Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Rand Paul wants Joe Biden to “burn his mask” — to promote COVID-19 vaccines

Although half of adults in the United States have been at least partially vaccinated for COVID-19, President Joe Biden and his top medical adviser, Dr. Anthony Fauci, have been emphasizing that the U.S. still needs to get a lot more Americans vaccinated before it can achieve herd immunity. A recent AP-NORC poll found that 26% of White Americans do not plan to get vaccinated. And Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, during a Fox News appearance on April 21, had a recommendation that is being slammed as idiotic: Biden, according to the GOP senator, needs to “burn” his protective face mask in order to encourage vaccination.

Paul, who had COVID-19 in 2020 and recovered from it, told Fox News’ Martha MacCallum, “If you want more people to get vaccinated, Joe Biden should go on national TV, take his mask off and burn it. Light a torch to it and burn his mask and say, ‘I’ve had the vaccine, I am now safe from this plague. If you get the vaccine, you can be safe, too.'”

The Kentucky senator was highly critical of Fauci, who has recommended that Americans who have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19 continue to wear face masks in public — as it is possible to be infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus and spread it even if one has been fully vaccinated. Being infected with an illness despite vaccination is what medical experts describe as “breakthrough” cases. The vast majority of people who have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19, according to Fauci and other medical experts, will not be infected. But there is a small possibility that they will, especially with the aggressive COVID-19 variants that have emerged — and for that reason, Fauci recommends that fully vaccinated Americans continue to wear masks in public as an added precaution.

Paul, pandering to the GOP’s wingnut base, accused Fauci of “fearmongering” during his Fox News appearance and told MacCallum that he will take Fauci seriously “if he can prove people like me that had it are spreading the disease.”

Here are some scathing responses to Paul’s remarks from Twitter users:

Marjorie Taylor Greene asks to debate AOC over Green New Deal — but admits she hasn’t read it yet

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., claims she is interested in debating Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the details of the Green New Deal. According to Business Insider, Greene on Wednesday, April 21, tweeted about the possibility of her and the Democratic lawmaker scheduling a debate in the near future.

Greene’s tweet came shortly after the two lawmakers talked on the House floor about Ocasio-Cortez’s environmental proposal. However, Greene insisted she would only be willing to debate after reading “all 14 pages.”

“I’m glad I ran into you today [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ] to plan our debate about the Green New Deal,” Greene tweeted. “After I finish reading all 14 pages, like we agreed, I’ll schedule time for our debate.”

Then, on Thursday morning, Greene followed up with another tweet about Ocasio-Cortez’s document describing it as a “Communist’s manifesto.”

While Greene believes it would be a good idea to debate the Democratic congresswoman, Twitter users believe the political grudge match could end up backfiring for the Georgia lawmaker. Many Twitter users have shared their reaction to Greene’s call for a debate. Some expressed interest in tuning in for the debate while others believe it will only be a waste of time.

One Twitter user wrote, “AOC would absolutely DESTROY Marjorie Taylor Greene in a debate on the Green New Deal. Where can I get tickets?”

Another user wrote, “That would be a big waste of everyone’s time. No one wants to watch a conspiracy theorist shout disinformation she heard on ‘Fox and Friends’ as AOC tries to explain economics and environmental science as if to a child.”

However, others raised concern about the fact that Greene has constantly attacked Democratic lawmakers over The Green Deal but inadvertently admitted in the tweet that she’d never read it. “Wait. Let me get this right… you constantly attack the bill and everything it stands for… but you have never actually read it?” one Twitter user pointed out.

In response to the admission, Twitter users surmised that it must have been difficult for the lawmaker to read 14 pages. Another Twitter user wrote, “14 pages is a lot, maybe someone could make an audiobook for her.”

According to Newsweek, AOC has not yet said anything about the possibility of debating Greene.

Sean Hannity drops $5 million on Florida home — just a few miles from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club

Fox News host Sean Hannity dropped $5.3 million on a Florida home just a few miles from pal Donald Trump’s new permanent residence at his Mar-a-Lago Club, according to reports.

With the purchase of the three-bedroom, five-bedroom beachfront condo in swanky Palm Beach, which is colloquially known as “Billionaire’s Row,” Hannity joins a number of conservative firebrands who have decamped south to Florida — including fellow Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, former Republican presidential candidate turned “Borat 2” star Rudy Giuliani, and commentators Ann Coulter and Ben Shapiro. The late conservative radio star Rush Limbaugh and the late Fox News CEO Roger Ailes were also residents of Palm Beach prior to their deaths. 

Hannity bought the home on April 15, according to The Palm Beach Post, the outlet which first reported the sale. He spent more than $1 million more in the off-market deal than the previous owners paid despite the fact that they were only in possession of the condo for about a month.

It’s a part of “The Residences at Sloans Curve,” which sits 2.7 miles away from Mar-a-Lago. The property has 5,086 square feet of living space and includes a private pool and two-car garage, The Post reported, citing property records. The development also features a gym, tennis courts, multiple community pools and 24-hour staff. 

Hannity is well known as a prolific real estate investor, whose more than $90 million real-estate empire was revealed after a 2018 investigation by The Guardian found that he owned at least 870 homes in seven states. Many of those properties were owned by shell companies connected to Hannity — and some were even purchased with help from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a fact which he failed to disclose when publicly criticizing former President Barack Obama’s handling of the foreclosure crisis. In contrast, the Fox News host repeatedly praised Ben Carson, the former HUD secretary under Trump, on his show.

A spokeswoman for Fox News and Hannity declined a request for comment from The Post regarding the townhouse deal.

“Michael Scott levels of cringe”: Andrew Yang angers LGBTQ group at New York campaign stop

New York mayoral candidate Andrew Yang had a rough day on the campaign trail Wednesday, losing out on a key endorsement from a leading LGBTQ group after an ill-received speech in which he reportedly talked about his excitement at the prospect of visiting a popular Manhattan lesbian bar and repeatedly mentioned his “gay staffers.”

The former Democratic presidential candidate’s remarks drew immediate criticism from attendees of The Stonewall Democratic Club of NYC’s event, including one member who told The New York Times that Yang had committed “Michael Scott levels of cringe and insensitivity,” a reference to Steve Carell’s often-problematic character on “The Office.”

“It either tells me Andrew Yang is in over his head or is not listening to his staff,” Alejandra Caraballo, an an out trans attorney and former New York City Council candidate told the newspaper. “Those are both radioactive flashing signs that say he is not prepared to be mayor of New York.”

RELATED: Andrew Yang “can’t imagine” my New York City pandemic life

Rose Christ, the Stonewall Club’s president, told The Times that Yang had failed to mention “substantive issues that our membership cares about” and instead chosen to focus on bars and parades.

Yang began the speech by name-dropping his openly gay campaign manager, Chris Coffey, as well as an endorsement from Carlos Menchaca, the first openly gay New York City Council member from Brooklyn. 

According to Gay City News, a New York-based publication covering the city’s LGBTQ community, it only got worse from there. Yang went on to refer to LGBTQ New Yorkers as a “secret weapon” that the Democratic Party appeared to be misusing.

“It’s like we should win everything because we have you all,” he said, while reportedly laughing, “given that you all are frankly in leadership roles all over the Democratic Party.”

Another point of contention arose after Yang spoke about his desire to see in-person Pride festivities in 2021, in spirte of the fact that the Reclaim Pride Coalition already has plans to host an in-person march — its third straight year hosting the event, according to Gay City News. The Queer Liberation March is the annual people’s protest march, which rejects floats or funding from corporations and police involvement. 

The Stonewall Club ultimately gave its endorsement to Scott Stringer, the city comptroller, who has also landed endorsements from several other prominent LGBTQ groups. 

Stringer penned a Thursday tweet thanking the organization for its support, writing, “I’m so honored to receive your endorsement, @SDNYC! We’ve been in the trenches together for decades to advance equality for all New Yorkers — now let’s continue the fight for LGBTQ+ New Yorkers and work to build a city for everyone.”

Despite Wednesday’s controversy, Yang still continues to lead mayoral polls of likely New York voters. A recent Spectrum News NY1/Ipsos poll released on Monday showed his support hovering around 22%, with Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams in second place with 13%.

Notably, 26% of respondents said they “don’t know” who their first choice would be. 

Biden’s climate plan knocked as “bullsh*t” by activists who dumped cow manure near White House

President Joe Biden opened a virtual climate change summit hosted by the White House on Thursday and Friday with a doozy of an announcement: The United States is promising to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% below its 2005 levels by no later than 2030. But not everyone was happy with Biden’s announcement. In Washington climate activists dumped over a dozen wheelbarrows of cow feces near the White House to protest what they called a “bullshit” plan.

Biden also vowed to move America toward a goal of net-zero emissions by no later than 2050 and urged other countries at the summit — particularly larger ones like China, which surpasses the US in greenhouse gas emissions — to move their economies in a similar direction. In addition, he discussed how a greener economy in every sector of American industry would not only help the planet, but create jobs for the working class.

“That’s where we’re headed as a nation, and that’s what we can do if we take action to build an economy that’s not only more prosperous but healthier, fairer and cleaner for the entire planet,” Biden explained during the summit.

Climate change is one of the great existential threats facing human beings in modern times. When gases like carbon dioxide and methane are dumped into the atmosphere due to human activity, they trap heat and gradually but radically change the planet. If the problem continues unabated for the next few decades, experts predict apocalyptic conditions. Large sections of Earth will be uninhabitable because they are too hot and/or dry. Extreme weather events will occur regularly. Sea levels will rise, forcing millions who live near costs to have to abandon their homes. Even as the world deals with millions of climate refugees, disruptions in food production and supply chains will cause major resources scarcity issues.


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


Biden signaled shortly after taking office that he was going to prioritize addressing climate. His predecessor, Donald Trump, pulled America out of the Paris climate agreement, while Biden promptly rejoined upon taking office. Trump also gutted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), ordered the government to stop studying climate change and rolled back anti-climate change regulations implemented under Barack Obama. Biden, by contrast, has signed executive orders to create interagency groups and government offices that simultaneously address environmental issues while producing jobs; stop new fossil fuel leases on public lands; revoke all new gas and oil leases on public lands and waters; foster development of renewable energy resources; and conserve at least 30% of federal oceans and lands by 2030.

Salon reached out to climate change experts, who seemed pleased by Biden’s new policies.

“In 2015, President Obama made an initial commitment to cut US emissions by 26-28% from 2005 levels by 2025,” Marcene Mitchell, Senior Vice President for Climate Change at the World Wildlife Fund, told Salon by email. “The fact that President Biden has pledged to nearly double that commitment shows how far we have come as a nation. It is also important to recognize that this was made possible by cities, states, communities, businesses and other institutions acting in the absence of federal leadership over the past four years.”

She added, “Today’s announcement of a new US target for the Paris Agreement shows that the US is all in on the climate crisis. By setting this target, President Biden has taken a big step toward re-establishing US leadership in global climate ambition. The new target creates momentum, alongside the Leaders Climate Summit, for other nations to make similar commitments heading into the Glasgow COP [an upcoming climate change summit] later this year.”

Salon also reached out to Dr. Michael E. Mann, a distinguished professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University, who commented on Biden’s policies on Wednesday based on early reports of their eventual contents.

“This is the boldest action we’ve seen on climate by any U.S. president, more so than even Obama,” Mann wrote to Salon. “Of course, the times now call for much bolder action, especially after 4 years of lost opportunity under Trump. These commitments will help get us on the path toward limiting warming below catastrophic levels (3F or more), but there is a limit to what the executive branch alone can do.”

He added, “They go about as far as the President can do through executive authority. We also need climate legislation, and Biden there will have to use every diplomatic and procedural tool available to get a climate bill or set of bills past a divided Senate.”

Dr.  Kevin Trenberth, who is part of the Climate Analysis Section at the US NCAR National Center for Atmospheric Research, explained to Salon by email that ultimately addressing climate change requires a concerted global effort. Right now, it begins with the United States and other powerful countries setting the right example.

“US leadership is essential along with Europe, and getting the Chinese on board,” Trenberth explained. “Together these countries can set the stage for the rest of the world who will be forced to go along by peer pressure combined with tariffs and related. A comprehensive price on carbon is essential but how one implements that will be critical and complex, as it must involve imports and exports and tariffs at the border, and so forth.” He argued that that policy would need to be implemented both slowly and in a way that plans decades in advance. It also needs the broad support of both the business community and the general public, who will need to see the benefits from it. He also said that we should aim to electrify cars and other mans of transportation.

