that you have a basic blueprint, go forth and construct your own big salad! Use as many or as few toppers as you like, based on how lazy or adventurous you’re feeling. But never accept a medium-sized salad at your table again.

No vacancy: Republicans struggle to make space for Trump regrets

Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney hit the Sunday shows to reiterate her position that former President Donald Trump is a danger to the republic. It’s impossible to argue with her on this particular issue. If there is going to be a popular front to fight the GOP’s crude usurpation of democracy, it’s going to take people like Liz Cheney to join up. Unfortunately, there aren’t many of them left in the Republican Party.

CBS News released a poll over the weekend that showed 80% of Republican voters back the GOP’s decision to oust Cheney from her House leadership position. A majority of Republican voters believe she doesn’t have the right message, that she isn’t supportive enough of their maximum leader, and that she’s wrong about the 2020 election. 34% of them believe that “disloyalty should be punished” (a phrase that sounds better in the original German.) 66% believe that being loyal to the whiny loser Trump is “important.” And they are more or less split on whether the GOP strategy going forward should be to try to get more voters with policies or ideas or whether they should just change the voting rules. Seriously.

The good news is that there is a small rump, 20%, that thinks there should be room in the Republican party for different views or agree with Cheney that Trump lost the election. Unfortunately, they also happen to be the least likely to vote in the primary elections which means that only full-blown Trump cultists will be deciding who becomes the face of the GOP. Cheney’s got a very heavy burden to turn any of that around.

It’s clear though that there is some discomfort among certain Republican officials who jumped on the Trump train and now have to defend it. Granted, they are few and far between as most Republicans are more than happy to just flagrantly lie or openly defend the indefensible. Take for instance Andrew Clyde, the Republican congressman from Georgia who claimed in a House hearing last week that the violent mob that stormed Capitol on January 6th was not staging an insurrection and could have been mistaken for tourists:

People like Clyde do not suffer from emotions like shame or embarrassment.

But there are some who have a bit of a difficult time completely relinquishing any claim to reason or truth so they attempt to finesse their Trumpism with a rational dialog about why it’s important to let bygones be bygones. One such Republican appears to be Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw. He has tried to make a reputation for himself as a “reasonable” Republican, famously appearing on Saturday Night Live to demonstrate his generous absolution for a crude joke about him that missed. He appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday and ran up against an uncharacteristically aggressive Chuck Todd. It didn’t go well:

He can run but he can’t hide. Crenshaw’s insipid insistence that the party just has a “disagreement” about the election being met with Chuck Todd going back in his face with “there’s not a disagreement about the facts so do any of your critiques come across as credible if you can’t accept the fundamental fact that our democracy held a free and fair election?” is not something I ever expected to see — but it sure is welcome.

Crenshaw was spouting the party line that says Republicans want to “move on” from all of the unpleasantness over the 2020 election and the January 6th insurrection so that they can concentrate on “policy” and I’m sure many of them would love to change the subject and just quietly work on suppressing as many votes as possible without all the hoopla. But, as Todd pointed out, Donald Trump and his ecstatic followers are obsessed with “the Big Steal” and there is no escaping that fact.

Crenshaw is obviously ambitious and recognizes that this Trump folly could easily go sideways and if he plans to ascend to higher office he wants to be prepared to go in whatever direction that requires. He’s from Texas so it’s unlikely that his Trumpist leanings will hurt him too much. But what of Blue State Republicans who might want to run state-wide in the future?

Elise Stefanik, R-NY, the very determined congresswoman who took Cheney’s place in the House leadership conference demonstrated an impressive pirouette from “moderate” to hardcore Trumper, which isn’t very challenging in today’s party. (They don’t care about much of anything as long as you show undying fealty to their undisputed leader.) But there’s another politician from New York who is making a bid for governor and is currently twisting himself into a pretzel trying to spin the other way and finesse his years of delirious Trump worship in a state Joe Biden won by 23% points.

Rep. Lee Zeldin of Long Island came to Congress in 2015 as a standard-issue law and order Republican New Yorker. But he became one of Trump’s staunchest defenders from the moment he took office and stuck with him through thick and thin. He was a designated point man during the first impeachment, thrilling the president by calling the process a “charade” and a “clown show” and proudly becoming the congressman who spoke more in the impeachment depositions than any other Republican, at least 550 times according to NBC:

His attempts to steer the depositions away from Trump’s conduct and toward a host of tangential matters— including the Biden family, a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election, and even the witnesses’ own credibility — have driven counsel for multiple witnesses to their wit’s end.

Zeldin stuck with the president all the way through the post-election denialism, even issuing this dark warning on January 2nd:

Of course, he also voted against certifying the election.

Zeldin is now trying to walk back his Trump sycophancy and it’s almost comical. He told Newsday:

“So, you had tens of millions of people that came out and voted for each of the candidates. Their votes were counted. They’re counted once, and you ended up with an outcome. And that’s how President Trump, uh … President Biden became the president, was by winning the November 2020 election.”

“I believe in our country and the sanctity of our process, and I’m not going to participate in calling elections illegitimate ever. This isn’t a Third World country, and it will tear our country apart if we end up living our lives and calling elections in the past illegitimate.”

Evidently, he thinks he will be able to convince people that there is a different Lee Zeldin out there who used to say exactly the opposite of everything he’s saying now.

Will it work?

Contradicting everything you’ve ever said and acting as if it’s perfectly normal resulted in a nice promotion for his fellow New Yorker Stefanik so who knows? Maybe GOP politics are now so surreal that you can literally reinvent yourself from one month to the next without ever being held accountable for anything. How convenient?