Trenberth concluded, “So the first order of business has to be for the US to get its own house in order, but that is a prelude to bringing everyone else along. We are all on spaceship Earth.”

.

“We live in Walmart nation”: What it means to be trans in Arkansas

Until recently, Bentonville was a small sleepy town inside a dry county situated in the northernmost corner of the state of Arkansas. Thanks to Walmart heirs, it’s quickly being transformed into an arts and cultural destination that began in 2011, when Alice Walton opened Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. With a net worth of currently $66.3 billion, she has enough cash to throw around that she’s just announced a 50% expansion of the museum. 

The museum boasts an impressive collection and inclusive programming. Distinguished speakers have included #BlackLivesMatter creator Patrisse Cullors and avant-garde icon Laurie Anderson. A promotional post for a Pride Night event exclaims, “throughout history, the art world often offered ‘safe spaces’ of acceptance for people’s differences, and signified that there was a place of belonging for those who felt outcast and marginalized, a place that was welcome to all, just like Crystal Bridges is today.” A Washington Post editorial even asked, “Is Crystal Bridges, in rural Arkansas, the most woke museum in America?” 

This seemingly progressive and shiny cultural mecca, however, feels in direct opposition to the recent spate of anti-trans legislation in the state. 

* * *

Earlier this month, Arkansas became the first state in the country to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth. The so-called “Save Adolescents from Experimentation Act” (HB 1570) bans doctors from providing puberty blockers or performing hormone therapy. Other bills passed this legislative session include one that allows medical providers to refuse to treat members of the LGBTQ community and another that bans transgender girls from competing on women’s sports teams in school. 

Some organizers point out the disparity between the seemingly performative actions of the many institutions and businesses that espouse diversity, equity and inclusion, as the state rams through the most draconian anti-trans legislation in the country by legislators bankrolled by these same entities. 

“This is a state-sponsored hate crime and state-sponsored violence,” Intransitive director of strategy and communications Rumba Yambú tells Salon. “Whenever your representatives stand there and talk about how they have to save children from becoming like me, what are they trying to say about me? What is so horrible about me that you have to pretend to protect children from it? They’re sending a message to all trans Arkansans.”

Intransitive is the state’s most active and visible trans rights organization. When we connect over the phone, Yambú is busy working on social media graphics to post to raise awareness about more anti-trans legislation hitting the chamber floors and preparing for Trans Week of Mourning that kicked off Monday, a week filled with direct action and visibility for the trans community, that ends with a Trans Day of Celebration Saturday, April 24, in Little Rock.

“We know that we live in Walmart nation, in Tyson nation. We know the type of influence that these corporations have on legislators,” says Yambú. “I believe that they have the power to stop these bills, that they have the power to help us reverse once these bills have become law. It’s just a matter of choosing to do so.”

* * *

Diane (an alias used to protect her identity) is a 42-year-old trans woman who works in accounts receivable for a Northwest Arkansas business. As a lifelong Arkansan who grew up in an extremely religious and conservative family, she’s devastated by the recent legislation and the message it sends to trans youth.

“I think back to the kids who were like me growing up. I was completely kept in the dark about any of this stuff until relatively late in life. I had these impressions that all trans people go through,” she says. “The cliché is your body not matching the person you are inside.”

Had she known about puberty blockers back then she would have wanted to explore them, since she knew early on that there was, as she describes it “something different” about her. She was envious of her sister. 

“I remember crying because I didn’t get the same kind of clothes she got,” she recalls growing up in the 1980s. “Puberty blockers or even being transgender weren’t things I knew anything about. Now that the knowledge is out there, that should be something that everyone is able to explore.” 

She thinks the current government overreach doesn’t align with the support she’s personally received from her own community.

“We have a government here that I think is out of step with what average people think about the issue, that is trying to have this draconian clamp-down on stuff that’s just about people being able to explore who they are. And I don’t think that it will stop with children.”

Diane only recently came out at work because she couldn’t hide her identity any longer. She described the process as “just the easiest thing in the world.

“Everyone at work was totally accepting. And it is not a liberal workplace by any means. It’s relatively conservative and Christian, and those people were all great.”

Her boss and HR were both extremely accommodating for her needs. They asked her what she wanted to be called and asked if she wanted to start using the women’s restroom immediately saying “This is totally cool. No problem whatsoever.”

The one example of transphobia she can recall experiencing personally was using the women’s restroom at a McDonald’s, when a woman started yelling about a man using the women’s restroom. 

“That’s by far the worst experience as far as someone being confrontational about it,” she says. “So I just really don’t think that the average person in Arkansas cares.” 

Meanwhile, it’s the average Arkansan who is becoming less in demand as Northwest Arkansas is seeing record growth, thanks in part to the Walton-funded cultural amenities and a national push to market the area as a progressive oasis in a pristine natural setting  –including an incentive that attempts to woo highly skilled urbanites to move here with $10,000 and a mountain bike. Because of this growth, property values and real estate in that area have gone through the roof, leaving residents not able to afford a home where they once grew up.

Some lifelong residents have had enough. Though Diane feels comfortable here personally, the recent spate of anti-trans legislation led her to make the decision to move away with her trans husband. They’d dreamed of moving someplace more aligned with their lifestyle before, but felt no urgency about making such a big decision until now.

“It’s literally pushing us out of the place that I’ve lived my whole life,” she says. “I don’t see much hope going forward for the state, unfortunately.”

Sotomayor cites Kavanaugh’s own words to slam his decision allowing life sentences for minors

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly cited fellow Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s past opinions in a blistering dissent after the court’s conservative majority effectively allowed automatic life sentences without parole for minors.

The court ruled 6-3 on Thursday that judges do not need to find “permanent incorrigibility” before sentencing juvenile offenders to life sentences without parole in a case upholding the sentence of Brett Jones, who was 15 when he stabbed his grandfather to death in a dispute over the teen’s girlfriend.

Jones was sentenced to life without parole, the mandatory sentence under Mississippi law, before the Supreme Court ruled in the 2012 Miller v. Alabama decision that mandatory life sentences without parole for minors are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.” The opinion said that juvenile offenses reflect “transient immaturity” and because children’s brains are less developed they are “less culpable” than adults and have more potential to be rehabilitated. Jones was granted a re-sentencing but the judge upheld the life sentence. The Supreme Court later ruled in the 2016 Montgomery v. Louisiana case that the Miller ruling could be applied retroactively, prompting the appeal from Jones. The Supreme Court appeared to break with those past decisions when it upheld his sentence on Thursday.

“According to Jones, in order to impose a life-without-parole sentence on a defendant who committed a murder when he or she was under 18, the sentencer must make a separate factual finding that the defendant is permanently incorrigible,” Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “The Mississippi Court of Appeals rejected Jones’s argument, relying on this Court’s express statement in Montgomery that ‘Miller did not require trial courts to make a finding of fact regarding a child’s incorrigibility.'”

Sotomayor cited Kavanaugh’s opinion from last term to dispute the majority’s reading of the precedents, arguing that it was “contrary to explicit holdings in both decisions.”

“Such an abrupt break from precedent demands ‘special justification,’ ” Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. Because the majority opinion did not provide one, “the Court is fooling no one,” Sotomayor wrote. Sotomayor went on to repeatedly cite Kavanaugh’s previous opinions in her dissent.

The dissenting justices argued that “a lifetime in prison is a disproportionate sentence for all but the rarest children, those whose crimes reflect ‘irreparable corruption'” and the precedents required courts “to separate those juveniles who may be sentenced to life without parole from those who may not.”

“[Kavanaugh’s] conclusion would come as a shock to the Courts in Miller and Montgomery,” Sotomayor wrote, noting that it largely echoed former Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissenting opinion in the Montgomery case.

“Justice Scalia’s view did not prevail, however,” she wrote. “Montgomery‘s interpretation of Miller is binding precedent, just as Miller itself is.”

Sotomayor noted that the past rulings required judges to “actually make the judgment” regarding incorrigibility, adding that Kavanaugh’s opinion “distorts Miller and Montgomery beyond recognition.”

The dissent also noted that Jones suffered from mental health issues and was abused by his grandfather. Jones later tried to perform CPR after stabbing him and ultimately confessed to the crime. Sotomayor added that Jones and other juvenile offenders are not seeking to overturn their convictions.

“Jones and other juvenile offenders like him seek only the possibility of parole. Not the certainty of release, but the opportunity, at some point in their lives, to show a parole board all they have done to rehabilitate themselves and to ask for a second chance,” she wrote. “The Eighth Amendment requires that most juvenile offenders be given this small ‘hope for some years of life outside prison walls.'”

This crunchy, hearty Chicken Frito Salad is a sensational dinner that doesn’t require a lot of prep

New York City has everything — except Corn Nuts. I’ve spent the better part of an early morning scouring every bodega and supermarket above 168th Street in pursuit of the key ingredient in a promising recipe from Molly Baz’s mouthwatering “Cook This Book: Techniques That Teach and Recipes to Repeat.” I’m driven by the prospect of a crunchy, creamy, salty, savory and sweet salad involving rotisserie chicken, cabbage, cotija and Corn Nuts. But Corn Nuts are apparently the new toilet paper, because they’re nowhere to be found. I consider a host of alternatives, from plantain chips to pork rinds to wasabi peas before I finally settle on Baz’s own runner-up suggestion.

Sometimes in life, you go out for Corn Nuts and come home with Fritos. This isn’t a bad thing. This isn’t a disappointment. Could anyone ever be disappointed by Fritos? Of course not. But if you’ve ever felt tyrannized by the rigidity of following a recipe in the past, I hope these make-do days of late have shaken you free. And I promise that Molly Baz has your back.

The writer, recipe developer and former fixture of Bon Appétit’s YouTube channel has now channeled her energetic, rooting-for-you persona into her debut cookbook. “Cook This Book” is, yes, full of recipes — recipes for delicious-sounding things like Chorizo & Chickpea Carbonara and Skirt Steak with Red Chimichurri. But it’s also reassuringly packed with information about the principles of great flavor and instructions on technique. Ingredients are arranged in the order you’d shop for them or find them in your kitchen — dairy with dairy, produce with produce — so you’re not exhausted before you even start cooking. And there are QR codes interspersed throughout the book for video tutorials on how to confidently use ingredients and tools.

“I felt uniquely positioned to understand the limitations and thresholds and shortcomings of home cooks,” Baz says, “because I’ve spent so much of my career thinking about other cooks and thinking about the novice cook. That’s what my job at Bon Appétit was — it was all about accessibility. The purpose of this book was to make it as easy and stress-free as possible for those people for whom I know cooking is overwhelming. There’s a lot of reasons to say, ‘You know what? I’m just not going to do it tonight.’ The way I structured my recipes was all in the service of eliminating any extra chaos.”

“You’ll see in the recipes that they appear on the page actually a lot longer than you might expect, given how simple they are,” she says. “That’s because I really spent the time to hold the reader’s hand, and I tried to pack the recipes with as much background information and context as possible so that, as I’m asking someone to take a step in the kitchen — no matter what that is — I’m explaining to them at the same time why I’ve asked them to do that. If I don’t explain why, then they’re just a bunch of random tasks that aren’t linked together.”

“Cook This Book” is a book that answers not only the how of cooking but also the why. While it makes me want to devote myself full time to making every single page, it was the recipe involving my favorite standby — the versatile rotisserie chicken — that won my heart first.

“The idea behind this,” says Baz, “was that cabbage is a vegetable that you can keep in your fridge for a month. Rotisserie chicken or leftover chicken is something that’s always in my fridge or easy to come by. I thought about a quick dinner salad that doesn’t require a lot of prep that you can always have on hand and then built it out from there. And the corn nuts come in, and they’re basically just an alt crouton.”

With no alt croutons to be had, however, I’ve made my version of Baz’s Napa cabbage salad with shredded chicken, Cotija & Corn Nuts a little differently. I tone down the spiciness for my daughter’s palate, and I use red cabbage instead of the softer Napa version. It’s still sensational — hearty and rich and crunchy as hell — and just right for a night when you don’t want to turn on a single appliance. I can’t imagine following this salad with anything other than fruity popsicles

***

Recipe: Chicken Frito Salad

Inspired by Molly Baz’s “Cook This Book”

Serves: 4, with leftovers

Ingredients:

  • 1 rotisserie chicken, shredded and skin removed (see note)
  • 1/4 cup mayonnaise
  • 1/2 cup sour cream (or plain yogurt)
  • 1 tsp of hot sauce (or 1/4 tsp of dried chipotle or cayenne)
  • 1/2 cup of Corn Nuts or lightly crushed Fritos
  • 1/2 cup grated cotija cheese (You can substitute an equal amount of crumbly, salty cheese like feta or goat cheese.) 
  • 1 garlic clove, minced
  • 2 limes
  • 1 head of Napa cabbage, washed (Use red or green if that’s what you’ve got.)
  • 4 – 6 small radishes, washed
  • 1 small bunch of cilantro, washed (unless you hate cilantro, in which case use parsley)
  • Salt and pepper to taste

Directions:

  1. In a large bowl, mix together the mayo, sour cream, cheese and hot sauce.
  2. Add garlic, salt and pepper.
  3. Slice your limes and squeeze the juice into the bowl. Stir everything well to combine.
  4. Cut your cabbage in half lengthwise. Discard any brown, sad outer leaves and tough root. Slice into thin strips. Save other half for another time.
  5. Add your cabbage to the dressing, and stir well. Ideally, massage the cabbage leaves into the dressing with your very clean hands, but use a spoon if that’s not your thing
  6. Slice radishes thinly and add to salad. Chop cilantro and add.
  7. Stir in your chicken.
  8. Add your Corn Nuts or Fritos just before serving. You want to make sure they don’t get soggy.
  9. Top with an extra sprinkle of cheese.

Extra credit: If you’re up for it, you can make chicken skin cracklings for an extra crunchy-fatty-salty element. While you’re shredding the chicken, preheat the oven to 350. Remove strips of skin as you go along, and put them, flattened out and fat side down, on a cookie sheet lined with parchment. Sprinkle with salt and pepper, and bake about 15 minutes, until crisp. Crumble over your salad immediately before serving.

 

More Quick & Dirty: 

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

Cardi B snaps back after GOP congressman blames her for “the moral decline of America”

Rapper Cardi B snapped back at a Republican congressman on Thursday after he decried her more than month-old performance at the 2021 Grammy Awards during a speech from the House floor, saying it was “inconsistent with basic decency” and should have been censored by the FCC.

The speech from Rep. Glenn Grothman, a Republican from Wisconsin, was a return to the raging culture wars surrounding Cardi B and Megan thee Stallion’s “Wap” — which stands for “wet a** pussy” — a song that conservative pundits and legislators alike pounced on as a sign of what they see as, in Grothman’s words, the “moral decline of America.”

But Cardi B, a Grammy Award-winning artist, was quick to strike back on Twitter, telling the congressman that there were bigger things that he should be worried about —  namely, a spate of high-profile police killings and the subsequent nationwide protests over police violence. 

“I think we all been on the edge this week since we seen police brutality back to back including watching one of the biggest case in history go down DUE to police brutality,” the “WAP” singer wrote. “But wait ! This is wat state representative decide to talk about.”

It was the latest media misstep from Grothman, who has made a career out of strange statements going back all the way to his days in the Wisconsin state Senate. 

In a 2010 speech, Grothman, who was at the time embroiled in a contentious Republican primary, said a “war on men” was destroying America, and that “gals” have an unfair advantage at work in the form of undeserved promotions. Though, “in the long run, a lot of women like to stay at home and have their husbands be the primary breadwinner.” In 2014, he led a campaign against the weekend, saying that taking days off from work was “goofy” and “a little ridiculous,” while promoting the idea that “all sorts of people want to work seven days a week.”

He’s also a staunch supporter of voter ID laws and other restrictive voting measures, like the slate of reforms recently passed in Georgia, and let slip in 2016 that he believes these measures will help the GOP win elections in the long term. More recently, Grothman made a bizarre local television appearance on St. Patrick’s Day to talk about the Marxist and “anti-family” roots of the Black Lives Matter Movement — all while wearing a discount-store sparkly green top hat.

Rather than focusing on pop culture, Cardi B also suggested in a later tweet that the Wisconsin congressman should be paying attention to his own state, and using his platform to demand justice for Jacob Blake, a Black man who was shot and paralyzed by a white officer in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

The “Bodak Yellow” rapper also called on U.S. voters to stop “giving seats to F***** IDIOTS” and blamed Republicans for the lack of justice for the victims of police brutality. 

“This is why people gotta vote, elect better people cause you got these dum a**es representing states.”

In comedy “Rutherford Falls,” Ed Helms is a nice guy who prefers the myth of his whitewashed history

Four episodes in, comedy “Rutherford Falls” builds a strong case finding in favor of Terry Thomas, played by Michael Greyeyes, as the show’s real hero. This doesn’t make the man who runs Running Thunder Casino the show’s funniest character, although Greyeyes lands his share of jabs and punchlines with a boxing champion’s lightning speed.

Neither the character nor Greyeyes receive top billing in this comedy — that honor goes to Ed Helms and Jana Schmieding, who play lifelong best friends Nathan Rutherford and Reagan Wells. Nathan and Reagan are a pleasant, bumbling pair who support each other, no matter what, even though (and, yes, because) they aren’t the most popular folks in Rutherford. 

Nathan has taken on the role of the town’s historical preservationist and the last Rutherford still living there. Reagan wants to put her Northwestern degree to use by expanding the Minishonka Nation’s cultural center into something more than a sadly lit corner in the casino that’s frequently mistaken for a low-inventory gift shop.

Terry, in contrast, is calculating, politically deceitful when he needs to be and entirely about business, and understandably so. He could find money for Reagan’s gift shop, but won’t. He could help Nathan maintain his hap-hap-happy version of the town’s history, in which the Minishonka (a fictionalized tribe) ceded their land to genial white settlers in a fair and equitable deal — but, please. 

Instead, he’s focusing on the long game in which he and the entire Minishonka tribe benefit from his lifelong dedication to what he describes as “the great American pastime”: power.

If Terry were white he’d be at the center of a narrative celebrating his determination and will. In “Rutherford Falls” he’s a reminder of the figures we overlook in adorable stories about friendly, quaint towns populated by kind folks like Nathan and Reagan.

In the same way that Nathan and Reagan are besties, the residents of Rutherford Falls and the Minishonka community are neighbors co-existing while not entirely agreeing upon their supposedly shared history. 

Still, we’re primed to root for this pair despite Nathan’s public meltdowns over symbols and legends that most people don’t care about. To him ancestry, story and legacy is everything. Reagan feels the same way about her culture, and each passionately supports the other’s efforts to preserve and celebrate origins of their Northeastern burg. 

While the intersection of those histories is obvious, Nathan promotes primacy of Rutherfords over that of the Minishonka. Reagan seems to accept this, albeit tacitly; if that weren’t the case, she’d be more insistent that her people’s ancestors be featured more prominently in the Rutherford Falls Heritage Museum, where they’re bit players in a “historically accurate” diorama, while a statue of Nathan’s ancestor Lawrence Rutherford, also known as Big Larry, sits dead center in town. Specifically, it’s parked the middle of a busy street, where cars have plowed into it. 

Why not move Big Larry? Because it’s just always been there, a local cop explains. Later, when a Native American kid asks why the townsfolk who commissioned Rutherford’s statue didn’t make one for a Minishonka elder, Nathan weakly says, “Bronze was very expensive at the time, so . . . they really only had a budget for the one.”

Helms is listed as a co-creator on “Rutherford Falls” along with Michael Schur and Sierra Teller Ornelas, the latter who previously worked with Schur on “Brooklyn Nine-Nine.” That said, people familiar with Schur’s catalogue (he’s the guy behind “The Good Place” and “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” where Ornelas, a Navajo and Mexican American writer, served as producer) can make a few educated guesses about the structure and tone “Rutherford Falls” adopts. 

Schur’s sitcoms are episodic plays about the inherent decency of regular folks, and his ensembles are culturally diverse quilts of disparate personalities who treat each other with mutual respect and appreciation of their differences.  Applying that framework to a tale of cultural reckoning on a microcosmic scale, and featuring a culture that is rarely rendered with complete complexity on TV, is a smart flip made distinctly effective because of Ornelas’ handiwork. 

Her fingerprints are clearly visible — highlighted, certainly, by the work of the five other Native American writers on the show — in the complexity written into all of these characters. Through each of them “Rutherford Falls” mounts a substantial argument about privilege and whitewashed history obviously evinced by Helms’ Nathan.

Parks and Recreation” heroine Leslie Knope makes plenty of mistakes along her journey but there’s never any question that her heart is in the right place. Helms’ Nathan probably sees himself in the same way, but he loses his cool in very distinct and terrible ways at various points to plant seeds of doubt in the audience’s estimation.

But we’re also invited to do the same with Schmieding’s sunny, capable Reagan, whom the actor naturally realizes as a lovely being who means well but has distanced herself from the community that raised her. In an ordinary feel-good show the writers would take great efforts to make Reagan’s virtuousness unassailable. Here it’s apparent that her neighbors can’t stand her — not because of her aspirations or educational achievement but due to a very solid reason she chooses to sidestep rather than mend. 

This also gives Reagan a point of commiseration with her buddy Nathan, whose family has moved on and away from town while he stubbornly refuses to let go. When the mayor (Dana L. Wilson) proposes moving Big Larry, Nathan takes this as an affront to his personal history. He’d rather keep a dangerous hazard right where it is, since moving it disturbs the point around which his precious family’s myth is built.

That Helms capitalizes on his own image as a nice, well-meaning white guy to show us how and why being nice and well-meaning isn’t a sufficient reason to keep doing the wrong thing only underlines that point. 

Set against all of this is Terry, and admirably the writers don’t seem keen to ripen him for a clowning in the season finale or grant him the sort of victory for the heroes to overcome in a subsequent season. In fact, Terry receives an entire episode named after him designed to take the audience into a formative moment in his past and to see the world from his perspective. 

Doing this not only fills in the blanks of who he is, it reveals Terry as an exemplar of the American bootstrapping myth who learns how the game is played – by being cheated. As a father, he can give his family the big house he didn’t get, attend his son’s lacrosse games and support his daughter’s artistic genius. As a Native American man with power, he’s in a position to improve his nation’s fortunes, and if doing so comes at the expense of Nathan and the Rutherford story, so be it. At work he’s tough and unrelenting. In his off hours he makes an effort to ensure his children feel cared for and respected.

Helms may be the name brand star luring people in to watch this show, but casting him as the willful foil to someone like Terry, thereby bringing more attention to the stellar and deserving Greyeyes, is a masterful move.

“Rutherford Falls” may not be the funniest comedy on TV, but it uses its sweetness to draw us into necessary conversations about how we might better and more honestly Iive together. Instead of wrecking ourselves against our history’s ugly parts and pretending that’s just the way it is, it posits that confronting the past is a better way forward. Brightly it reminds us that problematic statues aren’t the real problem; it’s everything propping them up, including our insistence upon being seen as good instead of doing what’s right.

All episodes of “Rutherford Falls” will be available to stream Thursday, April 22 on Peacock.

Publisher pauses new Philip Roth biography as author, Blake Bailey, is accused of rape and grooming

On Wednesday, W.W. Norton & Company announced that it had temporarily halted the shipping and promotion of a new, best-selling Philip Roth biography as its author, Blake Bailey, faces multiple allegations of sexual harassment and abuse from women, some of whom were once his middle and high school students. 

“These allegations are serious,” the publishing house told the Associated Press. “In light of them, we have decided to pause the shipping and promotion of ‘Philip Roth: The Biography’ pending any further information that may emerge.” 

A day later, Bailey’s U.K. publisher, Vintage, which is part of Penguin Random House, confirmed that it would continue to publish the book for now, though, as they told the Guardian, they are “assessing the situation closely.” 

“These are extremely serious and concerning allegations made against Blake Bailey,” they said. “At this stage, they are allegations, and we continue to publish ‘Philip Roth: The Biography.'” 

In the 1990s, Bailey — who has since enjoyed success as a celebrated biographer — taught 8th grade English at New Orleans’ Lusher Middle School. As The Times-Picayune | New Orleans Advocate reported on Tuesday, three of his former students described sexual encounters with him in interviews, “with one accusing him of rape, after he spent years staying in contact with them under the guise of mentorship. A fourth said she fled from a bar meet-up during her freshman year in college when he slid his hand up her thigh following a series of suggestive remarks.” 

In a letter quoted by the LA Times, one of his former students, Eve Crawford Payton accused Bailey of raping her when she was 22.

“These stories have been whispered about for decades or shared over a glass of wine by former students, who all thought they were the only ones,” she wrote. “His behavior was something of an open secret, and it absolutely followed a pattern and was textbook grooming, but no one ever said anything.”

She continued: “To be fair, he never did anything then, not in 8th grade. But he laid the groundwork. With dirty jokes, sly comments, hugs that went on slightly too long, encouraging us to share our personal lives once we moved on to high school (‘Write to me about your latest slap-and-tickle’).”

As the Times Picayune reported, Bailey’s attorney said that “Mr. Bailey has never acted inappropriately with any student and has never received any complaints about his time at Lusher more than 20 years ago” — which the school confirmed. Bailey had at one point also responded to an email sent by Peyton, saying that he had never acted inappropriately with any of his students. 

“For what it’s worth, you weren’t in 8th grade when the night in question occurred,” he wrote. “You were in your 20s and I was in my 30s (just), and for the record I wasn’t attracted to you when you were in 8th grade and have never laid a glove on any student, while she was my student, including college and grad school students.” 

The email also claimed that he was suffering from an unspecified mental illness at the time of the encounter. 

Years later, in 2015, Valentina Rice, a publishing executive, alleges she was raped by Bailey while both stayed overnight at the New Jersey home of The New York Times book critic Dwight Garner.  

Rice opted not to report the assault to authorities. Three years later, however, she used a pseudonym to email Julia A. Reidhead, the president of Norton, accusing Bailey of nonconsensual sex. Reidhead did not reply, but a week later, Rice received an email from Bailey who said the publisher had forwarded her note . . . to him. 

“I can assure you I have never had non-consensual sex of any kind, with anybody, ever, and if it comes to a point I shall vigorously defend my reputation and livelihood,” Bailey wrote. “Meanwhile, I appeal to your decency: I have a wife and young daughter who adore and depend on me, and such a rumor, even untrue, would destroy them.”

A Norton spokesperson told the New York Times that they were aware of the allegation and took it “very seriously.”

“We did take steps, including asking Mr. Bailey about the allegations, which he categorically denied, and we were mindful of the sender’s request for a guarantee of anonymity,” she said. 

In the last two decades, Bailey had emerged as a renowned biographer, having written books about John Cheever, Richard Yates and Charles Jackson, among others. In 2012, Bailey approached Roth after learning the novelist had parted ways with his earlier chosen biographer. According to the New York Times, Bailey convinced Roth to give him the job because he would not have “too prim or judgmental of a view of a man who had this florid love life.”

The Times, in turn, describes the 900-page book as “a sprawling apologia for Roth’s treatment of women, on and off the page, and a minutely detailed account of his victimization at the hands of his two wives.” 

It was Bailey’s cavalier treatment of Roth’s misogyny that initially prompted some of the accusations against Bailey, some of which originally appeared in the comments section of a blog hosted by Ed Champion. After more reports of his misconduct came to light, Bailey’s literary agency, Story Factory, terminated its relationship with him “immediately after we learned of the disturbing allegations.” 

Bailey’s book, which was released in April, had largely been met with favorable reviews by critics and had landed on the New York Times bestseller list earlier this week. 

Uncovering the “Secrets of the Whales,” from beluga baby names to fascinating seafood preferences

National Geographic explorer and photographer Brian Skerry knows a thing or two about capturing wildlife in their natural habitats since he’s been doing it for over two decades. After three years of filming orcas, belugas, dolphins and other whales in 24 locations, Skerry and his team have created a beautiful new four-part docuseries called “Secrets of the Whales.” 

He stopped by “Salon Talks” recently to discuss his experience and what he learned, such as how beluga whales use language.

“The science has been published recently, that shows that they are giving their calves names, but only after they begin to speak beluga-speak, that they’ve learned the dialects,” Skerry said.  “In the beginning, they just take on the name of the mother, or they are given that when they’re speaking gibberish. But when they actually start forming beluga-speak, then they get their own names.”

Raised in Massachusetts, Skerry says he didn’t live on the ocean, but his parents would take him to Cape Cod, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island beaches in the summertime. He remembered “coming home at the end of the day, being sort of all sunburned and salty and having this mix of emotions. On one end, I was at peace. It was very therapeutic and I was calm. But, on another part of my brain, I guess, I was fascinated.” 

That fascination later turned into a successful career as a nature photographer, starting from his roots in a working class town with no connections to get him started in his chosen career. Skerry went to college for photography and filmmaking, hoping he could apply what he learned to taking photos in the ocean world.  Years later, after he came up with the concept for “Secrets of the Whales,” he joined up with Academy Award-winning filmmaker and conservationist James Cameron, whom Skerry had known through other National Geographic projects.

“This was a unique opportunity where he could bring his unique set of skills to a project like this,” said Skerry of Cameron. “He is this master storyteller. He creates stories from the ground up, fictional worlds, and then designs the equipment necessary to film them in 3-D. But he’s also a pioneering ocean explorer who designs and builds his own submarines and understands the science.”

Watch the “Salon Talks” interview with Skerry here or read the transcript below.

This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Tell me about the first time years ago that you ever had an opportunity to interact with whales.

The very first time that I ever encountered a whale underwater was an entangled humpback whale calf in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts. So I grew up in Massachusetts and back in those days, I was in my beginnings of underwater photography and diving. And this was about 1985 and I was out on a boat diving a shipwreck in Cape Cod Bay, came up from the dive still in my dry suit, and we heard on the marine radio, a lobsterman calling the Coast Guard. And he said he had a whale entangled in his trawl line. Now a trawl line of course, is a very, very long line that connects multiple lobster traps on the bottom. And evidently a whale had become entangled, which happens quite frequently.

So he was leaving. He said, there’s nothing I can do. He gave out the position and we noted that position and we took the boat, went over there, didn’t see anything on the surface at first. But lo and behold, this little humpback whale calf, little, maybe 20 feet or longer came up next to our boat sort of off the port side. So still wearing my big blue dry suit, I grabbed a knife, a buck knife that I used to carry around, and I jumped in the water. And stupidly, I mean, in hindsight, it was very dangerous what I was doing, trying to disentangle a whale, being inexperienced and doing that in the water. It was almost suicide.

But I went over and within about an hour, I was able to disentangle that whale. And it was, at the very end, the last piece of line was sort of cut into the whale’s mouth and it was bleeding. And I sort of held it with two hands and steadily pulled it out. And that whale had, by that time, settled down and was looking at me with its big eye. It clearly knew I was there to help it. And then it paused for a few moments and then it just gently swam away, and I’ll never forget it. It was a very life-changing sort of moment. And I spent the rest of my life figuring out ways to spend time with these animals.

What led you in to become a nature photographer and a photographer in general?

Well, I guess my story is that I fell in love with the sea as a child. Growing up in Massachusetts, I didn’t live on the ocean, but my parents would take me to the beaches in the summertime of Cape Cod and New Hampshire and Rhode Island. And I have this memory of coming home at the end of the day, being sort of all sunburned and salty and having this mix of emotions. On one end, I was at peace. It was very therapeutic, and I was calm. But on another part of my brain, I guess, I was fascinated. And I saw this place as a realm that I wanted to explore, what was lying beneath those dark waves out there on the ocean. And I was watching Cousteau documentaries, reading National Geographic as a kid, the magazine.

So in the beginning, I just wanted to be an ocean explorer. I was about 15 years old when I started scuba diving. And that’s all I really thought I wanted to do. But maybe a year or two after that, I attended a dive show, the oldest, longest running dive show in the world in Boston called the Boston Sea Rovers show. And as a teenager sitting in the audience, I was watching these underwater photographers and filmmakers present their work. And I often describe it as an epiphany where a light went on and said, “That’s how I want to explore the ocean, with a camera.”

Now it was a very lofty dream and I came from this little working class town in Massachusetts. I didn’t know anybody in the photo biz or wildlife biz or any of that stuff. So I ultimately chipped away at it and went to college and studied photography, filmmaking with the idea of applying what I learned to the ocean world. So that was how it started. It was a long journey to get that first assignment for National Geographic, which came in 1998, but there was no looking back.

Obviously you’ve had a tremendous amount of success by now, but then you get to work with James Cameron. How did you connect with him to make this series?

When I created “Secrets of the Whales,” the concept, it started as an idea that came about in my mind after 10 years. I had done a story about the most endangered whale in the world back in 2008, the North Atlantic right whale and compared and contrasted them with their Southern cousins. And I was totally enamored. I wanted to do a multi-species whale story, but over that decade, between that and “Secrets of the Whales,” the challenge was to find the narrative. So I ended up doing a cover story in 2015 for National Geographic about dolphin intelligence and was looking at some of the ways researchers know dolphins to be smart. I was looking at it very scientifically, very clinically, not realizing in reality that what I was looking at was indeed culture, whale culture.

So by the time that story was done, I started talking to whale researchers who were talking about whale culture, my friend, Shane Gero, who studied sperm whales, and talked to me about this notion of culture, how genetically identical animals in the whale world are doing things differently, depending on where in the world they lived, like humans.

So I proposed the story to the magazine at first. Then when it got approved, I knew the scale and scope of what I wanted to do was much grander. I went to the National Geographic Society and wrote a proposal for a multi-year project, studying whale culture and documenting it. Then I went to TV when that was approved and asked if we might be interested in doing a documentary. And I was talking to one of the executives, Janet Han Vissering, who said, “No, no, this is more than one. It should be a four-part series.” And we sort of developed that. They brought in Red Rock films, a production company that I worked with. And then because National Geographic has James Cameron among their stable of explorers, one of their ocean explorers, he got wind of this project. And I think became naturally interested. I had known James from previous years, but this was a unique opportunity where he could bring his unique set of skills to a project like this. He is this master storyteller. He creates stories from the ground up, fictional worlds, and then designs the equipment necessary to film them in 3D.

But he’s also a pioneering ocean explorer who designs and builds his own submarines and understands the science. So to have him at the helm, as you described at this executive producer level, to be able to shape the narrative, to be able to understand the science, the storytelling, was an amazing opportunity. So it was a wonderful opportunity where he could be looking at the footage and weighing in on a periodic basis and shaping the overall dimensions of what we were trying to do.

While filming, I understand you and your crew discovered some new things about whale behavior and society like that belugas give themselves names so groups can keep track of each other?

Yeah, that’s right. I think it’s important to recognize that what I do, what we’re trying to do, of course is give visual context to the researchers’ science. This is fundamentally rooted in science. We’re not just going off on some airy-fairy, mystical journey here, that what we’re trying to do is the latest and greatest science that’s revealing these human-like traits among these charismatic ocean animals. So the research that I did, that we did before ever going in the field, creates sort of a shot list. We’re hoping to achieve certain things. We’re giving that visual representation to the science of culture. How are we going to show that? The fact that animals do things differently. They have a preference for ethnic foods. In New Zealand, the orcas like stingrays and in the Norwegian Arctic, they like herring.

The beluga, the science has been published recently, that shows that they are giving their calves names, but only after they begin to speak beluga-speak, that they’ve learned the dialects. In the beginning, they just take on the name of the mother, or they are given that when they’re speaking gibberish. But when they actually start forming beluga-speak, then they get their own names. And that these animals have song. Humpback whales create these complex songs and it’s been described as the horizontal transmission of culture.

So all of those things are very, very important. And then we’re going out into the field and trying to find it. It takes a lot of luck. You do as much as you can. The Venn diagram of whale or dolphin photography, as you can appreciate, is a bunch of circles that end up with a little bullseye in the middle. And if all goes well, yeah, that tiny little pinprick in the middle of it is where it’s all happening. So it takes time. It takes talented crews and people to do this, but at the end of the day, we achieved everything that we hoped we would achieve and much more. We had those rarefied moments where things happen that you would never be so bold as to put on a shot list.

What are some things that we can learn from these deeply sentient beings and their very real societies? Do you think that might help us evolve more as humans?

I think as I’ve sort of processed my hamster wheel of three years of just being out there, one location after another, especially during the pandemic where I came home from Hawaii almost exactly a year ago, working on a project there. And I haven’t been to an airport since. So in the year since, I’ve spent a lot of time with my own family, and I think what I’ve learned from those three years with the whales was what I already knew, but maybe put in the back burner a little bit. And that is that family is so important, that our social bonds are so important.

I’m giving a commencement speech in a couple of days for a university in Massachusetts. And one of the themes is that we do need these connections, that we are social creatures. And I give the analogy of sperm whales, which are these larger than life animals. Melville portrayed them as leviathans, smashing ships and killing people. But we know today that they are the biggest-brained animal on the planet, that they have these rich societies, that they have these social bonds, but life in the ocean is difficult. They spend most of their lives in the deep ocean foraging for squid and they come up and they breathe for a few minutes and then they go back down.

But what I’ve learned is that every day, or every few days, these whale families come together and socialize. They spend time up on the surface, just rolling around, gently biting each other. When I was allowed into their world to see that, I would see them close their eyes. They’re in pure joy, pure bliss. And I think that we can see a mirror reflection of our own lives. Life is difficult. Life is busy. We’re running around. We’re doing a lot of things, but let’s not forget to take that time every day or every so often to call a friend or have a coffee with a friend or call a grandparent or just bond. We are social creatures as well. And so I think what the whales taught me was that social bonds are important. Find time to play games, to socialize, to do things in the middle of our busy lives, because it is those little moments that make life rich. And there are the big things that happen in our lives, but at the end of the day, it’s those little things that do become the big things.

“Secrets of the Whales,” narrated by Sigourney Weaver, begins streaming on Thursday, April 22 on Disney+.

Republican Josh Hawley only senator to vote against anti-Asian hate crime bill

Even as studies have shown a troubling link between Donald Trump’s early COVID-19 tweets and increased anti-Asian hashtags on social media and more Asian Americans have shifted to favoring the Democratic Party over the past year, as even some Republicans in Congress admit a rising tide of anti-Asian hate amongst their ranks, one Republican decided to stand as the lone Senate vote against a new aimed at investigating coronavirus-related hate crimes. 

The vote for Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, legislation was 94-1, with Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley as the Senate’s lone vote against the bill on Thursday. 

“I’m just concerned the bill is hugely broad, hugely open-ended. Mandates all this data collection in expansive categories that the federal government will collect and maintain. That concerns me,” Hawley told reporters last week. “It just you know the ability and power to define crimes, to define incidents going forward, and collect all that data, it just seemed hugely, hugely over broad,” he said.

In late March, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered a review of how the Justice Department can best deploy its resources to combat hate crimes against Asian-Americans. Hirono’s bill beefs up state and local resources to fight anti-Asian hate crimes. It now heads to the Democrat-led House, where it’s expected to pass.  

In a recent CNN interview, Reps. Michelle Steel, R-Calif., and Kim Young, R-Calif., opened up about their personal experiences with racism and called out the rising tide of anti-Asian hate amid the pandemic. 

Last week, the two California Republicans, both among the first Korean American women to ever join Congress, spoke as witnesses during a House Judiciary Committee hearing intended to bring anti-Asian discrimination into the national conversation following the recent mass killing of six Asian Americans in Atlanta.

“This should not have to be said, but I want to be very clear,” Kim testified. “No American of any race or ethnic group is responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic. The virus does not discriminate, it affects everyone.”

“Combating hate is not a partisan issue,” Steel added. “We can all agree that violence against any community should never be tolerated.”

During the interview, Steel detailed specific incidents of racism she’d been subject to during her time in the legislature. “The worst one was ‘we don’t eat dogs like you do,'” recalled Steel. She also recounted an incident in which she was called a “racist b**ch,” as well as “Chairman Mao.”

“You just ignore it,” Steel added. “You do the better job. You have more enemies out there. Especially if these people are not really enemies, but they try to find somebody that they can blame.”

Asked about the hateful rhetoric spewed by Trump, whose impeachment she did not support, Kim said she took offense. Trump’s denotation of the Covid virus as the “Kung Flu” was “a very insensitive remark,” she told CNN. 

“To bring all these hateful comments and attack and call out the Asian American community as the community that is responsible for what we’re facing right now, especially through the pandemic,” Kim explained, “This is completely wrong, insensitive.”

“The words of the leaders have consequences,” she continued, “They need to be careful about what they say because people really take that to heart.”

“People cannot work, and they cannot put food on the table for their families,” Steel echoed. “They have to do something about it and then we are the victim. Asian Americans just became the victim. We really have to change that.”

According to stop AAPI Hate –– a group formed to track the uptick of anti-Asian violence during the pandemic –– there have been 3,795 first-hand reported incidents of anti-Asian hate throughout the nation, 68 percent of which included which reported by women. The reports reflect a marked increase from last year’s total, which stood at 2,600. Nearly 45 percent of the reports occurred in California, the two Representatives’ home state.  

Fox News host: People who protest the police should be banned from ever calling 9-11

On Thursday morning, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade declared that demonstrations advocating for the defunding of police should be barred for life from utilizing emergency services, particularly from calling 911.

 The remarks from the Fox News host come on the heels of the recent deadly police shootings that took the lives of Daunte Wright and Ma’Khia Bryant, giving rise to conversations about policing in America. “In Minnesota, protesters were yelling at police ‘get the blank out’ and in New York at that local restaurant, ‘we don’t want you here,'” fellow Fox & Friends host Ainsley Earhardt began the segment while listing off incidents where protesters have pushed back, in a sometimes violent manner, against the status quo of policing in America. 

Kilmeade then called for those who seek to defund the system to no longer use emergency services. 

“Good. Do you know what? You should be barred from anyone who says that – you are no longer allowed to use 911,” Kilmeade declared. “Let’s just hope, in your life; you never need a police officer.” As for the way one would enforce such as policy, that remains unknown and most likely not thought all the way through by Kilmeade.

After Kilmeade’s policy proposal, of sorts, fellow Fox News host, Pete Hegseth, responded, stating, “All that’s gonna mean is less cops and more crime. The equation is quite, quite simple. Maybe that’s what they want.” 

In light of the traffic death of two unarmed Black people at the hands of police, both George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, over the past year, the nation has revised not only the role of police in American society but moreover seek to create positive change by ushering in overdue criminal justice and policing system-wide reforms. 

Why this trial was different: Experts explain what guilty verdict for Derek Chauvin means for police

Scholars analyze the guilty verdicts handed down to former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the 2020 murder of George Floyd. Outside the courthouse, crowds cheered and church bells sounded – a collective release in a city scarred by police killings. Minnesota’s attorney general, whose office led the prosecution, said he would not call the verdict “justice, however” because “justice implies restoration” – but he would call it “accountability.”

Race was not an issue in trial

Alexis Karteron, Rutgers University – Newark

Derek Chauvin’s criminal trial is over, but the work to ensure that no one endures a tragic death like George Floyd’s is just getting started.

It is fair to say that race was on the minds of millions of protesters who took to the streets last year to express their outrage and pain in response to the killing. Many felt it was impossible for someone who wasn’t Black to imagine Chauvin’s brutal treatment of George Floyd.

But race went practically unmentioned during the Chauvin trial.

This should not be surprising, because the criminal legal system writes race out at virtually every turn. When I led a lawsuit as a civil rights attorney challenging the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program as racist, the department’s primary defense was that it complied with Fourth Amendment standards, under which police officers need only “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity to stop someone. Presence in what police say is a “high-crime area” is relevant to developing reasonable suspicion, as is a would-be subject taking flight when being approached by a police officer. But the correlation with race, for a host of reasons, is obvious to any keen observer.

American policing’s most pressing problems are racial ones. For some, the evolution of slave patrols into police forces and the failure of decadeslong reform efforts are proof that American policing is irredeemable and must be defunded. For others, changes to use-of-force policies and improved accountability measures, like those in the proposed George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, are enough.

Different communities across the country will follow different paths in their efforts to prevent another tragic death like George Floyd’s. Some will do nothing at all. But progress will be made only when America as a whole gets real about the role of race – something the legal system routinely fails to do.

Derek Chauvin had his knee on George Floyd for 9 minutes, 29 seconds.

Why this trial was different

Ric Simmons, The Ohio State University

The guilty verdicts in the Chauvin trial are extraordinary, if unsurprising, because past incidents of police lethal use of force against unarmed civilians, particularly Black civilians, have generally not resulted in criminal convictions.

In many cases, the prosecuting office has been reluctant or halfhearted in pursuing the case. Prosecutors and police officers work together daily; that can make prosecutors sympathetic to the work of law enforcement. In the Chauvin case, the attorney general’s office invested an overwhelming amount of resources in preparing for and conducting the trial, bringing in two outside lawyers, including a prominent civil rights attorney, to assist its many state prosecutors.

Usually, too, a police officer defendant can count on the support of other police officers to testify on his behalf and explain why his or her actions were justified. Not in this case. Every police officer witness testified for the prosecution against Chauvin.

Finally, convictions after police killings are rare because, evidence shows, jurors are historically reluctant to substitute their own judgment for the split-second decisions made by trained officers when their lives may be on the line. Despite the past year’s protests decrying police violence, U.S. support for law enforcement remains very high: A recent poll showed that only 18% of Americans support the “defund the police” movement.

But Chauvin had no feasible argument that he feared for his life or made an instinctive response to a threat. George Floyd did nothing to justify the defendant’s brutal actions, and the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecutors convinced 12 jurors of that fact.

The “thin blue line” kills

Jeannine Bell, Indiana University

Like other high-profile police killings of African Americans, the murder of George Floyd revealed a lot about police culture – and how it makes interactions with communities of color fraught.

Derek Chauvin used prohibited tactics – keeping his knee on Floyd’s neck when he had already been subdued – to suffocate a man, an act the jury recognized as murder. Three fellow Minneapolis Police Department officers watched as Chauvin killed Floyd. Rather than intervene themselves, they helped him resist the intervention of upset bystanders and a medical professional. They have been charged with aiding and abetting a murder.

The police brotherhood – that intense and protective “thin blue line” – enabled a public murder. Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, unusually, broke this code of silence when he testified against Chauvin.

Research shows that even if officers see a fellow officer mistreating a suspect and want to intervene, they need training to teach them how to do so effectively. The city of New Orleans is now training officers to intervene. Once training is in place, police departments could also make intervention in such situations mandatory.

When some officers stand by as other officers ignore their training, the consequences can be dangerous – and potentially lethal – for civilians.

Minnesota faces its racism

Rashad Shabazz, Arizona State University

This verdict reflects a little-known truth about Minneapolis: As the city and metro region have become Blacker and more diverse, police violence against Black people has intensified. This is not to suggest that things have always been good for Black Minneapolis residents. Indeed, Minneapolis’ Black population – a group without political power or visibility – has faced segregation, police violence and Northern Jim Crow policies in its downtown music venues for decades.

White Minnesotans and Minneapolitans developed a false belief that somehow they were above racism; that their form of neighborliness known as “Minnesota nice” was an antidote to anti-Blackness and that – most of all – race didn’t matter in a place as nice as Minnesota.

That false assumption was easy to believe when the Black population was small, contained and largely out of sight. But Black Minneapolis’ population growth in recent decades, and the torrent of police violence that has followed, proved otherwise.

The murder of George Floyd last year and Daunte Wright’s killing in a nearby community last week demonstrate that despite the state’s liberal posture and Lutheran ethic, institutional anti-Black racism is as Minnesotan as ice fishing, untaxed groceries and “ya, sure, youbetcha” memes.

Alexis Karteron, Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University – Newark ; Jeannine Bell, Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University; Rashad Shabazz, Associate Professor at the School of Social Transformation, Arizona State University, and Ric Simmons, Professor of Law, The Ohio State University

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

Tucker Carlson’s immigration bait-and-switch betrays his desperation

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is really determined to sell his audience on what is — and this cannot be stressed enough — a literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theory. Neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups have long pushed the idea that a shadowy cabal of Jews is secretly conspiring to “remake” America and “steal” it from its rightful owners, white Christians. They are supposedly doing this by “importing” non-white people — who neo-Nazis believe to be mentally inferior and therefore easily controlled by the shadowy Jewish conspiracy — into the U.S. 

Carlson’s only spin is replacing the word “Jews” with “Democrats,” but other than that, he’s lifting “replacement theory” wholesale from the neo-Nazi dregs of the internet and now is repackaging this ridiculous conspiracy theory as if it were an inarguable fact, much to the delight of white nationalists. And because Carlson’s main modus operandi is trolling, he’s relishing the negative attention he gets by hyping a racist conspiracy theory and he’s using his audience’s love of liberal-triggering to encourage them to mindlessly burrow deeper into the worldview of unapologetic fascists. 


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


Carlson is a moral monster. It’s likely he has been this way since his high school “Dan White Society” days. Sadly, he is a monster that must be dealt with, despite the unfortunate risk of troll-feeding. It’s not just because Carlson has an audience that regularly tops 3 million viewers, though that alone is terrifying. It’s that he is a smart man whose strategy for selling this conspiracy theory is sinister and clever. To fight back, it’s crucial that progressives don’t fall into the trap he is setting. 

Basically, Carlson is pulling off two bait-and-switch routines. First, he falsely conflates any cultural change with his ridiculous “replacement” conspiracy theory. Second, he tries to paint the debate as one over whether change is real — something that literally no one contests — so as to avoid talking about the real issue, which is how it’s nuclear-level racist to react to cultural change like it’s some kind of existential threat. In reality, it’s just what happens if you’re lucky to live long enough to experience it. 

Both tactics were on full display on Wednesday night, when Carlson took a break from trying to martyrize Derek Chauvin to once again promote “replacement theory” by bashing Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., who was born in Taiwan but grew up in Ohio. Lieu was angry at Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., for parroting the “replacement theory,” and retorted on Twitter. “And with every passing year, there will be more people who look like me in the US. You can’t stop it. So take your racist replacement theory and shove it.”

Carlson treated this tweet like it was some inadvertent confession that “replacement” conspiracy theory is real. 

“In other words, you’re being replaced, and there’s nothing you can do about it, so shut up,” he shouted with what can only be described as a maniacal laugh. 

Here’s the thing, though: Lieu didn’t give any game away. Liberals have never denied that immigration changes society. Of course it does, along with generational shifts, changing fashions, and evolving social norms. When I was young, people wore low-rise jeans and MTV still played music videos. Now it’s skinny jeans (though apparently not for long) and TikTok. Change is inevitable, and generally good, as anyone who has a memory of hair-destroying styling products in the bad old days can attest. 

What makes “replacement” a conspiracy theory, however, is that it invents this elaborate fantasy ascribing change not to the normal churn of human society, but to a sinister and hidden conspiracy of Jews and Democrats who are secretly inflicting change to pull off some grand scheme. 


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


That is, of course dumb. It’s like “neo-Nazi message board” levels of dumb. Carlson deflects attention from that by pretending that we’re debating the factual assertion “change is real,” and lashing out at straw-liberals who, though only in his imagination, are pretending it’s not. 

More importantly, Carlson is propping up this fake debate so that he can smuggle in his real argument, which is that change is bad.

Carlson’s whole gambit depends on the presumption that change is a terrible thing. But that belief is both delusional and, on the subject of immigration, racist. As Adam Serwer of The Atlantic recently wrote, the same kinds of arguments were made “at the turn of the 20th century” to argue that “Polish, Russian, Greek, Italian, and Jewish” immigrants “posed a danger.” Carlson’s hysterics make about as much sense as some man in the 1920s arguing that the bagel is the downfall of American civilization. 

Lieu’s point actual point was, of course, that people like him are a valuable addition to the American community, and we should welcome the changes immigration brings. Carlson knows that he can’t win that argument, especially when reminded of how idiotic such arguments from the past look to modern eyes. As Sewer notes, the Tucker Carlsons of the 1930s were so racist and paranoid that even Nazis rejected some of their ideas as “a bit too strict.” So instead, Carlson raves about secret conspiracies and pretends that liberals are hiding something. It’s pure projection, of course. The only people hiding anything are Carlson and his allies, who are hiding their true motivation: naked racism. 

The “replacement” and “change” language feeds on the very human fear of mortality that is especially powerful with the largely elderly Fox News audience. As Heather “Digby” Parton wrote last week for Salon, “The fact is that we are all going to be ‘replaced’ by the generations that come up behind us.” Change is often terrifying because it’s a reminder that time is passing by and that the grave awaits us all. For many people, it’s easier to let this sour-faced, middle-aged prep school brat lash out at immigrants than grapple with their fears of change and death. Carlson is a cynical demagogue, no doubt, and that’s why he’s a dangerous one. 

Olympics athletes will now be banned from protest in Tokyo

Athletes who take a knee or raise a fist in protest of racial inequality will be punished in accordance with the new rules of the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo, which bar athletes from engaging in any kind of “demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda.”

According to CBS Sports, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Athletes’ Commission chief Kirsty Coventry recently reviewed the restriction (Rule 50), which was approved, along with a series of recommendations, by the IOC’s board on Wednesday. “I would not want something to distract from my competition and take away from that,” Coventry said in a virtual presentation. “That is how I still feel today.” 

In addition to addressing Rule 50, the board’s recommendations tackled the issue of international sanctions, added a spirit of inclusivity to the Olympic Oath, and made sure that athletes’ attire also reflected a great sense of inclusion as well. 

Coventry told Reuters that a majority of athletes agree with Rule 50. “That is what they are requesting for,” she said. The recommendations reportedly came out of an almost year-long period of deliberation with 3,500 different athletes dating back to June of last year. According to Coventry, about 70 percent of athletes did not want to engage in any kind of racial justice demonstrations during the event. “A very clear majority of athletes” think that it is “not appropriate to demonstrate or express their views on the field of play, at the official ceremonies, or on the podium, and so our recommendation is to preserve (those places) from any kind of protests and demonstrations or acts perceived as such,” Coventry said about the survey’s findings.

The decision marks a relatively conclusive end to a long-brewing internal spat between members of the IOC on the subject of political demonstrations.

Back in December, World Athletics President Sebastian Coe and President of the International Olympic Committee Thomas Bach hit an impasse over what should be defined as “political and religious marketing,” displays which are expressly barred in Article 1.3.5 of the World Athletics marketing and advertising rules.After Coe lauded the “bravery, dignity and morality” of three Black athletes who raised black-gloved fists into the air in protest of racial inequality during the 1968 Olympic games in Mexico City, Bach argued that Coe’s support of the display contravened Article 1.3.5 of the World Athletics’ rules. World Athletics responded that it does “not believe gestures against racism can be defined as political or religious marketing.”

“Rule 1.3.5 of our marketing and advertising rules relates specifically to marketing and advertising displays,” a World Athletics spokesperson explained. “There is nothing in these rules or the World Athletics integrity Code of Conduct to prevent athletes from protesting as long as it is done in a respectful manner, considers other athletes, and does not damage our sport.” 

As tensions run especially high amid a worldwide push for racial justice, other organizations like Fifa have supported “common sense” rules surrounding political demonstrations, a marked departure from the organization’s strict prohibition on political displays, according to Reuters. Last summer, at the height of the recent racial unrest in the U.S., Fifa expressed that it “fully understands the depth of sentiment and concerns expressed by many footballers in light of the tragic circumstances of the George Floyd case” and encouraged players to “use common sense and have in consideration the context surrounding the events.”

On Wednesday, British Olympic association appeared to uphold the IOC’s position. A representative stated: “As we have recently reiterated, we also strongly believe that sport and politics should continue to remain separate.”

Censorship or misinformation? DeSantis and YouTube spar over COVID roundtable takedown

In early April, YouTube took down a video featuring Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and a group of controversial scientists at a March 18 coronavirus roundtable. The online video platform, owned by Google, cited as its rationale that the video contained false statements about the efficacy of children’s mask-wearing.

The decision has drawn public blowback on social media and from DeSantis himself.

DeSantis held another public roundtable on April 12 (which is currently available on YouTube), along with three of the same scientists who participated in the March 18 session, during which he blasted YouTube for taking down the earlier video, calling the action “censorship.”

He said Google and YouTube have not acted as “repositories of truth and scientific inquiry” throughout the covid pandemic but instead as “enforcers of a narrative.”

“What we’re witnessing is Orwellian,” DeSantis said. ‘It’s a Big Tech corporate media collusion.”

And when polled by DeSantis during the second roundtable, the scientists defended the video, saying it should have been left up so that it could contribute to scientific debate. We checked with DeSantis’ office for more information and were referred to an April 12 press release, which summarized the events of the day’s roundtable.

In an emailed statement, a YouTube spokesperson pointed to the platform’s policies on medical misinformation about covid: “We removed this video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19. We allow videos that otherwise violate our policies to remain on the platform if they contain sufficient educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context. Our policies apply to everyone, and focus on content regardless of the speaker or channel.”

The video, though no longer on that platform, can still be viewed on The Florida Channel, a website that posts recordings of Florida governmental proceedings.

So who exactly are these scientific panelists and what was said during the roundtable? And have social media companies ramped up efforts to crack down on medical misinformation recently?

Let’s break it down.

DeSantis’ Panel Reflected Controversial Herd Immunity Movement

The scientists who spoke at DeSantis’ roundtable and gave their opinions about masks and lockdowns were Dr. Scott Atlas of Stanford University, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University.

Three of the scientists, Gupta, Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, were the primary authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a contentious document that circulated in October. In it, the scientists argued that lockdowns should end, most people should resume their daily lives and only the most vulnerable should take precautions against covid. The document asserted that members of the public who resumed normal lives would then build up their immunity to covid through exposure to natural infection.

The Great Barrington Declaration received immediate criticism from scientists, including the top U.S. health official, Dr. Anthony Fauci; World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus; and the United Kingdom’s health secretary, Matt Hancock.

Atlas was part of President Donald Trump’s White House covid team and was reported to have promoted herd immunity views to the former president. After the reports about Atlas, Trump and his press team later walked back the idea that the White House was considering any type of herd immunity strategy to combat the pandemic.

Atlas’ tenure at the White House was also dogged by other controversies, including Twitter removing one of his tweets because it contained false information about face masks, and his urging of Michigan residents to go against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s public health recommendations. Atlas stepped down from the White House team in December.

The Panel’s Factual Mistake and Why YouTube Took It Down 

During DeSantis’ almost two-hour March 18 covid roundtable, the governor and the scientists discussed a range of topics, including the efficacy of lockdowns and face masks for children.

According to YouTube, the video was removed because it violated the company’s policy on medical misinformation. YouTube says it doesn’t allow content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm, such as videos that contradict the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks.

The clips YouTube cited as violating its medical misinformation policy involved specific instances in which DeSantis and the scientists said face masks were not necessary for children — statements the platform said were contrary to recommendations from U.S. public health authorities. Here are the specific clips in the format provided by YouTube:

  • “Dr. Gupta mentioned about, you know, not putting masks on kids that’s not effective, not necessary. Uh, Martin, do you agree in school there’s no need for them to be wearing face masks?” — Gov. DeSantis
  • “Uh, children should not wear face masks, no. They don’t need it for their own protection and they don’t need it for protecting other people either.” — Kulldorff
  • “… and I think it is developmentally inappropriate and it just doesn’t help on the disease spread. I think it’s absolutely not the right thing to do. … I think [the data] is a little bit, uh, clearer because we’ve had a year of experience. If we went back a year, a lot of the experts would say that wearing masks for the general public is not evidence-based.” — Dr. Bhattacharya
  • “There’s no scientific rationale or logic to have children wear masks in schools.” — Dr. Atlas

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that children 2 years old and older wear masks. The agency also recommends that children wear masks in schools, child care settings and any environment when they are around people who don’t live in their home.

“We know children of all ages are at risk for being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and are capable of transmitting the virus. This is particularly true of older children, especially middle-school and high-school aged kids,” Josh Michaud, associate director of global health policy at KFF, wrote in an email. “We also know that masking, when employed widely and effectively, helps reduce the risk of transmission of the virus.”

Studies back this up.

The CDC published a study in February showing that different types of masks block cough particles and double-masking is the most effective at doing so. Another experiment from that study showed that a person in a mask emits fewer aerosol particles that can be passed on to an unmasked person. A multitude of reports also show, generally, that mask-wearing is effective at reducing the risk of spreading or catching other respiratory diseases.

Other studies have shown that children carry almost as much coronavirus in their upper-respiratory tract as adults, despite often having no or mild symptoms. And it is possible for children to pass the virus on to adults.

Also, multiple studies of schools that reopened in fall 2020 and had high compliance with mask-wearing have been shown to have low numbers of covid transmission. And the American Academy of Pediatrics said mask-wearing will not make it more difficult for children to breathe, nor will it interfere with a child’s lung development.

Are Tech Companies Actually Increasing Their Crackdowns?

DeSantis’ protests regarding the removal of his roundtable from YouTube echo those of Trump, who railed against tech companies and their policies during his presidency.

Trump was eventually de-platformed from other online entities such as Twitter and Facebook, among others, following the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Conservatives have since complained they’re being censored on social media platforms.

After the YouTube video removal, DeSantis used the opportunity to promote censorship bills that are moving through his state’s legislature and would prevent social media companies from blocking politicians from their platforms in Florida. (State attempts to regulate social media companies will face constitutional hurdles, including First Amendment protections, the Tampa Bay Times reported.)

Social media platforms including YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have introduced covid misinformation policies since the pandemic started, and even updated those policies in the past couple of months to take a harder line in removing posts and notifying users. However, the companies state that they aren’t targeting certain users when removing content, but rather anyone who spreads misinformation.

According to data shared by YouTube in March, the company has removed more than 800,000 videos containing coronavirus misinformation since February of last year. Facebook reported in February that the company and its sister platform, Instagram, had removed more than 1 million pieces of covid misinformation in the last three months of 2020. And last month, Twitter said it had removed more than 8,400 tweets and challenged 11.5 million accounts since the implementation of the covid guidance.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

I’m vaccinated, my kids aren’t. Will that ruin our summer plans?

Dear Pandemic Problems,

I have a six-year-old and an eight-year-old. It should come as no surprise to you that the pandemic has been hard with two kids. Not only have I had to maintain my full-time job in sales, but I spent most of last year being an unofficial teaching aide for first and third grade Zoom.

My husband is helpful, but given the flexibility of my job and its hours, I’ve taken on more responsibilities with the kids and their schooling. Fortunately, they are back in school in person, but there were definitely some days I wanted to pull my hair out. And honestly, some days I still do.

Anyway, I write to you because I’m anxious about what the summer will bring, and what it will mean for my half-vaccinated family. I’m getting my second Pfizer shot this week, and my husband is getting his next week. But when will my kids be able to get vaccinated? We’ve been invited to every summer event imaginable— weddings, reunions, and block parties. We so badly want to have a normal summer — whatever that means — with our friends and family. But it feels a bit risky with unvaccinated kids. My biggest fear is that the world will move on this summer, and parents like myself will still be stuck in our own pandemic purgatory. Any advice on how to have a fun summer — rather than another lockdown like last year?

Sincerely,

A Parent in Purgatory

Dear A Parent in Purgatory,

I can’t imagine what it’s been to be a parent during this pandemic. All I know is what I hear from friends and family, or read in stories with depressing headlines like “The Primal Scream: America’s Mothers are in Crisis.”

These headlines, this so-called “primal scream,” is your reality. Which is why I so badly want you to have a “normal” summer — like you said, “whatever that means.” I want you to be able to visit with your family, visit friends, go to a carnival, attend a birthday party at a Chuck E.  Cheese, and not have to worry about your children getting COVID-19.

But it’s looking more and more like that won’t necessarily be the case.

At the same time, I’m also hopeful it won’t be as bad as what the anxious part of your mind is conjuring.

The pandemic has certainly exposed the lie that working mothers can have a work-life “balance.” It’s also reiterated how when a country prioritizes profit and patriarchy over the needs of every community, including working parents, it’s the women who suffer the most. Fortunately, you’ve been able to keep your job, but I sense from your letter it’s been a struggle and you’re exhausted.

You ask: When will my kids be able to get vaccinated? That’s a very good question. In late March, Pfizer released results from its clinical trial for children between 12 and 15 which showed that its vaccine had 100 percent efficacy and “robust antibody responses.” Pfizer also recently requested to expand use of its adolescents within this age range, too. Both Pfizer and Moderna are conducting trials for those under the age of 12 now.

It is standard practice to test older children first, because children of different ages can have a different response to the vaccine. As a recent Nature article explained, the goal of these trials is to find a balance between the correct age and dosage of the vaccine in which a strong immune response is triggered without too many side effects. Children have different immune systems since they haven’t been exposed to as much crap as adults. So teens will likely be able to get the vaccine this fall, but for elementary school-aged children — like yours — it might not be until the beginning of 2022.

I know this is super frustrating, because it’s not like kids can’t get the coronavirus. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), K-12 aged kids account for slightly less than 10 percent of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. Fortuitously, younger children are more likely to be  asymptomatic and have less severe outcomes. Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) is also a reported condition associated with COVID-19 that has been affecting children’s health. And like many aspects of this pandemic, Black and Hispanic children carry the burden of COVID-19 cases. The CDC notes that Black children and Hispanic children are also associated with increased risks for hospitalization.

The truth is children aren’t 100 percent protected from COVID-19 — and even if all the adults are vaccinated, if there are other unvaccinated children around, there is still a risk of transmission.

I know this is disappointing, as it means that yes, your family might feel more restricted this summer. But I don’t think that you’re looking at summer full of FOMO (fear of missing out) in another parental lockdown. Epidemiologists with school-aged children recently shared with The New York Times how they plan on vacationing and actually doing things this summer which will require the same safety precautions as now: making sure that everyone in your group over 2 wears a mask, maintaining six feet from people outside your household, avoiding big crowds, and washing hands frequently. And frankly, children or no children, this is what most people will be doing this summer too. Mask mandates aren’t going anywhere — especially when it comes to public gatherings.

My advice on how to have a fun summer would be this: stay off social media, which can amplify any FOMO you might feel, and make an effort to do things you actually enjoy doing with your family. And on the hard days, remember this won’t last forever. This is one more weird-ish summer, but definitely won’t be as weird as last year. However, on days when you feel that primal scream bubbling up inside, remember you’re not alone. And to prove that, you can listen to a catalog of screams throughout the pandemic from the now defunct Just Scream hotline — which by the way is no longer taking scream calls, but instead is taking messages of hope. Indeed, though you may feel a little hopeless about this summer, know that there is hope.

Sincerely,

Pandemic Problems

“Pandemic Problems” is an advice column that answers readers’ pandemic questions — often with help from public health data, philosophy professors and therapists — who weigh in on how to “do the right thing.”  Do you have a pandemic problem? Email Nicole Karlis at nkarlis@salon.com. Peace of mind and collective commiseration awaits.


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


GOP Senator discovers Stacey Abrams did her homework on Georgia voter suppression law

During a remote hearing this week, Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana asked Georgia-based Democratic organizer Stacey Abrams to voice her objections to her state’s controversial new voter suppression law, the so-called Election Integrity Act of 2021. And her list was a long one.

Abrams told Kennedy, “It shortens the federal runoff period from nine weeks to four weeks. It restricts the time a voter can request and return an absentee voter ballot application. It requires that a voter have a photo identification or some other form of identification that they’re willing to surrender in order to participate in the absentee ballot process.”

Abrams was just getting started. When Kennedy asked Abrams what else she found objectionable about the Georgia voting law, she responded, “It eliminates over 300 hours of drop box availability…. It bans nearly all out-of-precinct votes, meaning that if you get to a precinct and you are in line for four hours and you get to the end of the line and you are not there between 6 and 7 p.m., you have to start all over again.”

When Kennedy asked Abrams if those were her only objections to the Georgia law, she responded that no, there were even more.

Abrams added, “It restricts the hours of operation…. which may have an effect on voters who cannot vote during business hours during early voting.”

Eventually, the deluge of facts was too much for Kennedy. After interrupting her multiple times, he finally just called on her to stop: “OK, I get the idea! I get the idea.”

The historic Chauvin verdict isn’t “justice” — it’s a broken system trying to save itself

On Tuesday, Derek Chauvin, a former Minneapolis police officer, was found guilty on three counts of murder and manslaughter for the killing of George Floyd. Chauvin now faces a possible sentence of up to 40 years in prison, although the final sentence will likely be much shorter.

Police are almost never found guilty of murder and other serious crimes — and this is especially true when the victims are Black or brown and the police are white.

The United States and the world held their collective breath in anticipation of the verdict. If Chauvin had not been convicted, would we have seen another summer of uprisings and people’s resistance as occurred last year in the immediate aftermath of Floyd’s murder?

As he listened to the verdict, Derek Chauvin appeared stunned. He was socialized into believing that as a white police officer — and white man in America — he is above the law. The verdict was an existential injury to his personhood and social status as a white man. The predictably enraged responses by the white right shows that Chauvin’s narcissistic injury in that moment was widely shared by many of those invested in a particular type of whiteness and white masculinity.

During that moment when Chauvin heard the verdict, the psychological wages of whiteness offered insufficient compensation for him and the white right. Yet white privilege always finds a way to endure: Chauvin will still receive a police pension potentially worth more than $1 million. He has also received substantial sums of money from online fundraisers.

There was cheering in the streets of Minnesota and other parts of the country by Black and brown folks, and a good number of white folks as well, in response to the fact that George Floyd’s killer had been convicted of his obvious crimes. Many of Floyd’s friends, family members and others in the Minneapolis community where he lived and was murdered cried and were otherwise overwhelmed with emotion.

Ultimately, for Americans of conscience there was a sense of relief and exhalation at the verdict.

In all, Derek Chauvin’s conviction for murdering George Floyd was just. But that is not the same as saying that justice for George Floyd was done. Such an outcome would require systematic changes in how law enforcement and the larger criminal justice system treat Black and brown people, the poor and other marginalized groups in America. Justice for George Floyd would also require that the systems of power in American society that shaped his life chances in unjust ways be remade.

The expectations are so low for America’s racist legal system that Chauvin’s conviction was still surprising and literally required dozens of witnesses; a video recording of Floyd being killed in broad daylight by a white police officer who crushed his neck while he cried out for his mother, and while a horrified crowd pleaded for Mr. Floyd’s life; some of the best forensic experts in the country testifying on the prosecution’s behalf; a near perfect presentation of the facts by the prosecutors; and police officers and the chief of police condemning one of their own for having acted in a criminal and irresponsible fashion. 

It must not be overlooked that Chauvin’s conviction also had an element of luck: No member of the jury chose to express allegiance to the police and “law and order” by refusing to convict an officer of murder.

The reactions by America’s leaders and the mainstream news media to the trial’s outcome also offer examples of how systems of power maintain their authority and legitimacy.

The media highlighted a narrative of “change,” arguing that Chauvin’s conviction could signal a new level of accountability for America’s police. Other voices in the mainstream media spoke about police building trust with communities, suggesting that the message being sent by the conviction is that the vast majority of police are “good cops”, since several appeared as witnesses against Chauvin. As part of this political theater, there were Black experts and other commentators featured on cable TV news and elsewhere who appeared ready to cry on command as they spoke of “justice”, a “landmark” and a “history-making moment”, and possibilities of “progress” toward a world where Black children will know that their lives cannot be taken with impunity by police violence.

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris also offered their obligatory comments. Harris said, “We’re going to make something good come out of this tragedy.” Biden said that the conviction of Chauvin for murdering George Floyd was “a giant step forward in the march toward justice in America,” adding, “No one should be above the law, and today’s verdict sends that message. But it’s not enough. We can’t stop here.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made an odd and troubling comment: “Thank you, George Floyd for sacrificing your life for justice … Because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous with justice.”

Pelosi may have been well-intentioned, but she signaled to a deep undercurrent in American society: Black people’s suffering and death is too often viewed through the white racial frame as a noble sacrifice and act of “generosity” for the redemption of White America’s sins. But George Floyd is not a martyr, and surely had no desire to become one on the day he was murdered. Floyd simply wanted to continue living his life; it was Chauvin’s cruel and reckless conduct that decided otherwise.

Alayna Treene and Kadia Goba of Axios summarized how the Chauvin conviction can now be exploited by political leaders to slow or stop substantive police and criminal justice reform:

The unanimous guilty verdicts against Derek Chauvin are a huge relief for Washington’s political establishment but seem unlikely to rush in the systemic overhauls George Floyd’s family and civil rights and progressive leaders seek.

The big picture: An acquittal or mistrial involving the former police officer would have unleashed violence and days more of protests — and added bipartisan pressure to act on criminal and police reform.

Senior Democratic and Republican aides — who would never let their bosses say so on the record — privately told Axios the convictions have lessened pressure for change.

Alex Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College, was even sharper in his truth-telling about the Chauvin conviction and what it reflects about police reform. On Twitter he wrote: “Chauvin was found guilty because he had to be to preserve the current system of policing. The Dept. turned against him to save itself.”

John Plaff, a Fordham Law professor and criminologist, has similar concerns. On Twitter he pondered:

I genuinely wonder if a conviction, however much justice demands it, is actually — practically, empirically — a step forward.

Would an acquittal here push more ppl to demand more radical change? Does a conviction lead too many to think “the system corrects itself.”

My understanding of what the Derek Chauvin trial means, or does not mean, for American society is filtered through a philosophical framework known as “Afropessimism”.

Through that lens we can better see America as a type of living mausoleum powered and structured by the suffering, pain and death of Black people. “Necropolitics” is a defining feature of the global color line and reveals how American society is built upon the many ways that black people are excluded from equal membership in political, social and cultural life. Derek Chauvin’s brutality against George Floyd, which was emblematic of a larger policing culture and law enforcement system, should not be seen as an aberration. It was the system working exactly as designed, if perhaps too much out in the open.

What then is my vision and hope for a future America in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder and Derek Chauvin’s conviction? I want a country where I and others would not even have to ask whether a given Black or brown person would still be alive if — all else being equal — they had been white and had substantially the same encounter with America’s police?

Yes, it’s a low standard. But America has to start somewhere — and even that much will be seen as an extreme provocation by those who remain invested in our broken society as it exists today.

J.D. Vance leads GOP hypocrisy on “Big Tech” — while raking in cash from Silicon Valley

Ohio Republican Senate candidate Josh Mandel received financial backing from technology executives and investors despite railing against “Big Tech” censorship and “ultra-liberal thugs in Silicon Valley” on the campaign trail.

Mandel, a career politician who waged failed campaigns for the seat held by Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, in 2012 and 2018, announced his third Senate run shortly after Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, announced his retirement. Mandel, the former state treasurer, has pitched himself as a Trump loyalist and backed the former president’s false claims that the 2020 election was “stolen.” But so far he has gotten the cold shoulder from TrumpWorld in favor of Jane Timken, a Steve Bannon-backed former state GOP chairwoman and major Republican donor. Mandel was even escorted out of a Republican National Committee retreat in Palm Beach that featured Trump earlier this month, while Timken was allowed to stay.

Mandel has tried to make inroads with the Trump wing of the party by echoing the former president’s complaints about “Big Tech.” But while Timken is partially self-funding her campaign, Mandel’s campaign has actually lost money as he relies on a joint fundraising committee that appears to be an attempt to inflate his totals by combining his campaign donations with his leadership PAC and a county GOP account, according to Cleveland.com. Some of the biggest donors to the committee have been the same Silicon Valley millionaires he has railed against.

David Blumberg, managing director of the San Francisco-based venture capital firm Blumberg Capital and one of “Silicon Valley’s top investors,” and his partner Michael Armand donated $21,600 to the Team Josh committee last quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Despite his ties to the tech world, Blumberg has backed Trump and his claims of tech censorship against conservatives while promoting right-wing online media figures like Jordan Peterson and PragerU founder Dennis Prager.

John Chambers, the former chief executive officer of Cisco who now runs the Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm JC2 Ventures, and his wife Elaine Chambers also contributed $10,800 to Team Josh, according to an FEC filing.

Jordan Blashek, an executive at Schmidt Futures, a Silicon Valley nonprofit founded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, also kicked in $5,800 to Team Josh.

Mandel has made attacks on Silicon Valley a central theme of his campaign, despite being funded by some of the tech sector’s most prominent financiers.

Mandel has made frequent appearances on Fox News to rant about the “radical” elitists in Silicon Valley and Big Tech companies who “think they are above the law.” A day after Twitter temporarily suspended his account for hate speech about Muslims and Mexicans last month, Mandel claimed he had been “canceled by these ultra-liberal thugs in Silicon Valley” who “condescend on us” and “look down on the heartland.” Mandel told the Toledo Blade after his Twitter suspension that “it’s a signal that [Big Tech] is afraid of our movement.”

“Big Tech tries to silence and censor those they’re afraid of, and they’re obviously very afraid of me,” he told the outlet as Democratic lawmakers accused him of pushing “white supremacy.”

Though Mandel and Timken have been the most prominent Republican contenders for Portman’s seat, the race is expected to be upended by the entry of J.D. Vance, best known as the author of “Hillbilly Elegy.” Vance has not formally announced his candidacy but told friends and colleagues he plans to run for the seat, according to Axios, and recently visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago.

Vance, who drew support from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., when he toyed with a run for Brown’s seat in 2018, has long branded himself as a champion of the forgotten Appalachian working class, although he grew up outside Cincinnati and attended Yale Law School before moving to San Francisco to become a venture capitalist. Vance has sought to define himself as a “nationalist,” at times echoing the rhetoric of Fox News’ resident white nationalist Tucker Carlson and promoting right-wing troll Dinesh D’Souza. Like Mandel, Vance has made attacks on “Big Tech” a core component of his fledgling campaign.

“Establishment Republican apologies for our oligarchy should always come with the following disclaimer: ‘Big Tech pays my salary,'” he tweeted last week before many reminded him that his salary “has literally been paid, at least in part, by two directors at Facebook and the former CEO of Google.”

Vance worked for Mithril Capital, a venture capital firm founded by PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel that came under FBI scrutiny in 2019, before joining Revolution LLC, a tech investment firm founded by AOL co-founder Steve Case. Vance has criticized Amazon founder Jeff Bezos for donations to the Democratic Party, even after his fund raised money from the billionaire. In 2019, Vance founded Narya Capital, raising $93 million from tech titans like Thiel, Schmidt and Silicon Valley legend Marc Andreesen.

Thiel, a major Trump donor who has also backed right-wingers like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and multiply-defeated Kansas candidate Kris Kobach, was the first major contributor to a PAC backing Vance’s Senate bid, with a $10 million donation.

The billionaire Mercer family, which also backed Trump as well as controversial tech ventures like Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart and Parler, joined Thiel in financially supporting Vance’s run. Vance has advised co-founder Rebekah Mercer on issues regarding Parler, which was used by many of the Capitol rioters, according to BuzzFeed News. The embattled social network also sought funding from Vance’s venture capital firm.

Thiel also chaperoned Vance’s trip to Mar-a-Lago as the author-turned-culture-warrior apparently tries to throw his past criticism of Trump down the memory hole before jumping into a race in which Republican candidates are already trying to out-Trump one another.

Vance in 2016 and 2017 described himself as “never Trump” and “not a Trump guy” and called the former president an “idiot,” though all those tweets have since been removed, according to the Washington Examiner.

With his newfound political aspirations, however, Vance has embraced Trump’s policies and now echoes his rhetoric on globalism, along with attacking corporations that have opposed new Republican voting restrictions prompted by Trump’s election lies.

Vance has already been targeted by anonymous attacks from the right for opposing Trump while drawing allegations of hypocrisy for courting the same Big Tech moguls he now constantly criticizes.

“The biggest financial backer of this performative populist fraud is a billionaire member of the Facebook board,” Dan Pfeiffer, a former adviser to Barack Obama, said in response to Vance’s posturing as an anti-corporate crusader.

“In fact, there is no political candidate more beholden to corporate money and the economic elite than JD Vance,” argued Judd Legum, a journalist at Popular Information who tracks corporate influence in politics. “It’s all a scam, laundering right-wing politics through a phony everyman frame.”

Mike Pompeo and Trump rub shoulders with anti-Muslim zealot Laura Loomer at Mar-a-Lago event

Anti-Muslim activist and failed Florida Republican congressional candidate Laura Loomer — whose rhetoric is so extreme she was banned from Facebook and Instagram — recently shared a picture of herself alongside former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, boasting about meeting with the potential 2024 Republican presidential candidate at Mar-a-Lago, former President Trump’s Florida private club.

“Great meeting Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo,” Loomer wrote on Sunday night via Telegram, an encrypted messaging platform recently favored by right-wing extremists

A series of additional posts sent out by Loomer on Tuesday morning suggest that she didn’t just encounter Pompeo at the lavish Palm Beach estate, but also met Trump himself. “President Trump and I just had a great conversation. I look forward to sitting down with him at Mar a Lago in the near future,” Loomer stated, alongside a picture. 

Telegram Sceengrab / Salon.com

It’s unclear whether these were just chance encounters or more substantive meetings, but Pompeo and Trump betray no unwillingness to appear friendly with Loomer, who is viewed as a pariah by most Republicans, even in the Trump era. 

“It’s tough to imagine a figure who is more emblematic of the everyday wretchedness of the Trump era than Laura Loomer,” Southern Poverty Law Center senior investigative reporter Michael Edison Hayden told Salon. “She’s so deeply poisoned by her hatred of Muslims and her addiction to social media that she can’t seem to see the pain she causes around her. It goes without saying that no credible public figure should want to be seen within a hundred yards of someone like Loomer, unless it’s to politely advise her to find something more constructive to do with her time.”

Some former Trump officials have visibly crept toward the GOP far right following their time in the White House, but that isn’t especially the case with Pompeo, who is seen by some observers as a broadly acceptable 2024 Republican nominee if Trump doesn’t run again. On Wednesday, Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman noted that the former secretary of state would be “holding a news conference with the RSC [Republican Senatorial Commenitee] Wednesday,” on the topic of “Iran.” 

When not attending whatever function drew Loomer to Mar-a-Lago, Pompeo last weekend appeared on a radio program to claim that President Biden’s UN ambassador, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, had disqualified herself for the post through her remarks about America having “weaved white supremacy into our founding documents.” Pompeo argued: “I think it’s disqualifying to have a UN ambassador who expresses a moral relativism and doesn’t understand the exceptional nature of the country in which we all live.”

Laura Loomer didn’t return Salon’s request for comment, and a spokesperson for Pompeo could not be reached. 

Flushing the toilet is more dangerous than you think: study

Public restrooms aren’t exactly associated with cleanliness. But a team scientists have recently exposed just how dirty they are.

As it turns out, public restrooms aren’t just dirty; they’re actually dangerous.

In a new study written by researchers from Florida Atlantic University and published by the journal “Physics of Fluids,” scientists explain how tiny droplets known as aerosols fly out of toilets whenever they are flushed. These aerosols can contain microbes which will make you sick if they infect you.

Illnesses potentially connected to toilet water aerosols include norovirus (which can cause major food poisoning), Legionnaire’s disease and COVID-19. The last disease, of course, is particularly concerning given that America is still in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors note that public restrooms are particularly likely to harbor this highly infectious disease because they experience heavy foot traffic, are relatively confined and can be insufficiently ventilated.

As a result, the Florida Atlantic University researchers performed tests on different types of toilets — namely a regular public restroom toilet, a toilet with its lid covering the top and a urinal — to learn about how aerosols were distributed in the air after they were flushed in normally-ventilated public restrooms. The tests involved more than 100 flushes.

The results were troubling. Droplets rose as high as five feet into the air after flushing, some lingering for 20 seconds or longer. Even closing the toilet lid only led to a small reduction in the number of droplets produced, indicating that they can escape from the gaps between the lid and the seat.

“Both the toilet and urinal generated large quantities of droplets smaller than 3 micrometers in size, posing a significant transmission risk if they contain infectious microorganisms,” Dr. Siddhartha Verma, Ph.D., a co-author of the study, explained in a statement to the university’s press. “Due to their small size, these droplets can remain suspended for a long time.”

Another co-author of the study pointed out that the problem likely lingers long after someone has flushed the toilet, based on how ambient aerosol particles increased in quantity after their repeated toilet flushing.


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


“The significant accumulation of flush-generated aerosolized droplets over time suggests that the ventilation system was not effective in removing them from the enclosed space even though there was no perceptible lack of airflow within the restroom,” Dr. Masoud Jahandar Lashaki said in a press statement. “Over the long-term, these aerosols could rise up with updrafts created by the ventilation system or by people moving around in the restroom.”As the authors wrote in their study, “This highlights the need for incorporating adequate ventilation in the design and operation of public spaces, which can help prevent aerosol accumulation in high occupancy areas and mitigate the risk of airborne disease transmission.”

This is not the first paper to connect flushing a toilet with developing COVID-19. Another paper published  by Physics of Fluids, this one in July, also raised the alarm about how flushing toilets could spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus (which causes COVID-19). Scientists who studied COVID-19 patients at a hospital found high concentrations of coronavirus aerosols in patients’ bathrooms. They urged people to put down the lid before flushing, arguing that this “can basically prevent virus transmission” (a conclusion countered by the more recent study). They also encouraged people to clean a toilet seat thoroughly before using it and to rigorously wash their hands after flushing. In addition, they urged toilet manufactures to design lids that would automatically close and be cleaned after each flush.

“The concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in aerosols detected in isolation wards and ventilated patient rooms was very low, but it was elevated in the patients’ toilet areas,” the authors explained. “Levels of airborne SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the majority of public areas was undetectable except in two areas prone to crowding, possibly due to infected carriers in the crowd.”